ASMFC Striped bass board winter meeting minutes
 

ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT BOARD (February 2, 2010)
Meeting Summary
The Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board met to elect a Board vice-chair; review a report
from the Technical Committee, including presentations from three guest speakers on
mycobacteriosis; review the status of the 2010 Cooperative Winter Tagging Cruise; and discuss
the coastal commercial quotas for striped bass.
The Technical Committee (TC) Report responded to five tasks from the Management Board
regarding the juvenile abundance index (JAI) trigger, implications of mycobacteriosis on the
stock, implications of overestimating recreational catch on stock assessment results, the
availability and use of poaching estimates in stock assessment, and evidence for an offshore shift
in stock distribution. The TC Report is available on the Commission’s website
(http://www.asmfc.org/strippedBassMM.htm); only partial details are included here.
The TC reported that it did not recommend using an abbreviated time series when evaluating the
JAI trigger, and, as per a proposed work plan, will complete a more thorough review of each JAI
and the definition of recruitment failure for the Management Board in May. Discussion and
action in response to the TC’s recommendation regarding a potential recreational catch
9
overestimation was referred to the ISFMP Policy Board because of multispecies implications.
Based on the reported lack of adequate poaching estimates for inclusion in stock assessments, a
subcommittee of law enforcement and TC representatives was tasked with designing study
methods capable of producing assessment-grade poaching estimates. The Management Board
also recommended that the ISFMP Policy Board consider sending letters to the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the United States Coast Guard requesting greater fines and permit
sanctions for vessels that illegally harvest striped bass in federal waters.
The 2010 Cooperative Winter Tagging Cruise has been delayed due to vessel repairs and funding
complications. The issue of securing long-term funding was referred to the ISFMP Policy Board
because, in addition to tagging striped bass, the cruise collects important biological data on
multiple Commission-managed species.
The discussion of coastal commercial quotas resulted in a motion to initiate an addendum to
increase the coastal commercial quotas for striped bass; the motion passed. A draft addendum
will be prepared for the Board’s meeting in May. Before considering action to approve the draft
addendum for public comment, the Board will first hear the report from the TC on JAIs. For
more information, please contact Nichola Meserve, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at
(202) 289-6400 or nmeserve@asmfc.org.
Motions
Move to nominate Tom O’Connell as Vice-Chair of the Striped Bass Management Board.
Motion made by Mr. Goldsborough and seconded by Mr. Augustine. Motion passes by consent.
Move to initiate an addendum to increase the coastwide commercial quota.
Motion made by Mr. Augustine and seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carries (Roll Call Vote: In
favor – NY, DE, MD, PRFC, VA, NC, USFWS, NMFS; Opposed – ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ,
PA; Abstention – DC).

Translation: Recognizing mycobacteriosis and seeing presentations - Good (start anyway) but discuss the coastal commercial quotas for striped bass - bad.

Still reading the novel HERE: http://striped-bass.com/striper-fish...SBtcReport.pdf

Thanks for posting this. Been watching the web site for the results of the meetinf. Last year predicted that as soon as Maryland got over their poaching guilt this would pass.

what a difference a year makes 2009 vote
Move to initiate an addendum including options to increase the coastal commercial quotas by 10, 15, 20 and
25% and adopt a 50% underage rollover.
Motion made by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Calomo. Motion fails by roll call vote (In favor: MA, NY, DE, DC,
PRFC, VA, and NC; Opposed: ME, NH, RI, CT, NJ, PA, and MD; Abstention: NMFS; absent: USFWS).

A bunch of crap, if you ask me. I'm glad that I am young because there's another moratorium on the way. ASMFC is completely inept and the associations (some of which are present here) that state we should support them are only expediting the destruction.

Hope everyone enjoys catching bluefish. What a joke.

Sell your high end equipment. Soon, you won't be needing it.

Here is your hard science
 

Check out pages 4 and 5 of attachment 2
Notice a trend ?

