Cape cod canal C&R only question

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

As far as slot limits go, the general consensus at this point among us wonks, is that it will only work if the limits are continually adjusted to protect the few big year classes we have coming into fishable sizes.

That is what needs to be done in the near term. Good reason to have a moratorium for awhile. After that, a slot of moderately small fish would cut the harvest of breeding females by transfer some of the pressure to males.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That is what needs to be done in the near term. Good reason to have a moratorium for awhile. After that, a slot of moderately small fish would cut the harvest of breeding females by transfer some of the pressure to males.

Not in the biggest segment of the fishery, the Chesapeake bay stock. Males of the Chessie stock don't migrate out of the bay. Hudson and Delaware males are already being caught. A moratorium is not needed, the stock right now is about twice as large as the stock was when the last moratorium happened. As someone at the meeting last week summed it up, we just need to set the table and wait for mother nature to provide the conditions for a huge spawning year.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Not in the biggest segment of the fishery, the Chesapeake bay stock. Males of the Chessie stock don't migrate out of the bay. Hudson and Delaware males are already being caught. A moratorium is not needed, the stock right now is about twice as large as the stock was when the last moratorium happened. As someone at the meeting last week summed it up, we just need to set the table and wait for mother nature to provide the conditions for a huge spawning year.

The data on male migration relative to the Chesapeake comes from some old, limited studies and there has been more recent info that indicates a larger amount of male migration than originally thought. I would have to look for the literature, but it is out there. You imply that none of the coastal fish outside the Hudson range are male and that is not supported.

The point of moratorium now would be to take the pressure off all the year classes to reduce the need for a moving slot. Yes we can just set the table and wait for mother nature, but sometimes mother nature doesn't cooperate. The whole business of maximum sustainable yield got us where we are.

The stock is twice as large as when the last moratorium occurred, but the total pressure from recreational and commercial fisherman is multiple times larger than the pressure in the 60's and 70's that precipitated the moratorium.

[bloocrab]

Originally Posted by zimmy

... The stock is twice as large as when the last moratorium occurred, but the total pressure from recreational and commercial fisherman is multiple times larger than the pressure in the 60's and 70's that precipitated the moratorium.

That's the sad truth.
As much as you'd think it's great that more people are fishing then ever before (which equates to cha-ching for the economy)...these people only know the "now"...they've nothing to compare it to. AND, if things do go awry, they'll just pick up their golf bags like Paul did and hang up their rods until this "fad" returns for them.

When I've taken friends or family out on the boat with me, they often ask.."why can't we just fish right here?" There is a mind-set out there, where many people see this ginormous ocean and think there are fish everywhere. very misleading to those who don't really care or know as some do.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The data on male migration relative to the Chesapeake comes from some old, limited studies and there has been more recent info that indicates a larger amount of male migration than originally thought. I would have to look for the literature, but it is out there. You imply that none of the coastal fish outside the Hudson range are male and that is not supported.

The point of moratorium now would be to take the pressure off all the year classes to reduce the need for a moving slot. Yes we can just set the table and wait for mother nature, but sometimes mother nature doesn't cooperate. The whole business of maximum sustainable yield got us where we are.

The stock is twice as large as when the last moratorium occurred, but the total pressure from recreational and commercial fisherman is multiple times larger than the pressure in the 60's and 70's that precipitated the moratorium.

Care to provide a cite for those "more recent" studies? I haven't been able to find them.

The striped bass stock is NOT managed for MSY, its managed for abundance, check out the ASMFC FMPs and pay particular attention to the reference points. MSY is a substitute for "Optimum Yield" in the MSA and the MSA does NOT apply to he ASMFC.

If mother nature doesn't cooperate, there is almost nothing we can do to recover the stock.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Care to provide a cite for those "more recent" studies? I haven't been able to find them.

The striped bass stock is NOT managed for MSY, its managed for abundance, check out the ASMFC FMPs and pay particular attention to the reference points. MSY is a substitute for "Optimum Yield" in the MSA and the MSA does NOT apply to he ASMFC.

If mother nature doesn't cooperate, there is almost nothing we can do to recover the stock.

It has been a few years since I read the literature, so I would have to dig in my piles to get it. The quote below, which comes from the link, has what I have understood for several years to be the current understanding. It isn't that they don't leave, they tend to stay around longer. They still leave and are harvested throughout the range of other bay fish. https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/striper.html

"After about 3 years, at the juvenile stage, the females begin to migrate to the ocean where they mature. The males tend to remain in the estuary longer than the females."

