|
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.
|
Threaded Mode