Think I better clean up the Big Berthas.

We may have some down time in the near future.

Told you so :devil:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting plot on next to last page of report. SB tagged on Stellwagen show up along the coast (anyone surprised).

apropos for above quote-
http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocument...ndings2010.pdf

also an argument from same document (Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board)
http://striped-bass.com/striper-fish...SBtcReport.pdf

Attachment 3, Figures 3, 4
(female spawning stock biomass)

...above is to keep everything in perspective....

Saw that, very interesting. Notice in the prior survey, tagging location was different. It would take many tagging / receiving / surveys to get a better picture but that data would be insightful.

Buyin a sailboat nothin else to do on the water soon

C'mon..... You really think that the fishing is that bad??????

remember 81'?

Yep, it's gonna get there

Can we afford not to be proactive and err on the side of caution?

I'm not one of the people that wants to go Gamefish and eliminate all commercial fishing for stripers. Anecdotal observations of the past few years and conversations of this winter has done nothing to increase my support for comm bass fishing. And the way things are going and have the potential to go, you will see fewer people not against shutting down commercial fishing and lot more for shutting it down. This is reaching a tipping point on both quality of the stocks AND public perception on the merits of comm bass fishing.

ASMFC keeps pushing to open more pounds and areas and less conservation then it may all crash.

What do you think would happen if there were no rules changes but the rules on the books were enforced (east coast-wide not selective)!

I must be stupid,
If some charts show the 8 yr old biomass declining.
And some charts show total biomass climbing.
Does that imply more small fish and less bigger fish ?:confused:

well we'd all have to pay more fees to pay for the enforcement

Isn't everyone going to have to pay this/next year for a saltwater fishing license! What an excellent way to use the funds, increased enforcement.

No they are using the funds to build the national database. I am waiting for the rfi to come out and I am going to bid on it.

If they enforced properly, I'm willing to bet they'd make more than enough dishing out fines.

Just think about the increased vigilance in dishing out moving violations by police departments as funding has declined.

If as many people are breaking the law as is laymen observations report, then they should have no problem turning a profit through the fines.

Did anyone notice that the ASMFC is asking the feds to increase the fines for fishing in the EEZ?

My interpertation is that the larger fish biomass is steady (in fact it has shown a tendency to increase); that is mostly due to the huge spawning classes (1993-2005 Attachment 1)...those fish have been growing (and caught), but there were such huge spawns those years that they created a very large pool of fish...thats why the F index is still high; remember that the YOY was started in 1950 (started tracking in 57), and has shown up and downs (as most life cycles do). I think the SUPPOSED shortage of small fish (I haven't seen it in my time on the water-which is often) may be caused by the increase in rec targeting, and the increased commercial quota to net fishery in the Chesapeake (DE, MD, PRFC, VA, NC) several years back. I think that because the spawning biomass is so large, the F index is above what ASMFC considers proper to sustain the viability of the species....it is a very hard thesis for a layman (that's me) to follow, a lot of these scientists working for ASMFC have dedicated their professional careers to study the fishery. For me, I have to place my trust in something, and my 40 years on the water has shown that the fishery is a lot better than in the late 70's...(though I still caught then)....so I have faith in their postulations.....

Be nice to get some of these scientist around a bonfire with scotch and cigars.
Pick their brains a little and clear up the fog of stats.

WOW! Ypu guys have no idea what you are reading! That is sure true in this case...I hope you all quit fishing because then I will have alot more spots to myself...page 4 and 5 says nothing of a stock collapse, it merely discusses the effect that said Myco might have on the fish and if you look its all the same all the way back to 99...meaning it reall hasn't effected anything because we had an explosion of 2001 2002 yoy creating a huge 8 year old year class that is dying soon of old age...the affected fish have always been effected...secondly I love the anti commercial sentiment again...if you read the numbers of fish caught recreationally it is actually up! So where is this 1/3 of what the catch was? and the commercial fishery is the same! LOL wow funny how some of you can actually read something that is not even there!

