Very nice piece from SJ Blog on Striped bass and ASMFC
 

I am posting the latest Blog from Surfcastersjournal.com that I found very well written and very informative, Zeno gave me permission to copy and paste it.

It is pretty long but well worth reading


Striped Bass: Where do we go from here? …by Charles Witek
Posted on November 7, 2013 by zhromin — 8 comments
Editor’s note #1

Surfcaster’s Journal Magazine if offering one day “24 hour free pass” to the magazine till Friday 4 pm. Go to the subscribe page and pick free access option

Editor’s note #2

This is a special contribution to the SJ Blog by Mr. Charles Witek

Striped Bass: Where do we go from here?

By now, most of the folks on the striper coast have heard something about what happened at last month’s ASMFC meeting. Unfortunately, the news coming out of the meeting was a little confused, and if you weren’t paying really close attention, you might not have completely understood what happened and what may—or may not—happen in the future.

There was good news. The majority of the commissioners on the Striped Bass Management Board clearly recognized that there are problems with the stock, believe that harvest levels have to be reduced and have begun the process of making that happen.

There was also bad news. The Management Board, in a decisive vote, decided to do nothing to prevent overfishing from occurring next season, some commissioners made it clear that they had no intention of supporting the harvest reductions that biologists believe are needed, and there is plenty of time between now and next August, when new regulations would probably be finalized, for those dissenting commissioners to derail the current process.

To understand where we’re going, we should probably take a quick look at where we’ve been. According to the best available data, the striped bass female spawning stock biomass—the abundance of mature female fish—peaked in 2004, then began a steady and at times steep decline. Striped bass anglers up and down the coast noticed the decline, which seemed particularly severe in northern New England; by 2007 or 2008, calls for additional restrictions on striped bass harvest began to be heard at ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board. In March 2011, after a motion made by Paul Diodati of Massachusetts and seconded by Gene Kray of Pennsylvania, ASMFC began to move forward with an addendum that would respond to the decline in abundance by reducing coastwide harvest. That addendum would have been released to the public after the August 2011 meeting; however, a motion by A.C. Carpenter of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, which was seconded by Pat Augustine of New York, postponed such release until November, when a stock update would be available to the management board. However, when the November meeting rolled around, Pat Augustine of New York moved to take no action on such pro-conservation addendum until after the benchmark stock assessment was released in the second half of 2012. Mike Johnson of North Carolina seconded Augustine’s motion and, on a 9-6 vote, the motion to delay any harvest reduction was adopted by the management board.

The benchmark assessment was released to the management board in August 2012. That assessment confirmed what so many striped bass anglers feared, that the population was truly in a serious decline. Female spawning stock biomass had already fallen below the biomass target, and there was a good chance that it would also fall below the biomass threshold—meaning that the stock would, by definition, be “overfished”– by 2015 or 2016, unless managers adopted meaningful restrictions on harvest. The assessment also confirmed what many of us had been arguing since the stock was declared “recovered” in 1995: The current fishing mortality reference points were too high, and the current 2 fish bag limit and 28” minimum size imposed on the coastal fishery by ASMFC allowed too many fish to be killed. Under the current fishery management plan for striped bass, the fishing mortality target, F=0.30, allows the removal of about 26% of the adult population each year, while the fishing mortality threshold, F=0.34, defines “overfishing” as removing more than about 29% of that population. The latest stock assessment determined that the fishing mortality target should be reduced to F=0.180, about a 40% reduction in the allowable kill, which would result in roughly 16% of the adults being harvested in any year, and that the overfishing threshold be set at F=0.219, equivalent to the removal of about 19% of the adult population—well below what had previously been the target mortality level. Further, the assessment predicted that, unless current harvest levels were reduced significantly, it is a virtual certainty that the striped bass stock will be overfished in 2014.

The conclusions contained in the stock assessment quickly spread throughout the striped bass fishing community, resulting in a host of reactions. Most serious striped bass anglers recognized the problems being faced by the stock, and supported a harvest reduction that would take effect as soon as possible. However, there was some disagreement about how any such reduction should be structured; some proposed specific changes in the current rules (e.g., adopting a coastal standard of 1 fish at least 32 inches in length), others argued for a slot limit to protect the big females while others raised the perennial issue of conserving bass by ending commercial harvest (which, in some anglers’ minds, included harvest by party boats and perhaps other for-hire vessels). In making such recommendations, many anglers missed a very important point: Before we could intelligently discuss changing regulations, we had to first convince ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board to incorporate the new fishing mortality reference points in the striped bass management plan. Until that was done, all of the other discussions were purely academic. And we could be sure that there were people out there who would do their best to prevent any harvest reduction from taking place.

