The most important fish in the sea

[Mr. Sandman]

This book has been sitting on my shelf for a while now. I just never had the urge to sit down and read about bunker when I have so many books on bass. Well, I finally picked it up and Whoa! that is quite the read.

First the guy is a great writer and did an amazing amount of research and all the facts are fully documented almost like a professional technical paper. But it reads like a novel. This book has answered a LOT of questions I had about this truly amazing fish that most think is a useless nuisance. IMO EVERYONE who is a bass fishermen MUST read this, it will change your opinion of this amazing critter.
The history and story of this fish is explained so well I it is hard to imagine this species is not getting more protection from industrialized fishing. Really, if you have not read this, do so.
Written by H. Bruce Franklin

[Crafty Angler]

Thanks for the reminder, Jim -

I did a lot of reading over the winter and re-read some old (and some real old) favorites, too - been meaning to pick that up.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

First the guy is a great writer and did an amazing amount of research and all the facts are fully documented almost like a professional technical paper. But it reads like a novel. This book has answered a LOT of questions I had about this truly amazing fish that most think is a useless nuisance. IMO EVERYONE who is a bass fishermen MUST read this, it will change your opinion of this amazing critter.

Jim.
It is well written, but always keep context in mind. He is an English prof at Rutgers, not a fisheries scientist... just an fyi. I don;'t want to reopen the pogie debate!

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim.
It is well written, but always keep context in mind. He is an English prof at Rutgers, not a fisheries scientist... just an fyi. I don;'t want to reopen the pogie debate!

And add to that he brings his own bias to the subject.

[Mr. Sandman]

You guys are helpless.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

You guys are helpless.

Be glad you aren't a regular in the Political Forum. The above thread is how just about every topic either starts or ends.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim.
I'm not entirely disagreeing or putting down the book.
Just keep stuff like that in mind when reading it.

When the pogie debate hit full stride, people were quoting this like the bible. I went to the science meetings and heard straight from the people who have studied pogies for a living that a lot of the claims made are false regarding water quality and such.

Do I think it should be an unregulated rape? NO!! BUT, RI is doing an exceptional job managing this species, and huge steps have already been taken in the last 10 years (kicking the reduction boats out)
the focus should be on the southern states, not here at home...

[fumifish]

Any book/publication/magazine/novel will be bias due to the person writing it...we all see things around us and interpret them differently than our neighbor...

i think all of us can agree and appreciate the subject matter and the passion the author brings to our friend the bunker.

[numbskull]

Once upon a time, cod would have universally been considered the "most important fish in the sea". Shows how low in the barrel we are now.

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Once upon a time, cod would have universally been considered the "most important fish in the sea". Shows how low in the barrel we are now.

There is no question that the The "Marine fishery Managers" under the guidance of the expert "Marine Fishery Scientists" destroyed this fishery by the LACK of regulation on codfish. It pisses me off when I hear comm guys talk about the "good ol days" of cod fishing....it was so damn good because they were destroying the fishery. My fix to codfishing: Complete shut down for 10 years (rec and comm), then re-evaluate.

Re. bunker : All the rich history of the weird fish(ery) aside, what I took away from the book were 3 main reasons of the importance of this fish over many other fish:

1) This fish is one of the only fish that converts plant materials to rich protein. It does not eat smaller fish (like most other fish do). It is continually filtering decomposing vegetable matter from the water (a good thing for the water) and creating a rich oily flesh. In this regard it is a machine.

2) It has an incredible reproductive cycle. It pumps out eggs almost continually, spawning multi times up and down the coast each year. The numbers of eggs (annually) this fish produces for its size is huge compared to once a year spawners.

3)There was/is huge money in this fish. The comm. fishing has declined from 250+ outfits to 1 or 2. However it was not until the industrialization of the fishery with the invention of purse seining with spotter planes that they were able to actually put a dent in the population. (by taking every single fish in a school)


OK, I see all this as good news. Given the reproduction rate of this thing it is reasonable to assume that if left alone in 4 years or so we should start seeing increased bait supply again. Considering the good it does as a rich food source for other fish as well as helping to filter the water, it looks like a win-win...moreover, I think it it would not take much to bring it back to what it was if they took the $ off the fishes head for a few years, then more carefully regulated it.