And here is a little perspective for you since you are so fond of throwing that bogus recreational/commercial curve at us again and again.

"......... Since MRFSS recreational landings of striped bass are likely
overestimated by 45% to 70% after 1999, the current (2008) coast-wide commercial
landings composition would have increased from 31% under the original MRFSS landing
to 52% under the scenario 1 bias correction, and further to 59% following bias correction
under scenario 2. "


Am I reading it wrong or does that say the commercial catch is actually more like 52-59% of coastwide striped bass landing (excluding poaching of course since as they are quick to point out..."There is no requirement for estimating poaching
as part of the management program.") ? Add poaching in and what does that do to the numbers? Of course the ASMFC board chooses not to see things that way. The garbage numbers are obviously more suitable to their (and your) agenda.

My agenda???..."throwing at you again and again"....

It's pretty obvious what your's is...ATTACK everybody who tries to offer a different point of view then yours....

...As I said, I am a layman when it comes to the science (referring to what you posted, as in the document cited)...I know what I see on the water (as I stated)...
Also, in reference to your claim about 52-59% commercial catch (thats diffirent then reports I've seen...)....I think I offered up what was an increase in COMMERCIAL NETTING IN CHESAPEAKE .....it happened several years ago....MA and RI quotas have been static....

........people like you are impossible to reason with....thats why we have both sides fighting each other.......bye

Mid-Atlantic Winter Fishery = death
 

Click on the hooks to see pics.
Not many small fish. Lots look to be full of roe.

http://www.virginiafishing.com/FISHI...yindexlist.htm

8 year old fish are dying of old age.
Guess I really don't know what I'm reading.
I assumed the base line was actual data, my bad. I 'm just a dumb electrical contractor not a scientist.
According to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science the bass is a long lived fish that can reach 30 yrs of age.
But they are not as smart as most of us.:uhuh:

8 year old fish dying of old age? Do you have any data that supports that? And I was always told that 8 year old bass are basically teenagers.
From the NOAA website:
By your "facts", stripers should only get to a maximum size of about 24".

OK so which of you canal guys caught the 2 missing stripers: 9 detected on the E end and only 7 made it to the W end!:fishslap:

The way I read these specific exhibits is that "Natural Mortality" (variable M) has dramatically declined since 2004. However, biomass (and abundance) have remained stable over that time period (unless you look at very young year class since "natural mortality" is the only way they die since no one is plugging for fry -- though I've seen JohnnyD try).

However, over that same time period, the 8+ class has declined (despite reduction in "M"). So this raises the question of what's happening to 8 year or older fish. They are not dying naturally (as someone insinuated earlier) since bass live much longer than that AND "M" (natural mortality) is declining. So it would be obvious to suspect that fishing (even by catch) is playing a role.

However, these fish move around a lot and as many of us know they haven't been showing up in the usual places (specifically some inshore areas) in the last few years. Maybe the scientists just aren't finding the bigger fish...I know I'm not :)

Thats kind of the thought I was getting at.
Maybe I am spoiled but a bass is a real deal when it's over 40 pounds.
And they are not as common as not that long ago.
Many reasons why I'm sure, you know as well as I that they have always been offshore.
Oceans a funny place.
That's why chasing Tuna is so much fun.

:exp:

too much:bs:

8 year old fish "dying of old age"...:rotflmao:

Dude...please....:rotf2:

Hey all...I got back from ASMFC on Friday and will ahve some coments and additional notes on a very strange meeting week.

For now check this out...

ASMFC will be one of the as of today 96 booths at the MSBA show...the person working the booth is a very attractive lady named Nichola who is the staffer for the Striped Bass Board...she keeps all the current info flowing and is as good a source for straigh info as there is on the coast...come talk to her...really.

Sorry to be so animated, but it is not "my" claim. It is in the ASMFC report you directed me to in order to gain some "perspective", thank you.

