Very nice piece from SJ Blog on Striped bass and ASMFC

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

So the "science" now shows that we have been overfishing (even if the SSB is still not formally ruined) for 10 years and F was set too high, something that has been painfully apparent to the vast majority of serious recreational striped bass fishermen for years now, and you feel the ASMFC has done a "pretty good job" by ignoring it?

I am sure you are well intentioned and you sincerely believe what you have advocated is right, but I would be interested to understand how you rationalize what you have chosen to believe in the face of what has obviously occurred.

We have a new stock assessment, which brings a new look at the situation. According to the previous stock assessment we were not overfishing and according to both stock assessments they are not overfished. Don't you understand that 1) you and the other guys on these discussions (me included) are not "science" and science is what is supposed to govern fishery management, and 2) things change, recruitment may be higher or lower in any given year than what was assumed in the stock assessment, that's why they do new assessment, to figure out if we are still on track in managing the species.

The board is reacting quickly to both adopt the new stock assessment (which they have to do before they can manage the fishery using the new reference points) and to take action which will bring the harvest down.

The sky is not falling.

[Slipknot]

Mako Mike, I'm not buying that, I thought the stock assessment said they are on their way to overfishing next year, yet they chose to do nothing until 2015.

2014 is not here yet, why can't they make at least a change to 1 fish per day for 2014? it is not in the middle of the season yet!

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Mako Mike, I'm not buying that, I thought the stock assessment said they are on their way to overfishing next year, yet they chose to do nothing until 2015.

2014 is not here yet, why can't they make at least a change to 1 fish per day for 2014? it is not in the middle of the season yet!

1st, lets be clear about what it said. it said that sticking with the current fishing mortality there is an 80% chance that we will overfish next year. It also said that there is a 100% chance that they will NOT be overfished in 2015. That has to do with the recruitment of the 2011 year class.

Why can't they go to 1 @ 28 for 2014? Well, for one thing no one knows what going to 1 @ 28 would mean as far as achieving the F target. The only thing we do suspect, is that it is unlikely to be enough to meet the F target. So should they adopt an addendum that fails to achieve the target and then adopt yet another addendum, that does achieve the target?

Maybe, but even if they did that, the regs wouldn't kick in until about half way through the season for many areas. If they adopted that addendum at the last meeting, they would still have to vote on approval and the release of the associated public information document at the next meeting in March. Then there has to be a series of public hearings along with a comment period. Then they could vote to approve the addendum, maybe at the May meeting. The states then have a period time to adopt their new regulations, so, at best we would be looking at new regs in the June - July time frame, and in some states, where the regs have to be adopted by legislative action (like NJ), they likely wouldn't go into effect until much later.

Instead the board voted to move forward with a comprehensive revision of the regs that will achieve the revise F target. I'll wager that they will go to 1 @ something, possibly along with other restrictions (I'm in favor of specified seasons). So they will probably adopt new measures in May, then go to public hearings followed by adopting the new measures in the fall of 2014 with an effective date of Jan. 2015.

IOW they are pursuing a course of "ready, aim, fire"! Rather than a course of "ready, fire, aim."

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

. Don't you understand that 1) you and the other guys on these discussions (me included) are not "science" and science is what is supposed to govern fishery management,

The sky is not falling.

The sky is falling, Mike. Those of us in our mid-fifties and on are going to be well past our surf fishing prime by the time these 2011 fish are worth catching.
As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.

Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.

In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".

Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.

Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.

In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".

Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

As for the "poor quality of available data" that is taken into account. Have you ever read a stock assessment in detail? The scientists use what is called the "precautionary principle" in making the assessments and often IMHO are overly cautious in the resulting assessment. That's what's killing us with BSB right now, the stock is supposedly waaaay over the target SSB but the ABC is set very low because of the "data poor" state of the stock.

I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

That explains why you are content believing the ASMFC is managing them well.

Originally Posted by MakoMike

I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it. I have seen continued depletion of most of the stocks of fish I would like to catch and I blame apologists like yourself for facilitating such mismanagement.

You also seem unaware that science is useless with bad data, and that science is subservient to real world data not the other way around. To pretend that fishery management is based on science is ridiculous. It is based on data collection that makes use of science to predict the outcomes using that data set.

When you have bad data, you have bad results. There has been an abundance of real world information indicating that the striped bass data being used to predict management outcomes has been bad for the last 10 years. The ASMFC has chosen not to believe it for political and economic reasons......not "scientific" ones.

We just see things differently. Your perspective is that the fact that the striped bass SSB has not totally collapsed is proof the management has been OK. The fact that striped bass recreational catch is far below what the main user group wants does not matter. The ASMFC has done their job and killed every last "extra" fish out there. Now if they would just do the same for BSB everything would be grand.

To each their own, but why so many gloating posts from you about it on a board dedicated to striped bass fishing if you don't fish for bass anymore?

[afterhours]

This ones for you mike....

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it.

Then you weren't paying attention:

Originally Posted by 16 U.S.C. 1851 as amended in 1996

98-623

(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.

[Sea Dangles]

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

I'll accept that. But I am past the point where anything done for striped bass will have any effect in my remaining lifetime. The fish I want to catch in the years I have left are out there swimming now, and disappearing by the millions of lbs each year.

Yes, I'm plenty bitter about it. Yes, my bitterness is ineffectual, but I make no apology for it.

Anybody who thinks the striped bass fishery has been well managed since the last collapse does not share any perspective I admire. Indeed, we all would have likely been better off if such a person had stayed out of fishery management.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

Thanks, I needed that.

[numbskull]

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Originally Posted by numbskull

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all user groups.

Originally Posted by numbskull

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

The Scientists control the catch, its really that simple. The Science & statistical committees set the ABC, ACLs etc. The rest of the management structure has to abide by their determinations, no if ands or buts about it. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[smac]

yeah shut it down. Then I won't feel like I am missing something while working on my house during the fishing season. 10 years is about how much time I need.