Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- StriperTalk! (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Are the fish really smaller? (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=1482)

Are the fish really smaller?

An interesting article that ran in this Sunday's Bostong Globe
...the article can be found on the Globe's site here

Quote:

Net difference: fish really are smaller

Scientists say adaptation to overfishing a possibility

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff, 7/15/2001

BREWSTER - It's not a fish tale, it's a fact: Fishermen did catch bigger fish years ago.

For years, the explanation seemed simple: fishermen had caught all the big ones so only the small fish were left. But now, scientific evidence is stacking up to show that overfishing may be having a more far-reaching evolutionary effect.

With the biggest fish removed from the waters with increasingly sophisticated fishing gear, the smaller fish that are able to slip through the nets take on more dominance in seeding the next generation. Some of those smaller fish are sexually maturing earlier, in turn producing some offspring that are both small and programmed to be young mothers, a potentially dangerous evolutionary trend in some cases.

Boston haddock, which once served as a backbone of New England's fishing industry, is a case in point. In the 1960s, most haddock spawned at age 3 or later. Now, even 1-year-olds are spawning. Cod are also having offspring younger. And on the West Coast, the average size of pink salmon coming back to spawn (which they always do at the same age) decreased 30 percent in 40 years.

''It's like (eliminating) all the people who are 7 feet tall, they will become rarer and rarer and you'll have only small people left. It's fascinating to think humans are having this effect on fish,'' said Steven Murawski, chief of the population dynamic branch of National Marine Fisheries in Woods Hole. ''And if you look at cod populations and other fisheries, they are maturing earlier. And the only common factor is overfishing.''

Scientists aren't exactly sure what is happening inside the fish. It's difficult to sort out what is true genetic or evolutionary change and what is a short-term physiological adaptation that will end when fishing pressure does. In some cases, it seems like both may be happening at the same time: Some fish are sexually maturing earlier but also growing faster than their ancestors.

Researchers are racing to find out the answer. As collapsed fishing stocks begin to rebound - cod, haddock, and summer flounder are making startling recoveries - how fishing pressures affect stocks will dictate the future of fisheries management.

Some fish may be maturing earlier because competition is less and they are finding more food. If this is true, the trend is not genetic and once populations reach high numbers again, scientists expect fish to eventually mature at traditional levels.

But here's the catch if a genetic change is occurring: Fish that have offspring earlier tend to produce ones that are less viable, a sort of genetic penalty if they spawn too early. In this scenario, just having more fish in the sea may not be the answer. Those fish could continue to produce fewer and fewer fertile offspring until the fishery could be in trouble of collapsing.

''It can be a downward spiral,'' said Joseph G. Kunkel, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst studying marine life. ''If it's physiological, we'll have the same old codfish one day. But if it isn't ... it has tremendous consequences for codfish and haddock.''

It's not that scientists believe a genetic change is all bad. Some studies show that early spawners can lay eggs repeatedly, and over time the eggs become healthier and produce more and more fertile offspring. Regardless, if it is a genetic change, fishery managers will have to be careful to ensure that there are fish of different ages to ensure the species' survival. That's a move that could keep harvest rates low and fishermen irate.

Of course, not everyone agrees why some fish seem to be maturing earlier or becoming smaller or lighter. Some research has indicated that striped bass, one of the few success stories of fishery management, may be lighter than their ancestors at the same age. But many fishermen scoff at the suggestion it's because of fishing.

''It's only because they don't have a lot of food now,'' said Anton Stetzko, of Orleans, who briefly held the world's record for catching the biggest striped bass off Nauset in 1981. That fish was 73 pounds and Stetzo would regularly catch 40 and 50 pounders back then. Now, he figures the average catch is somewhere between eight and 18 pounds.

The striped bass fishery, which collapsed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, is just making a comeback, he says, so the fish aren't old enough yet to weigh a lot. While he has noticed some small fish, he says it's probably because there are so many striped bass these days that they are having a tough time finding enough food right away.

''I think the big fish will be back,'' Stetzo said. ''But we have to allow them to grow big.''

Scientists say he could be right and add that scores of other reasons are possible for change in fish size or sexual maturity. There may be more pollution in water - or less - which could affect fish. Part of the trouble is that no one really knows what the ''right'' natural environment of fisheries looks like; studies haven't been going on that long and the fish are always changing naturally anyway.