The meeting of the management board took place on October 29, and played out in the manner that most seasoned ASMFC-watchers expected. The conclusions contained in the stock assessment were taken seriously by a majority of the board. That majority was led by representatives from New England, who have long borne the most serious impacts of the current decline, and clearly supported conservation measures. However, the pro-conservation majority was opposed by a minority, predictably featuring Tom Fote, a governor’s appointee from New Jersey who has a long history of opposing any conservation measures that reduce the recreational kill. But Massachusetts salt water fisheries director Paul Diodati handily dismissed the anti-conservation zealots by observing, in effect, that anyone who couldn’t understand the problems besetting the striped bass stock probably shouldn’t be sitting at the management board table. That was undoubtedly an accurate observation, although it was probably lost on the anti-conservation crowd.

Diodati made a motion that directed ASMFC to initiate an addendum which would incorporate the new fishing mortality reference points into the striped bass management plan, and would also have reduced harvest for the 2014 fishing year by cutting the recreational bag limit to one fish, retaining the 28 inch minimum size and imposing proportionate reductions on commercial landings. His motion was seconded by Richard White of New Hampshire. However, the idea of imposing interim restrictions on the 2014 harvest met with substantial resistance. As a result, Pat Augustine of New York, seconded by Roy Miller of Delaware, successfully moved to separate Diodati’s motion into two parts, one dealing with a new addendum incorporating the new fishing mortality reference points, one addressing interim rules for 2014. The first motion passed easily; the second failed by a vote of 2 for, 12 against. Thus, there is reason to hope that striped bass harvest will be reduced in the future, but there is also reason to expect that rebuilding will take just a little longer, due to the overfishing that will take place next year.

A lot of responsible anglers were disappointed that needed harvest reductions won’t occur in 2014, and a lot of angry comments have been made. But in truth, such an outcome should have been expected. ASMFC’s actions aren’t prescribed by law; there is no equivalent to the Magnuson Act that imposes an enforceable legal mandate to prevent overfishing, rebuild stocks within a time certain, etc. ASMFC can, for the most part, do as it pleases, regardless of the ultimate result. If striped bass were managed under Magnuson, a section of that law, which requires that managers “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability” [emphasis added], would have required that Diodati’s proposed harvest cuts, or something very like them, go into effect for 2014. But ASMFC is bound by no such provision; as a result, both those who oppose needed conservation measures and those who just want to take a slower, more calculated approach to eventual harvest reductions opted to do nothing, and accept the probability that overfishing will occur. That’s the way that ASMFC usually works.

So, as I asked in the title, where do we go from here?

I’m happy to report that, wherever we eventually end up, right now, we’re headed in the right direction. At the February ASMFC meeting, the Striped Bass Management Board will finalize a draft addendum for public comment, which will propose adopting the new, lower fishing mortality reference points into the management plan. We won’t know just how that draft amendment will look or what it will contain; the most likely scenario will see it offer two options—either 1) remaining at status quo, and keeping the current reference points of Ftarget=0.30 and Fthreshold=0.34 or 2) adopting the reference points contained in the latest stock assessment, Ftarget=0.180 and Fthreshold=0.219. Hearings on the addendum will probably be held in March and April, and there will be at least one hearing in each state on the striper coast. All interested anglers should make it a point to attend at least one of those hearings and argue for the lowered reference points, because you can be sure that the folks who don’t want to see their kill reduced will be turning out in force.



that is the first part
see next reply for the second half

After the public comment has been received, it will be compiled and presented to the Striped Bass Management Board before the May ASMFC meeting, when the board will approve the final addendum. Given the sentiment at the October meeting, it is very likely that the board will incorporate the lower fishing mortality target and threshold in the management plan. The fact that the addendum will address only the reference points, and not the regulations needed to achieve the needed harvest reductions, will probably go a long way toward assuring passage. Still, it will not be a slam-dunk. The Tom Fotes of the world will not be standing still; they will be doing whatever they can to gain supporters on the management board and using every bit of the next five or so months to frustrate efforts to reduce the recreational kill.

