What's your recommendation?

[Back Beach]

You've just been appointed to the striped bass management board. You need to perform a stock evaluation because one of the board objectives is to help develop a management plan that entails setting a coast wide minimum size and bag limit after first assessing the stock levels. This plan is, of course, designed to help ensure the continued success of the fishery. Let’s hear some of your recommendations, and why you feel strongly about them. Try to present facts , not anecdotes.

What do you recommend and why?

[JohnR]

That S-B management working plan is a subset of the coastal Atlantic Forage protection plan and that once more forage is available to feed the basses, a reduction of rec / commercial take of 33% occurs across all size / age groups.

I then get booted off the panel at the next meeting...

[MakoMike]

What's to recommend? Until the stock assessment is done there is nothing to do? Once the stock assessment is complete and, assuming that no rebuilding is required, you just need to set coastwide bag limits at a level that will equal Fmax. If you want to insure continued viability you would set size limits that allow each fish to spawn at least once, but technically that is not a necessity. If rebuilding is necessary then you would have to set size limits that will allow fish to spawn before capture and set a F level somewhere below Fmax, how far below will depend on the FMP's rebuilding plan. No rocket science here.

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

What's to recommend? Until the stock assessment is done there is nothing to do?

MM,

You just questioned the question.......

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Once the stock assessment is complete and, assuming that no rebuilding is required, you just need to set coastwide bag limits at a level that will equal Fmax. If you want to insure continued viability you would set size limits that allow each fish to spawn at least once, but technically that is not a necessity. If rebuilding is necessary then you would have to set size limits that will allow fish to spawn before capture and set a F level somewhere below Fmax, how far below will depend on the FMP's rebuilding plan. No rocket science here.

......and then answered it.Some people think the fish are on the brink of extinction, and rarely do they cite any scientific data or facts to back up their views. SF comes to mind. If you can, explain what fmax is so people understand, meaning how does it convert to inches when you say they need to spawn at least once? How big would a fish need to be that spawns at least once? The reason I posed the question was to try to shed some light on how this stuff really works. A lot of people might respond "36 inches and one fish a day" because it sounds like a good conservation measure, but might not be able to back it up with good methodology or science. Lets hear some more of the why, if you will.

[riverrat2]

I would like to see one at 36". There really is no need to keep two fish for yourself everytime you go out. I am not saying I don't do this currently because I do. But it seems that everytime I do the meat sits in the freezer for longer than I would like. But regardless, every bit of it does get eaten or given to family. If it were 1 at 36" it would cancel the temptation to keep that extra fish just for show. And one fish at 36" is still plenty of meat for a family to eat for a couple of meals.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

Some people think the fish are on the brink of extinction, and rarely do they cite any scientific data or facts to back up their views. SF comes to mind. If you can, explain what fmax is so people understand, meaning how does it convert to inches when you say they need to spawn at least once? How big would a fish need to be that spawns at least once? The reason I posed the question was to try to shed some light on how this stuff really works. A lot of people might respond "36 inches and one fish a day" because it sounds like a good conservation measure, but might not be able to back it up with good methodology or science. Lets hear some more of the why, if you will.

Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking for. The stock assessment is the first block in most fishery management decisions. The second step is to decide where you want the stock to be vis-a-vis the current stock assessment. Most times fishery managers don't want the stock to be less that it currently is, so I'll discount that possibility. More usual is that the managers want the stock at about the level it currently is (which IMHO is where the striped bass stock assessment will come in) or they want the stock to increase. "F" stand for fishing mortality. When a fishery management plan is adopted (FMP) it usually calls for a target biomass in a given timeframe, if rebuilding is required, or it calls for holding the biomass steady, if no rebuilding is called for. Fmsy ifs the fishing mortality that the stock can stand and still maintain the Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) which is the way the U.S. has decided that all rebuilt fisheries should be managed. To convert Fmsy to coastwide bag limits, one has to estimate the number of fishermen and divide the msy by the numer of fishermen and fishing days to come up with the bag limit. Stripers generally spawn for the first time somewhere between 32 and 34 inches in size. There is an additon factor in the assessment which is called "spawning Stock biomass." That's the amount of spawning fish and the FMP will cintain targets for the level of SSB, that will generall translate into size limits. All of this is a gross oversimplification, but it should be enough to gett he conversation started.

