is the year-of-the-young index out yet?

[Mr. Sandman]

I am waiting to see how 09 went after a poor 08 and IMO a disturbing trend. Has anyone heard how the spawn went?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Curious to see Jim...
worried myself...

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I am waiting to see how 09 went after a poor 08 and IMO a disturbing trend. Has anyone heard how the spawn went?

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

I checked the MD DNR #s. Based on 8 being good, there have only been 8 years that meet or exceed that since 1957. They are: 1958, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2003.

Not to imply that I am not concerned about how things seem to be heading, but it is hard to know what the #'s really tell us.

1958 was 11.12, followed by 0.59 in 1959.

Thirty two of the last 51 years were below 4, including eight of the years between 1957 and 1969, which is considered part of the golden years of stripers, you could say.

From 1973 to 1988 there were only two years above 3 and they were 3.75 and 3.37. That obviously was bad.

Average (mean) for
1957-1966 is 4.56.
2000-2009 is 5.69.

[Mr. Sandman]

I think it is the trend you should be more concerned with as opposed to a specific year absolute number and the average. I look at trend (either improving or worsening).
I attached a couple plots that have give me an uncomfortable feeling...
The first is the yoy index. You say 3.9 is the 09 value, look at the 10 year trend.
The other is the largest shore bass caught at the MV derby since 1947. Look at the trend since they reinstated it. (it was removed from the derby for a decade or so during the problem years) Now to be fair this is not 100% accurate as the rules changed over the years slightly, but one should also include the fishing "effort" today vs the effort back then...ie. there are 3X as many people fishing the derby today and it runs for 5 weeks now as opposed to 30 days back then. If you include that the worsening trend would be significantly modified. Also I know the numbers of fish are down as well as the weight. More importanly, If you look at bass/angler I think the trend would become more clear we are decling. I hope to get some more data and look at it in more detail with some some more solid statistics but I think this trend is bad. And what concerns me the most is that DMF (what ever group) will not worry about it until it is way too late. Their track record is abysmal, remember, they were "managing" SB as well as cod, flounder, and every other species that ran into problems. IMO they are actually part of the problem and not the solution.

[TheSpecialist]

I think the largest fish chart really has no significant meaning since the last couple of years people are reporting large amounts of large in the EEZ, and the lack of large inshore. They are probably onto a new source of bait, a change in cycle or an adaptation if you will. There also appears to be no consistancy in the YOY index across the whole time line. I am too stupid about this stuff anyway

[maddmatt]

i think the largest fish chart is a result of the gray seals keeping (eating some and chasing the rest away) the larger forage fish away from shore. a big bass doesn't need to be chased away from shore that many times to figure out it ain't safe. so, no food, not safe, i'll stay in deep water and eat hake. just my op.

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I think the largest fish chart really has no significant meaning since the last couple of years people are reporting large amounts of large in the EEZ, and the lack of large inshore. They are probably onto a new source of bait, a change in cycle or an adaptation if you will. There also appears to be no consistancy in the YOY index across the whole time line. I am too stupid about this stuff anyway

The largest fish chart are actual facts, "reports of large amounts in the EEZ" are more or less hearsay without numbers of any kind and therefore less significant than the derby's numbers. That said, I am sure there are a body of fish migrating offshore, and perhaps this is where satellite tagging would help, but no one is really looking into the decline of the size, quality and numbers of fish.
I have to say we had plenty of fish around here in July nothing huge but decent numbers of 20's.

According to all the experts and articles I have read, we should have broken the world record by now...we were supposed to be seeing more 50#+ fish by now.

All of this IMO points to a overall decline in size, number and quality of bass. No doubt bait is a big part of the problem as well but as long as fishery "experts" focus on the problems by a species by species approach and not a big overall picture (including forage fish) I think we are doomed.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish

2007 was 13 and change, and 2005 was close to 20.

If you look at the historical data, prior to 1970 there was only one year as good as 2005, and only a handful as good as 2007. You can't expect a 1993 or 1996 spawn every year.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish

Just as an FYI--you are using the geometric mean (3.92) in your post, and I don't believe that an "8" is accurate for a "good" year using the geometric mean. 10 is considered an average year using the arithmetic mean. The chart in Sandman's posts also shows the YOY index as the arithmetic mean. Last year's arithmetic mean was 3.82, but the geometric mean was only something like 1.6. This year's YOY index of 3.92 geometric translates into an arithmetic mean slightly under 10---a little below average but still 2-3 times higher than last year's YOY index.

To give some frame of reference, from 1954 when MD started compiling these YOY indices until the record spawns of the early and mid 1990s, an "average" year would consist of an artithmetic mean of 8.0. The great spawns pushed an average mean to 12.0. Today a 10.0 is considered "average".

[NIB]

If you don't like it do something about it.
My friend started the save the summer flounder fisheries fund (SSFFF) after the NMFS told us we where going to be down to 2 fluke per outing with the possibility of a closed season the next year.Reason was NMFS statistics told us we where vastly overfishing our quota's..
He worked hard to raise money.With it a independent scientist was commissioned who put fourth numbers to dispute the claims of overfishing.It worked..And we have had a few banner seasons since..
They have more new battles now but that's a different story.
My point is if you put forth the effort you can get it done.If you think there is a problem do something about it.
Typing on websites gets little done.

I think I remember reading somewhere (Daignault) the model was changed at some time in the YOY survey..
Plus many things factor into the success of the spawn.This years wet spring could have been a factor.
If you ask me as a fisherman. I think the striped bass population has been somewhat stable the last ten years..
I think their feeding habits are changing..We have cleaner water now,that yields easier offshore feeding.I think some sort of satellite tagging program would be very interesting to say the least,.

[Bluedevil]

Mike P, not to get too boring with math but geometric mean is more accurate than arithmetic mean for calculating trends (population growth, return on investment, etc) over time so the numbers Matt quotes are more relevant (and accurate) than the arithmetic mean numbers. Generally the arithmetic mean and geometric mean are not drastically different. If the geometric mean of the data differs from the arithmetic mean by two-fold as you suggest then their data is junk.

[Mike P]

Just that the arithmetic mean is the one that has been traditionally referred to when assesing the succes/mediocrity/failure of a spawn. People are used to hearing it--when they hear "3.92" and don't know that it's the less familiar geometric mean being used, they tend to think that it's a disasterous spawn rather than a mediocre one.

It was also the one used by ASMFC to end the commercial moratorium--there had to be an 8.0 average over a 3 year period before the fishery was reopened.

The 26 recorded in 1989 accomplished this all on its own

And I mis-spoke the arithmetic mean for 2009--it's 7.87, not "a little under 10".

[piemma]

[QUOTE=NIB;.I think some sort of satellite tagging program would be very interesting to say the least,.[/QUOTE]

Funny. RIRockhound and I were talking about just that last weekend.

Especially since I have been talking to the Tuna guys and they are telling me that there are tons of Bass out on Stellwagon eating sandeels like there is no tomorrow. They are offshore because their favorite food is offshore.

[Bluedevil]

Matt -- you get hot looking at the pictures in the latest issue of Modern Maturity.

Mike -- thanks for the clarification. Mine was a minor point but the math was more interesting than the usual 1000 "nice job" posts after someone uploads a pic of a 15lber