The May meeting should also see the Striped Bass Management Board finalize another draft addendum that will present various regulatory proposals, all intended to achieve any needed harvest reductions, and this is where things will get interesting.

For years, despite anecdotal reports of a sharply declining stock, ASMFC assured anglers that the stock was not overfished and that overfishing was not occurring; often, when a concerned angler suggested that a harvest reduction was in order, more kill-oriented individuals dismissed his concerns by parroting those ASMFC assurances. And, in fact, ASMFC was correct, the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring—if Ftarget=0.30 and Fthreshold=0.34 were truly the right fishing mortality reference points.

Of course, thanks to the new benchmark stock assessment, we realize that those were not the right fishing mortality reference points. If we apply what we now know to be the appropriate reference points to past harvest levels, we find that overfishing took place—that is, the fishing mortality threshold was exceeded—in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011—while the fishing mortality target was exceeded not only in those years, but also in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2009, 2010 and 2012. That provides a pretty good reason for why striped bass abundance has been in a continuing decline since 2004. However, it doesn’t shed much light on how ASMFC will react to the problem.

The stock assessment noted that, in order to eliminate any real possibility of overfishing, harvest would have to be cut in half. While such a cut might represent the ideal resolution, it’s unlikely that ASMFC will go that far. Instead, they will probably seek some lesser cut that substantially reduces the risk of overfishing—hopefully, makes it much less than a 50-50 possibility but, again, while federal managers, operating under the Magnuson Act, may not adopt regulations that have less than a 50% chance of avoiding overfishing, ASMFC, which is not governed by Magnuson, may accept a far higher level of risk. Whatever cuts are made will probably be based on 2013 harvest, which could be a good thing; 2012 harvest was notably lower than harvest in previous years, with F2012=0.20. If harvest reductions were based on 2012 landings, the required reductions would be relatively minor, and probably would not have constrained harvest enough to avoid overfishing in many future years. On the other hand, if the 2013 fishing mortality rate rebounds to the level typical of the past decade, when overfishing occurred in six out of ten years, reductions would be far more meaningful and more likely to have a positive impact on striped bass abundance.

What form will such reductions take? Right now, it’s hard to tell. A lot will depend on how many people who keep striped bass keep two fish, rather than one, when they go out, and how often they do so. People who don’t keep fish don’t matter, since no reduction in the bag limit or increase in the size limit can reduce their landings below zero. So what fisheries managers will do is first count up all of the fishing trips made (or, more correctly, estimated to have been made) during the year on which people kept striped bass. Then they’ll look at the number of trips on which people kept two striped bass, and calculate what the percentage reduction would have been if all of those people had only kept a single fish. If that reduction is enough to reduce fishing mortality to or below the Ftarget, in 2015 we’ll be looking at a one-fish bag limit and the current 28” minimum size.

On the other hand, if cutting the bag limit isn’t enough to achieve the needed reduction (and, depending on how much harvest needs to be cut, it very possibly won’t be, as there are a lot of people who don’t kill two bass on a single trip), a similar procedure will be used to increase the size limit. Based on the size of bass kept by anglers interviewed by surveyors working for the National Marine Fisheries Service, managers will calculate the reduction that could be achieved by a 1 fish bag limit and various increases in the minimum size. The combination of one-fish bag limit and whatever higher minimum size that (when combined with reductions in the commercial quota) would theoretically bring fishing mortality below the new Ftarget would likely comprise the regulations adopted in the new addendum.

Of course, we’re talking about fisheries management, where things are never quite that easy. It is possible (although, I think, extremely unlikely) that even with a 1-fish bag limit, the size limit needed to achieve the needed harvest reduction will be so high that managers decide to maintain a somewhat smaller minimum size, but reduce the length of the season to compensate (with the length of the season reduction again based on historical catch patterns). In addition, we have to remember that a “slot limit”, which requires that fish both under and over a specified size range be released, is popular with some sectors of the angling community. There are different opinions as to what an appropriate slot size might be; some folks would target immature bass, setting the bottom of the slot as low as 20 or 22 inches and the top end around 26 or 28 inches, arguing that such a slot would protect the entire female spawning stock. Others would choose a higher slot—perhaps 28-32”, or something roughly similar. However, any slot size would not be viewed in a vacuum. Killing smaller fish—particularly immature fish—carries a conservation penalty. ASMFC forced Maine to drop its bag limit from two fish to one when it adopted a size limit that allowed anglers to keep only those fish that fell into a 20-26” slot or were longer than 40 inches. New York commercial fishermen had their quota cut substantially when the state replaced the 28-inch minimum size with a 24-36” slot in order to keep older, PCB-laden bass out of the markets. So it’s pretty clear that if ASMFC ever adopted a slot, even with a 1-fish bag limit there would be a significant shortening of the current season.