Still, scientists say they are making headway. As stocks rebound, they are carefully studying fish to see if they mature later. The answer may be obvious within a decade, because fish maturity declined noticeably in even shorter time frames: The median age of maturity for Atlantic cod decreased 18 percent between 1986 and 1993, and researchers want to find out if they'll increase maturity rates at as fast a pace.

When fish stocks were on the brink of collapse in the 1980s, entire portions of the sea were declared off-limits to fishermen so that they could recover. Now, as stocks recover, managers say it's even tougher to artificially oversee a natural environment to ensure that ages, size, and sexual maturity are at optimum levels, all while allowing fishing to go on.

''It's very easy to manage a collapsed fishery,'' said Mark Gibson, deputy chief of the fish and wildlife division of the Department of Environmental Management for Rhode Island. ''But now we are trying to manage in the arena of success. And that is so much harder.''

Whaaddaya think?

Im not sure if I buy the genetic argument completely. I dont have the years of experience necessary to make an accurate judgement. Are fish these days really smaller, or are there fewer big fish? There were always fish that were genetically heavier than others per length. Is the average size of 46-48 inch fish dropping? It seems hard to get one to break 40 pounds these days, but are we really catching enough of these fish to know? There certainly arent many 50 inch fish taken each year to give an idea as to whether they weigh a pound per inch.
It would be possible to see greater numbers of large fish, but different management techniques are necessary. The 1989 year class (38 inches or so) was the first strong year class out of the drought of the 80's. If protected by a slot, you could find quite a few 42 inch, 24-30 pounders not too far down the road.

In the book, "Cod" this was discussed. No one really knows whether this will permanently damage the stocks or not, or if younger spawners will actually help the fish comeback quicker... what we do know is that this happened so a few people could make a few bucks. That's not too cool.

Funny thing is that the one guy hit right on a factor that's just as dangerous as overfishing stripers (or any gamefish). "fish are smaller cause they have no food"

If bunker, herring, mackeral, etc. are fished hard to make up for the fact that stripers, tuna, cod, etc. are regulated, what do you suppose will happen? Don't we allow foreign ships to come into our waters and harvest millions of pounds of bunker to be use as f'n fertilizer (reduction fishing?)? That's just plain dumb.

The whole ecosystem needs managed, not just one species at a time... everything we do from fishing to polution can have an effect.

I always say this and its true... I do feel for the commercial fishermen. This is what they do... this is what their fathers and grandfathers passed on to them. Imagine if the gov't came in and said, Greg, you can't fix computers anymore (actually Microsoft is trying to do that to me as I primarily support Macintosh machines), John, you can't manage a network, or Slipknot, you can't use wood anymore, Gots Stripers can no longer sell his product, etc. etc. so on...

That would really suck. But the big picture is that a few people shouldn't be able to decide the fate of any resource for billions of others now and in the future.

The science seems valid, but do you think Stripers should be lumped in there too?

In "Cod" the author makes a point of describing from early settlement times until now the drastic decline, but also (been a couple years since reading) largers were targetted because there meat was consistent and salted was equivalent.

In "Stripers" Cole says that they would rather have the smaller fish because they would take top dollar. Of course there was no targetting with there nets.
Thinking of this, I realize that the stripers were so decimated that I don't know that you could say there was a steady shift, as any biological or physiological shift would be?
I believe it is justified with the Cod, but until studies are done on stripers, I don't know?

The same article appeared in Newsday, the Long Island paper. "Are the fish really smaller?" is a difficult question to answer. There were certainly more 50+ pound Stripers caught is the Sixties. More teen Weakfish too. I had a better chance at a 10# Fluke then, or at a 10# Blackfish (I haven't ever caught either). There were LOTS more Flounder then, and so bigger ones as well. Bluefishing is NOW just what it was like then, the cycle is obvious, 5 years ago an 18# fish was a given during the season. Watch a 14 pounder win this years WICC tournament. Cod are MUCH smaller. Come to think of it, can you name ANYTHING that's bigger? (No, not me, the FISH) If a winning racehorse is retired to stud, if dog breeders blend bloodlines trying to reach an ideal, if Texas fisheries have a program called "Share a Lonestar Lunker" where they are trying to breed a record Largemouth, I guess Genetics work. By taking all the LARGE fish over the years, we have left the SMALL ones to breed, and now the Chickens are coming home to roost!

Sorry, but "I calls 'em like I see 'em"

Flounder