My take on last night's ASMFC Addendum II hearing in MA

[MikeToole]

A couple of other points I got from the meeting. While the change to more conservative recruitment failure break point is a move in the right direction it still does not seem to be very conservative. You have to hit the threshold three years in a row to start required action. Since 75 percent of the fish come from the Chesapeake it would seem that a higher level of importance would be assigned to it. I ask after the meeting about this and was told that it would be expected that the technical group would look at this but no fixed check is in place. Second point is related to needing three years in a row to pull the trigger. You could have two very bad years and one fair followed by two bad without required action. Would seem like a running three year average would be the right way, plus a more conservative approach for the Chesapeake.

Most of the reason given for the decrease in fish numbers was related to low recruitment. We have seen the number of spawning stock drop by about 20% in the last five years. It would seem very unlikely that this would be due mainly to recruitment being low since many of these fish from the last five years would not have reached the age to spawn yet. Second is even though the recruitment numbers have been low they are no where near the three year recruitment failure threshold, either the present or the new more conservative threshold talked about above.

Last would be the lack of people that showed up. The room had 180 chairs and a total of 33 people took the time to attend. With the number of people who fish in Mass it is just mind bogling that only 33 people showed. Many web sites and clubs actively promoted getting out to this meeting so it shouldn't have been a case of no one knew. Even if people were on the fence on the issue it was a chance to learn more and be heard. One 2-hour meeting every few years isn't much. So my main take away is most everyone trust ASMFC to do a great job and are happy with the way things are going.

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by MikeToole

A couple of other points I got from the meeting. While the change to more conservative recruitment failure break point is a move in the right direction it still does not seem to be very conservative. You have to hit the threshold three years in a row to start required action. Since 75 percent of the fish come from the Chesapeake it would seem that a higher level of importance would be assigned to it. I ask after the meeting about this and was told that it would be expected that the technical group would look at this but no fixed check is in place. Second point is related to needing three years in a row to pull the trigger. You could have two very bad years and one fair followed by two bad without required action. Would seem like a running three year average would be the right way, plus a more conservative approach for the Chesapeake.

Most of the reason given for the decrease in fish numbers was related to low recruitment. We have seen the number of spawning stock drop by about 20% in the last five years. It would seem very unlikely that this would be due mainly to recruitment being low since many of these fish from the last five years would not have reached the age to spawn yet. Second is even though the recruitment numbers have been low they are no where near the three year recruitment failure threshold, either the present or the new more conservative threshold talked about above.

Good points. One thing that is a HUGE factor in redefining the method for determining recruitment failure is FIXING the bar where it is, so that it is no longer a moving target. This is huge, and I think misunderstood by most.

Here's the deal. Status Quo on this issue means that a bar that is already low, is also variable. The bar is set at 75% of the average of all years in the data set. Let's say for example that for the next 10 years we have consistently low JAI indeces (slightly above, or right at the current bar, or just one year out of every 3 slightly above the line keeping the trigger from being tripped), because those new numbers for the 10 bad years become part of the average, the bar will gradually get lower and lower as the average JAI in the data set goes down.

By FIXING the bar at its current level, or recalculated higher level, 10 bad years won't cause the bar to drop, resulting in a what could be a sliding curve toward the bottom, never quite tripping the trigger.

[influx99]

Thing that stuck out to me was how shaky the catch data they have is. It's based on dock-side interviews with fishermen, tag reports, and reported commercial catch.

I've caught 2 tagged fish in the last 10 years and have been talked with 1 time in the past 20 years. There were several others in the room that expressed the same sentiment, many who spend a lot more time on the water than I do.

I don't really know what the answer is but I believe the plan is to leverage the recreational license to help tighten up those numbers by expanding the sample group.

Until then, YoY indexes are probably the best gauge of the health of the fishery and they aren't looking too hot.

[JakeF]

I hear ya. The rec catch and mortality statistics are pure conjecture. I personally believe the ASMFC's reported annual recreational harvest to be grossly inflated.

No, I can't back that up with factual statistics,,,, because THERE ARE NONE!!

No one has EVER approached me on the water, or on the shore, or by phone or email to collect data about my personal harvest trends.

If one were to assume that I take 2 fish for every day I go fishing, you'd be looking at an astounding number, where in reality I've not harvested a single fish this season,,,,, yet,,,, and I can honestly say with all confidence that every single fish I've caught has been in excellent condition upon release.