And then there is the perennial question of “gamefish” status; eliminating the entire commercial fishery in order to allow anglers to harvest the entire allowable catch. While that might sound good in theory, the chance of ASMFC ever adopting such a strategy in the upcoming year is extremely low. The votes just aren’t there. When you consider that the state which has been most aggressively supporting reduced harvest—Massachusetts—also has the highest coastal commercial striped bass landings, you begin to understand the problem. A desire to conserve the striped bass resource and “gamefish status” do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

If the current schedule remains on track, the regulatory addendum should be released after the May meeting, with hearings held in June and July. It will then, if all goes well, be adopted at the August meeting, with a compliance date—the date when all states must adopt new regulations—of January 1, 2015.

That’s not as early as most striped bass anglers would like, but it is certainly progress, and can only benefit the resource. In the meantime, anglers must keep informed, stand ready to write comment letters and turn out for hearings, and be ever vigilant to help assure that those who would derail the conservation effort will not succeed.

A lot of us lived through the last collapse, back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It was not a very pleasant time. It is up to all of us to make sure that such a collapse does not happen again.



8 comments on “Striped Bass: Where do we go from here? …by Charles Witek”

That brought up some great points that I think we could discuss some more here. A few things I can see right off is that as predicted by some, the committee has waffled on cutting back on the regs for another year while continuing to overfish the bass, knowing it is happening. I see one or 2 members to blame for this, mainly Tom Fote form NJ for opposing the pro conservation majority. He is a governor appointee, hopefully someone can UN-APPOINT him quickly.

I am not anywhere near as smart as Mr. Charles Witek , who wrote this so that even i could understand what is going on, but I have enough common sense to realize the bass are in trouble and the feet draggers we have creating the regulations managing the fish are no better than our politicians who mismanage our country and the taxes we pay.:smash:

I don't think it's too late to make a change for next season, it could be way too late then, the time to cut back on the killing is now.

I don't agree with their decision to wait another year and it pisses me off:devil2::devil2:

I applaud Paul Diodati for his efforts, we need to do more I think.

Gubmint involvement = gross waste and mismanagement of everything they touch be it our tax $$ or a natural resource.

Great article, I hope there comes a resolution before it's too late.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Charlie knows what he is talking about, the only basic disagreement he and I have is whether or not the MSA applies to the ASMFC. I think it does.

Thanks to all who contributed to clarifying and simplifying its content, so dummies like me can actually take something from it.

I still don't understand what waiting another year is going to do, other than deepen the problem further. It seems the only true way to impact this problem IMO,will be through the education and actions of individual anglers to disciplining themselves on the practice of catch and release.

That's a great synopsis.

Thanks for publishing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a good overview but the process is total BS. Too many know-it-alls each with a say....These guys are like kids playing in a sandbox.

1) It is clear they don't have a grasp of the fishery if they have to change what they perceive is the "right" number to a new right number... Again, if the fishery is deemed overfished by their original agreed upon number...the ASFMC should be disbanded.


2) This is what happens when you give everyone in every usergroup a voice. Total clusterphuk and nothing gets done promptly. And what does get done is so watered down it has little effect.

3) after reading this I now feel the only approach is a total shutdown. No comm fishing, no rec take and no C&R targeting SB for 10 years or until stocks are at record levels. Then, when we get back on track, open it up slooooowly say with a 5% take, then work your way up to 10% or whatever the "ideal" number is so SB remain at or near record levels.

shut it down all together.

You're ignoring the fact that we have new "science" in the new stock assessment, that's what's changing things.