[vanstaal]

Build trust among user groups/form partnership
Create a vision for the future
Create a new way of decision making
Bring groups together and create a consensus strategy for long-term management
In what areas of this information do you lack confidence?
Catch monitoring
MRFSS survey needs to be revamped/improved for better recreational statistics.
Unsure about accuracy of commercial statistics.
Catch monitoring for equitable geographic distribution of harvest within the Bay.
Interpretation of statistics.
ASMFC process - require relevancy and criteria.
Ultimate safe level of harvest and appropriate conservation level.
By-catch estimates.
Long term trend of stocks.
Adequacy of enforcement.
Use of dedicated funds (i.e. Striped Bass Stamp)
Effect of increasing stocks on other Bay fisheries.
Potential effect of influx of more fishermen as other fish stocks decline and striped bass increase.

[Sweetwater]

As a recreational fisherman, I'd like to see a limit not just on small fish but large fish as well. Current regulations encourage the harvesting of the largest fish, thus over time threatening to make the stock genetically smaller (i.e., the fish is more likely to survive and reproduce if it is genetically smaller).

Just as in any population, if you continually remove larger fish from the spawning population, only the smaller fish will survive to spawn thus their fry will increasingly be genetically smaller as adults.

Further, studies show that 90%+ of striped bass over 32" are females. By targeting larger fish for harvest, we are focusing on females and (being large) the best, proven egg-bearers.

I think a slot limit is in order. For example, allow the harvest of fish only between 22" and 34" while limiting the number of fish to one per day or less. By balancing the take between both male and female fish, and avoiding the taking of the largest fish, this will produce both /more/ fish and /larger/ fish over time.

Two references:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...7cd225d189e4d4

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119231221.htm

[Casting Z's]

I thought shooting seals would end any further studies needed.

[afterhours]

i'm with sweetwater, i think a slot limit is the way to go.

[chuckg]

NJ used to have a slot limit regulation where you could take a fish between a certain lengtrh and then 1 trophy fish over 38 incehes I believe. I don't think that is in effect now, but, again unless we have coastwide regs, someone always gets the short end of the stick...

[ThrowingTimber]

Take the price tag of the fishes head

[Back Beach]

Let me throw some more stuff in here. Bear with me, because it involves a little history, as well as some simple math. I’ll try to stay with the original question seeing I asked it.

We are, according to mostly anecdotal evidence, seeing a decline in larger fish right now. When I say lack of larger fish, its 40 plus pounds, and 48” plus in length, just to use some rough numbers. This doesn’t mean in some specific locales the fishery for large isn’t very good, but we’re talking coast wide here. So what I’m saying is that we are observing a steady decline in fish that are 17 years old or better. Got it? To state it another way, we are seeing a decline in fish that were likely born in 1989, which was a dominant year class of fish. Statistically, they are near the end of their expected life. There should be no surprise that this (decline) is happening. I think it will continue for 2-3 more years, and we will then see another resurgence of large fish when the 1993 class kicks in around 2010.

If you look at any of the dominant year classes of fish, they typically coincide with a dominant year class of fish 9-12 years prior. Arguably, each dominant year class spawns another dominant class when they reach their reproductive capacity, which is roughly in their 9-11th year of life. In other words, if you take the 1982 and 1989 year classes, the YOY index is well above average in the ensuing 9th to12th year for both of these classes. This means the 1993/94 class was very large, thanks to 1982, and the 2000/2001 year class was very large, probably due to the 1989 class.

From 1993 to 2005, we experienced above average year classes, perhaps due to the compounding effect of the 82 and 89 classes, in addition to the moratorium that protected the 82 and 89 classes until they spawned a couple times. Remember the limit was as high as 36”, which would give the fish maybe 2 or 3 spawning runs on average.