So again, their technical comittee says that using more realistic methods of estimating commercial catch, the commercial take is 52-59 % of the TOTAL coastwide take (unless I misunderstand what they are saying). Sort of shows that graph to be a whole lot of BS. Also suggests the commercial catch (and I note they refuse to include commercial poaching) is one helluva a lot more of an issue than convenient those suggesting the recreational sector is 80% to blame. Do you agree?

.........no offense taken....
I would agree that the commercial catch may be larger than years ago; as I originally stated, several years ago the quotas in the net states (MD, DE, NC,VI, Chesapeake) were increased....quotas in the other commercial states MA, RI, NY) have been relatively static. I think the reasoning for this increase was that those "breeding" states took such a large hit to their fishing economy during the moratorium years, that when the striped bass was declared recovered by ASMFC, they increased their quotas.
Also in the same paragraph you refer to it states-

"Following bias correction, ages 7+ F on striped bass would have
fallen by 38% to 54%. Current (2008) ages 7+ F was 0.27 based on original (uncorrected)
MRFSS harvest estimates, 0.16 after bias correction under scenario 1 and 0.14 after bias
correction under scenario 2. Despite the severe bias in MRFSS recreational landings and
discards, all recent (2000-2008) F estimates, derived either before and after bias
correction, would have remained well below our current overfishing threshold for striped
bass (i.e. F < Fmsy= 0.40).

So I think with what you cited they were talking about older fish (still a layman trying to interpret all this). Take note that they stated "well below our current overfishing threshold for striped
bass "......
Also, in the same report, page 8, the following was reported-

"In addition, a
recreational catch adjustment was made excluding the party-charter (PC) component of the
striped bass catch after 2004 because the MRFSS has adopted a specific survey for party-charter
fisheries since 2005."

Now, why are charter/ headboats catches not included in the the figures you reported? Are they quasi commercial? I still believe that that is where the largest piece of the striper pie is going...not to change the subject (but I will), if you do the numbers, COASTWIDE, there are a lot of bass being caught in that fishery, YEARLY. Look at whats going on down south now.

If I do have an agenda, it is that the striped bass fishery is a shared resource....that as a rod and reel commercial fisherman who has as much respect for these fish as you do, I get upset at being portayed as the bad guy..I have my quota, I abide by it, and I respect the right given to me to pursue them. And I do passionately care for their viability to continue to satisfy both camps (rec/commercial) in the future....

Basing regulations on this entire "user group" and "shared resource" thing is utter nonsense. This is not protection of the species, it is protection of the user group. This group takes this, this group takes that, he has more than I do, if we don't catch them it will leave more for them..makes me :yak5:

Just do what you have to so that the fish is protected, let the chips fall where they may. It is what it is. If it means a shut down, fine. Just protect the fish.

Asking a comm fisherman is it OK if we make "your" fish a gamefish is like taking crack from an addict. Of course he will kick and scream. They should not be seeking the opinions of any of the user groups. Regulators must take their head out of their ass and do what is right for the fish.

The amount of "data" out there is mind-numbing. Read that thing, it could be shot down by anyone. Who knows how good the data really is? Selectively using this data and making correction after correction to it which is further error prone makes for any result you want. It would not surprise me if behind the scenes they know what answer they want before they get started.

We need to take conservative action and err on the side of safety, regulators should be concerned about the fish and ignore side effects to the fishermen.

They are included in the overall numbers as recreational caught fish. They are not included in the MRFSS numbers because charter/party boats have to report hard numbers and are included in a different survey. Thus the charter/party numbers were excluded from any correction factor that was applied to the MRFSS numbers.

Are you saying that the striped bass population is endangered? You'll have a tough time getting anyone to agree with that. Everyone seems to agree that the population of breeding fish is healthy enough to support some amount of harvest. So once you reach that point, then it's just a question of how much harvest and who gets to do the killing.