As far as shutting it down, that ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

New science...if that was not so sad I would laugh. There will always be new science. Where is the conservatism? You can not negotiate limits between groups...Do what is right for the fish and let the chips fall where they may

You need to push the extreme...show you are willing to give it up for the fish. shut it down

It should be shut down. It will give you 10 years to figure out which new science is right.

I can't believe they can justify themselves out of this? Step back from the monitor...and look at this from a broader perspective and get out of the trenches....this is really screwed up.

Shut SB fishing down completely. This way nobody gets anything and the fish win... This is a 100% win for the fish. With a certainty that nothing else can deliver.

Waiting till 2015 is absurd and you know they will drag this out even beyond that.

shut it down...right now

Hope is not a strategy! The message here is the we all need to be involved and make every effort to push this in the direction it needs to go.

Its not like the fish are endangered. Why limit that philosophy to striped bass? Maybe the powers that be should shut down all fishing. :) Go join PETA. :)

Personally, I do think they will institute new limits to hit the required mortality in 2015.

why did they make a snook gamefish in FL?
I see no reason every state in NE cannot do the same. Commercials take very small piece of the pie, that I agree. And game fish does not do anything for conservation, it does not save a single fish.
But commercial guys are not doing public a 'service' by providing the fish for them, they are using "public" resources for their benefit. And that is cool. But there should be a public referendum in each state that does not have game fish status. Let the PUBLIC decide if the bass should be a game fish or harvested fish. Not lifetime appointees of recreational "industry" that are masquerading as ones protecting the public. I wouldn’t mind the process if these people weren't all tainted. You cant represent tackle stores, charter boats and recreational public at the same time. The interest are often not aligned, in fact sometimes they are opposite.
My point is we could manage these fish better without influence of $ we put on the heads of these fish

MakoMike, you're a commercial/ charter guy, no?

You seem like an intelligent person. Do you ever feel like a complete tool who blindly regurgitates, abides, and stands by the laws, regardless of morals and ethics? Do you ever state your own feelings/opinions/ think for yourself or do you just merely quote the ASMFC employee handbook?

Do you feel your loyalty to the ASMFC is more rewarding than ignoring common sense? Again, you seem like an intelligent guy. Not a sheeple. Must be a battle within, fighting against intellect and common sense, but feeling the need to fluff the ASMFC's brain trust as well. Must be a "let's take a hefty dose of Reprisitoll and agree with whatever the ASMFC says" type of deal...

Good for you...

bart- youare WAY OFF in what you think of Mike's views on this.... is he a charter guy? yeah (at least I think so)
is he "blindly following along with ASMFC"? not in the least- look around on the other threads on here and SOL and you'll see many posts about his views on whats good and/or bad about all of this-

no offense, you couldn't be more wrong on this.... Mike's about as open-minded as you could ever want from a guy who derives his living by catching fish

Bass
 

I just don't think that this is the place to call out individuals for their actions. It only leads to useless pigeon holing and no real solutions. Go to the hearings and voice your opinions there. EVERYONE needs to pull together on this so we can ALL benefit.

Ed

The sooner they do something the less drastic the measures will need be. Do the smart thing now and it would be more likely to be more acceptable to all involved. Wait and it will be more likely to be unacceptable to everybody, but just as likely to be unavoidable just like last time.

“Learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it.”
― Jesse Ventura

and

“Those unable to catalog the past are doomed to repeat it.”
― Lemony Snicket, The End

or

“We're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive. It's pretty dense kids who haven't figured that out by the time they're ten.... Most kids can't afford to go to Harvard and be misinformed.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard

1st - I was a charter guy had to give up the last few seasons so I can stay home and take care of my wife.

2nd- I am also an advisor to both the ASMFC (Fluke, sea bass & scup) and the NEFMC (recreational panel) and I have been active in fishery management for over 10 years now.

I don't know where you get the idea that I agree with everything the ASMFC does, because that's far from the truth. But it just so happens that, when it comes to striped bass I think they are doing a pretty good job. When it comes to menhaden, eels and tautog I think they suck, and I tell them so.

The only thing I can fault them on in the latest actions on striped bass is that I think they could acted a little quicker in getting the new regs in place. But I also understand that they wanted to be thorough and also they didn't want to change the regs in the middle of a season.

Does what I type on these discussion boards make a difference in what they do. I don't think so, but I do it to try and educate some of my fellow anglers about how the process works, or is supposed to work.