I don't want to get religious but personally this is one of those fish (similar to the squid but with a kicker...) that I view that God put on this earth in vast numbers to support the large biomass of fish on this planet. Think about it, you can't eat it, it smells, it has an insane reproduction rate, you cant even catch it on rod and reel, it has "no" value or interest to the average guy but it is a rich food source for almost every larger fish (and seabird) in on the coast...and it does this unique thing, converting plants to meat...while ridding the water of nuisance material that no other fish eats. IMO if this fish was allowed to rebound back to its former numbers (and this seems plausible given its reproduction) then I think that SB and many other fish would be healthier and grow in size and numbers.

OK, tell me why I am naive...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim,
I', not saying you are naive or that pogies are not important. BUT

" 1) This fish is one of the only fish that converts plant materials to rich protein. It does not eat smaller fish (like most other fish do). It is continually filtering decomposing vegetable matter from the water (a good thing for the water) and creating a rich oily flesh. In this regard it is a machine."

this was one of the big misconceptions I mentioned.

The way my geologist brain understands it (knowing minimal biology) is that the larger (commercial sized) pogies have gill rakers that do not allow them to eat algae and small phyto (plant) plankton; they almost exclusively eat larger zooplankton.

for these claims to be true, the population has to be entirely juvenile pogies, and whether we get a crop of peanuts every year or not depends on the structure of the population, as well as climate etc.. and whether they make it inshore, or hang offshore or elsewhere...

again, I'm not pro Omega protein and reduction boats, but the local boats taking a managed amount of them from local waters is not the end of the world.

[saltfly]

I'm reading it now and think it's a great read.If anyone is interested in obtaining a free copy to read.The Wellfleet library has copies available.They do ask you to return it please to "pass on" to others.

[PaulS]

I enjoyed the book - it was a quick read. Its interesting to read different opinions on it.

[Mr. Sandman]

Rock,
I could be wrong, (often, my wife tells me I am), and biology is not my strong point...but I think it is the other way around. From what I recall, when they are very tiny they eat some kind of small living plankton but as they get mature I think they eat particles of decomposing plants. That is certainly the impression I got from the the book and one of the references I had on hand and briefly looked at.. I will have to go back and seek it out.

Re: commercialism. To be perfectly honest, I am not against all commercial fishing. I just want it managed better. IMO fishery managers have not recognized their own mistakes and do not take a conservative approach. They all point the finger at other departments above them for mandating what to do . This is not good science. Where is the accountability? Now I think they need to make up for it with more of a draconian management style. (it was the only thing that worked for SB!)
Again IMO, The "maximum yield theory" does not work when you have an inaccurate count as to exactly how many and where the fish are as well as a complete understanding of where they plan to get their diet from. You can't increase the biomass of a species by 10X and not increase the food source by the same proportion and expect everything else to remain constant. I don't agree with their logic and the status of the fisheries bare me out. BTW, I think in MA the bunker fishery is unmanaged. I don't think there is any required reporting. (and the Black market of guys taking and selling (with no comm bait lic's) under the table is big.)

Anyway, I didn't start this to debate every issue...I just thought it was an interesting and informative book.

It seems every post these days gets controversial...hopefully the fishing season will start soon and we can get back to burning spots.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

Re. bunker : All the rich history of the weird fish(ery) aside, what I took away from the book were 3 main reasons of the importance of this fish over many other fish:

1) This fish is one of the only fish that converts plant materials to rich protein. It does not eat smaller fish (like most other fish do). It is continually filtering decomposing vegetable matter from the water (a good thing for the water) and creating a rich oily flesh. In this regard it is a machine.

2) It has an incredible reproductive cycle. It pumps out eggs almost continually, spawning multi times up and down the coast each year. The numbers of eggs (annually) this fish produces for its size is huge compared to once a year spawners.