So here is my humble, partially scientific opinion: We are scalping the resource through low recreational size limits (28”) by removing fish from the stocks before they get a chance to reproduce. My theory is fewer small fish born mean fewer large later on due to lack of reproductive opportunity. I disagree with the notion that taking fish (36” plus) is hurting the resource, whether it’s commercial or otherwise. Remember, we rebuilt the fish stocks through lower bag limits, and size limits that increased with time to protect key classes of fish. For those of you who remember, the 82 class was identified as a particularly important class of fish due to its size and potential. The size limits were increased incrementally to keep just ahead of the growth of the 82 class, so we wouldn’t be scalping them prior to their reproductive years. The limit went from 24”-30”-33”-36” in a span of less than ten years. Once the stocks were deemed restored, we then lowered the size back to our present 28”, and the scalping process by recreational fishermen has since begun again.

My recommendation is to bump it back up to 34” for everyone coast wide. A slot doesn't make sense, because it allows small fish to be removed from the population. 34" would ensure each year class a couple of spawning runs, thus helping preserve future stocks. I think the 2 fish a day bag limit is unnecessary and wasteful, but the minimum size to me is the bigger problem. Thanks for reading.

[RIROCKHOUND]

1 fish
36"

All for it!

[snake slinger]

i dont agree with a slot.if i ever catch a fifty i want to be able to keep it.1 fish 36'' and up

[MakoMike]

"We are, according to mostly anecdotal evidence, " That's the rub. Is there really a decline in the larger fish or is the distribution along the coast different. No shortage of big fish around here in the spring, no shortage of big fish off NC right now. The stodk assessment should tell the story.

[ThrowingTimber]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1 fish
36"

All for it!

amen

[parker23]

1 fish @ 36" +.

[5/0]

Holy Crap Mike!!
I think you hit the nail on the head & then some



5/0

[JHABS]

Like to See the 36 inch One Fish again.

[NIB]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking for. The stock assessment is the first block in most fishery management decisions. The second step is to decide where you want the stock to be vis-a-vis the current stock assessment. Most times fishery managers don't want the stock to be less that it currently is, so I'll discount that possibility. More usual is that the managers want the stock at about the level it currently is (which IMHO is where the striped bass stock assessment will come in) or they want the stock to increase. "F" stand for fishing mortality. When a fishery management plan is adopted (FMP) it usually calls for a target biomass in a given timeframe, if rebuilding is required, or it calls for holding the biomass steady, if no rebuilding is called for. Fmsy ifs the fishing mortality that the stock can stand and still maintain the Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) which is the way the U.S. has decided that all rebuilt fisheries should be managed. To convert Fmsy to coastwide bag limits, one has to estimate the number of fishermen and divide the msy by the numer of fishermen and fishing days to come up with the bag limit. Stripers generally spawn for the first time somewhere between 32 and 34 inches in size. There is an additon factor in the assessment which is called "spawning Stock biomass." That's the amount of spawning fish and the FMP will cintain targets for the level of SSB, that will generall translate into size limits. All of this is a gross oversimplification, but it should be enough to gett he conversation started.

The whole system is flawed IMO..
"The stock assessment is the first block in most fishery management decisions."
The accuracy of the assessment of any fishery is a joke at best..
Then they work the numbers down to .001..
Then they set the fishery to MSY.
The problem is still driven by money..
U won't see a drastic increase in size limits or reduction in bag limits till it becomes drastic again.Coms an recs alike when it comes to S-B
drive the train here.If the recs go the cut back route, the comns would have to follow..or vise versa It ain't gonna happen.I could hear the cries of poverty from here..
I have no problem with one at 36"
I can't imagine the uproar from the party boat capts here in NJ on that one..
We had a 1 fish 24-28 an one fish 34 or over..
a few yrs ago
Man they cried when they lost there 24 " fish ..
we went to basically 2@28"like evryone else..
Money IS everything..

[piemma]

I have advocated 1 fish 36"+ for a few years. I saw guys last year MEASURING 28" fish to see if it were legal. This is a crime and ultimately kills the fish.
We had 36" 1 fish, 34" 1 fish and we caught a lot of fish way over that. I think it was 90 to 94. I never liked the 28" limit. I know that the guys I fish with would be embarrased to be seen with a fish under 34".
Let's get back to 36"+ 1 fish limit

[snake slinger]

man law-1 fish 36''

[riverrat2]

I agree with Piemma. If you need to measure a fish its not a "keeper".