I do think I make a difference when I talk to the the ASMFC commissioners, Either through the advisory board, written comments or directly.

While I don't agree with that position, you are correct that if it is to be done at all, it has to be done on a state-by-state basis. Did you guys know that there is currently a bill in the MA legislature that would phase out the striped bass commercial fishery and make it a game fish in about 10 years?

So the "science" now shows that we have been overfishing (even if the SSB is still not formally ruined) for 10 years and F was set too high, something that has been painfully apparent to the vast majority of serious recreational striped bass fishermen for years now, and you feel the ASMFC has done a "pretty good job" by ignoring it?

I am sure you are well intentioned and you sincerely believe what you have advocated is right, but I would be interested to understand how you rationalize what you have chosen to believe in the face of what has obviously occurred.

We have a new stock assessment, which brings a new look at the situation. According to the previous stock assessment we were not overfishing and according to both stock assessments they are not overfished. Don't you understand that 1) you and the other guys on these discussions (me included) are not "science" and science is what is supposed to govern fishery management, and 2) things change, recruitment may be higher or lower in any given year than what was assumed in the stock assessment, that's why they do new assessment, to figure out if we are still on track in managing the species.

The board is reacting quickly to both adopt the new stock assessment (which they have to do before they can manage the fishery using the new reference points) and to take action which will bring the harvest down.

The sky is not falling. :)

Mako Mike, I'm not buying that, I thought the stock assessment said they are on their way to overfishing next year, yet they chose to do nothing until 2015.

2014 is not here yet, why can't they make at least a change to 1 fish per day for 2014? it is not in the middle of the season yet!

1st, lets be clear about what it said. it said that sticking with the current fishing mortality there is an 80% chance that we will overfish next year. It also said that there is a 100% chance that they will NOT be overfished in 2015. That has to do with the recruitment of the 2011 year class.

Why can't they go to 1 @ 28 for 2014? Well, for one thing no one knows what going to 1 @ 28 would mean as far as achieving the F target. The only thing we do suspect, is that it is unlikely to be enough to meet the F target. So should they adopt an addendum that fails to achieve the target and then adopt yet another addendum, that does achieve the target?

Maybe, but even if they did that, the regs wouldn't kick in until about half way through the season for many areas. If they adopted that addendum at the last meeting, they would still have to vote on approval and the release of the associated public information document at the next meeting in March. Then there has to be a series of public hearings along with a comment period. Then they could vote to approve the addendum, maybe at the May meeting. The states then have a period time to adopt their new regulations, so, at best we would be looking at new regs in the June - July time frame, and in some states, where the regs have to be adopted by legislative action (like NJ), they likely wouldn't go into effect until much later.

Instead the board voted to move forward with a comprehensive revision of the regs that will achieve the revise F target. I'll wager that they will go to 1 @ something, possibly along with other restrictions (I'm in favor of specified seasons). So they will probably adopt new measures in May, then go to public hearings followed by adopting the new measures in the fall of 2014 with an effective date of Jan. 2015.

IOW they are pursuing a course of "ready, aim, fire"! Rather than a course of "ready, fire, aim."

what was the old nike slogan?......Just Do It. Gov red tape and polictico mumbo jumbo sucks....shut the door- the horse is gone?- who cares.

:spin::doh:


If you shut it down, you will meet your bogus F target, guaranteed. And then we can then abandon all this wasted committee meeting nonsense of trying to manage SB.

Do you really think they are doing a good job with SB? (I was wondering to they provide you with any food at these meetings? Maybe it is tainted with some kind of new science brainwashing serum that makes you all naive.)

I know some of my posts have been extreme...but we need this view to bring attn to this process which by any measure is NOT working, involves too many voices, and protects those from ever being accountable!

Vote in someone responsible to manage it and let him do it. Set targets. If he does not meet targets...FIRE HIM! and put someone else in. DONT CHANGE THE METRIC.

So you would rather than the public has no input into the process? That seems to be the opposite of what everyone else is saying.

no mike I would like to MORE public input and LESS govt bs committee dragging their collective azzes input.

Well, you can't have it both ways. :) If you want public input you have to allow time for it to happen.

The sky is falling, Mike. Those of us in our mid-fifties and on are going to be well past our surf fishing prime by the time these 2011 fish are worth catching.
As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.

Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.

In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".

Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device