3)There was/is huge money in this fish. The comm. fishing has declined from 250+ outfits to 1 or 2. However it was not until the industrialization of the fishery with the invention of purse seining with spotter planes that they were able to actually put a dent in the population. (by taking every single fish in a school)


OK, I see all this as good news. Given the reproduction rate of this thing it is reasonable to assume that if left alone in 4 years or so we should start seeing increased bait supply again. Considering the good it does as a rich food source for other fish as well as helping to filter the water, it looks like a win-win...moreover, I think it it would not take much to bring it back to what it was if they took the $ off the fishes head for a few years, then more carefully regulated it.

I don't want to get religious but personally this is one of those fish (similar to the squid but with a kicker...) that I view that God put on this earth in vast numbers to support the large biomass of fish on this planet. Think about it, you can't eat it, it smells, it has an insane reproduction rate, you cant even catch it on rod and reel, it has "no" value or interest to the average guy but it is a rich food source for almost every larger fish (and seabird) in on the coast...and it does this unique thing, converting plants to meat...while ridding the water of nuisance material that no other fish eats. IMO if this fish was allowed to rebound back to its former numbers (and this seems plausible given its reproduction) then I think that SB and many other fish would be healthier and grow in size and numbers.

OK, tell me why I am naive...

O.K. tell me what "one of the only" implies? It is certainly not the only fish in the sea that eats vegetable matter and turns it into protein, there are literally thousands of species that do the exact same thing. Secondly, it eats both phytoplankton(plants) and zooplankton (animals) do you know what some of the main components of zooplankon are? Fish eggs and larval and juvenial fish! Yes, the menhaden is one of the predators on striped bass fry and larva as well as the eggs, larva and fry of many other species of fish. There is precious little "decomposing vegetable matter" in the water. what little there is is washed in from land and the menhaden eats none of it. Adult menhaden, contrary to what has been stated in the RI debate does not eat detrius or dead algae.

As for I don't want to get religious but personally this is one of those fish (similar to the squid but with a kicker...) that I view that God put on this earth in vast numbers to support the large biomass of fish on this planet." the fact is that vast majority of the earth's biomass of fish never come in contact with a menhaden, so they have no opportunity to eat one.

I certainly agree that the menhaden are an important part of the coastal ecosystem, but I don't hold them on the pedestal that the author does.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim:
I don't have time today to reread this:

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/fisherie...ySymposium.pdf

check out some of the science opinions.

As far as the management, I think RI has it nailed right not. Coastiwde might be a different situation..

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

It is certainly not the only fish in the sea that eats vegetable matter and turns it into protein, there are literally thousands of species that do the exact same thing...

There is precious little "decomposing vegetable matter" in the water. what little there is is washed in from land and the menhaden eats none of it..

If there are thousand of species converting vegetable matter to protein they why is there so precious little?
Oh, Name a few species of fish in the coastal inshore area of the US that eat plants only.

Originally Posted by MakoMike

As for I don't want to get religious but personally this is one of those fish (similar to the squid but with a kicker...) that I view that God put on this earth in vast numbers to support the large biomass of fish on this planet." the fact is that vast majority of the earth's biomass of fish never come in contact with a menhaden, so they have no opportunity to eat one. .

Don't be a wise ass. That isn't what I intended to imply and you know it. It is important to the east coast and in particular SB and....... awe %$%$%$%$ it! I have had enough of this $hit. It's like talking to another commercial fishermen hell bent on getting "his" share.


unsubscribed

[Fish_Eye]

This steamer was heading to the oil and GUANO factory in Tiverton.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

If there are thousand of species converting vegetable matter to protein they why is there so precious little?

Because there are thousands of organisms eating it!

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

, Name a few species of fish in the coastal inshore area of the US that eat plants only.

Almost all of the Blennies, Tangs, damsels, chromis, parrotfish and those are off the top of my head. Also don't leave out the shellfish, many of which either exclusively or non-exclusively feed on phytoplankton and or macro algae.

I'm not a commercial fisherman and have nothing to gain from the exploitation of menhaden or the lack thereof. I'm just trying to bring some rationality to this conversation.