ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2013

[MAKAI]

Fisheries use of estimation numbers we know from past estimations is akin to a wild guess.

Cod anyone ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[numbskull]

The stock may be adequate, the quality of the fishery is not.

That is because quality is not something of concern when the management agenda is for maximum sustainable yield.

Given our numbers, northeast recreational fishermen deserve one species managed for the quality of the fishery, rather than yield. That is the best argument for gamefish status.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

The stock may be adequate, the quality of the fishery is not.

That is because quality is not something of concern when the management agenda is for maximum sustainable yield.

Given our numbers, northeast recreational fishermen deserve one species managed for the quality of the fishery, rather than yield. That is the best argument for gamefish status.

You would need to change Federal law to that. Eliminating the commercial fishery would have effect on management targets.

[l.i.fish.in.vt]

numbskull,not sure what you mean by ''quality fishing'',but if you mean size,i would have to say the average recreational fisherman gives a rats ass about size.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by l.i.fish.in.vt

numbskull,not sure what you mean by ''quality fishing'',but if you mean size,i would have to say the average recreational fisherman gives a rats ass about size.

By "quality" I mean fishery that is managed so the fish are available throughout their historic range in reasonable abundance and natural size distribution.

We are no where close to that presently. The large YOY class 2 years ago makes the population numbers work so that management can claim the species is not over fished.

"Not over fished" is a hell of a long way aways from a healthy fishery.
A healthy fishery is what we want, not a maximally exploited one, even if that exploitation is "sustainable".

[zacs]

Originally Posted by numbskull

A healthy fishery is what we want, not a maximally exploited one, even if that exploitation is "sustainable".

I think this sums it up best. Unfortunately, Mike is right, the managers' hands are tied due to federal law.

Apparently, according to Mike, MSA is "up"? next year, so I guess now is the chance to make a change.

Changing to gamefish status, or 1@36" are all great mantras for Striped Bass regulation, but striped bass are just a very small piece of a gigantic confusing puzzle which is managed by MSA, and MSA won't allow for anything except taking MSY.

The way we assess & manage fisheries needs to drastically change, and it sounds like the chance to do this is with the re-visiting of the MSA next year.

The first question is, what is the new management scheme that is better than what they do now?

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

You would need to change Federal law to that. Eliminating the commercial fishery would have effect on management targets.

No you don't. The fishery would still be managed by ASMFC, the meaning of maximum sustainable yield would no longer have an economic connotation, instead it would have a quality context.......that the fishery yield maintain maximum quality for recreational use instead of economic value.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

No you don't. The fishery would still be managed by ASMFC, the meaning of maximum sustainable yield would no longer have an economic connotation, instead it would have a quality context.......that the fishery yield maintain maximum quality for recreational use instead of economic value.

There is no "economic connotation" to MSY, MSY is based on the numbers of fish, not their value. Actually the term as contained in the Act is "optimum yield" which NOAA has defined as MSY.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

There is no "economic connotation" to MSY, MSY is based on the numbers of fish, not their value. Actually the term as contained in the Act is "optimum yield" which NOAA has defined as MSY.

Bull, and you know it. As long as a fish has commercial use, "maximum sustainable yield" implies optimizing that use. Indeed the act that created the ASMFC mandates such full stock exploitation.

Which again is the strongest argument to make Striped Bass a game fish.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Bull, and you know it. As long as a fish has commercial use, "maximum sustainable yield" implies optimizing that use. Indeed the act that created the ASMFC mandates such full stock exploitation.

Which again is the strongest argument to make Striped Bass a game fish.

What can I say, except that you are totally wrong? SSBs, ACLs, F, et al are set in numbers of fish or pounds of fish, no dollar or economic value is considered or implied. If striped bass were a game fish up and down the coast, nothing would change unless the lkaw was changed, they would still be managed to produce MSY.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

There is no "economic connotation" to MSY, MSY is based on the numbers of fish, not their value. Actually the term as contained in the Act is "optimum yield" which NOAA has defined as MSY.

Just to clarify here.

MSY is measured in pounds not numbers of fish

OY absolutely includes financial data as well as stock data