I will read the details of how abundance targets vary from msy. Pretty sure they come from the same nest.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It has been a few years since I read the literature, so I would have to dig in my piles to get it. The quote below, which comes from the link, has what I have understood for several years to be the current understanding. It isn't that they don't leave, they tend to stay around longer. They still leave and are harvested throughout the range of other bay fish. https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/striper.html

"After about 3 years, at the juvenile stage, the females begin to migrate to the ocean where they mature. The males tend to remain in the estuary longer than the females."

Found this Migrations: Striped bass migrate north and south seasonally and ascend to rivers to spawn in the spring. Males in the Chesapeake Bay may forego coastal migrations and remain in the Bay."

From:https://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/striped-bass

And this: Kohlenstein
(1981) showed that approximately 50% of the 3-year-old female striped bass in Chesapeake Bay, and a smaller percentage of 2- and 4-year-old females, moved to the coast to join the migration annually. In contrast, few males of that age were migratory."

Fromhttps://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-008.pdf

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Found this Migrations: Striped bass migrate north and south seasonally and ascend to rivers to spawn in the spring. Males in the Chesapeake Bay may forego coastal migrations and remain in the Bay."

From:https://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/striped-bass

And this: Kohlenstein
(1981) showed that approximately 50% of the 3-year-old female striped bass in Chesapeake Bay, and a smaller percentage of 2- and 4-year-old females, moved to the coast to join the migration annually. In contrast, few males of that age were migratory."

Fromhttps://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-008.pdf

Yeah, I came across the "may forego" too, but there wasn't an explanation or source. It probably comes from that Kohlenstein paper, which I think was the one that lead to the assumption that males stayed in the bay. That is the right time frame. My recollection, and it's been probably 15 years since I actually read a lot of the related literature, was that they looked specifically at the young classes and it was extrapolated that males don't leave, but later studies determined that they just don't leave until they are older. I don't know if/what reasons were hypothesized, but my first guess would be linked to differences in time to mature between males and females. It is a critical consideration when evaluating benefits of a slot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Care to provide a cite for those "more recent" studies? I haven't been able to find them.

The striped bass stock is NOT managed for MSY, its managed for abundance, check out the ASMFC FMPs and pay particular attention to the reference points. MSY is a substitute for "Optimum Yield" in the MSA and the MSA does NOT apply to he ASMFC.

If mother nature doesn't cooperate, there is almost nothing we can do to recover the stock.

From the FMP-
Here is how the reference points (BRP's) you reference... come from

TOR #5 is “Update or redefine biological reference points (BRPs; point estimates or proxies for BMSY, SSBMSY, FMSY, MSY). Define stock status based on BRPs by stock component where possible. (these are all relative to maximum sustainable yield)

When you say it is managed for abundance, that is sort of like saying the amount of people is measured by how many there are. All of these things are measures of levels of abundance. You are correct that they are explicitly saying the goal is MSY, but in the 2018 plan, there are some key questions some might find interesting:

Does the Board want to manage the stock to:
– Maximize yield
– Maximize catch rates
– Maximize the availability of trophy fish

What is the acceptable level of risk when it
comes to preventing stock collapse?

and...
The Board has raised concern that the current
BRP’s are too conservative for various biological,
ecological, and socio-economic reasons and may
be restricting fishing unnecessarily.

That should give us all confidence in the process

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

From the FMP-
Here is how the reference points (BRP's) you reference... come from

TOR #5 is “Update or redefine biological reference points (BRPs; point estimates or proxies for BMSY, SSBMSY, FMSY, MSY). Define stock status based on BRPs by stock component where possible. (these are all relative to maximum sustainable yield)

When you say it is managed for abundance, that is sort of like saying the amount of people is measured by how many there are. All of these things are measures of levels of abundance. You are correct that they are explicitly saying the goal is MSY, but in the 2018 plan, there are some key questions some might find interesting:

Does the Board want to manage the stock to:
– Maximize yield
– Maximize catch rates
– Maximize the availability of trophy fish

What is the acceptable level of risk when it
comes to preventing stock collapse?

and...
The Board has raised concern that the current
BRP’s are too conservative for various biological,
ecological, and socio-economic reasons and may
be restricting fishing unnecessarily.

That should give us all confidence in the process

And you have honed in on the critical issue, we know an awful lot about the striped bass, now what will the managers at the ASMFC do with that knowledge? There are really only two questions, will they abide by amendment 6 and reduce the mortality to the levels necessary to rebuild the stock, or will they move the goalposts, aka target biomass and mortality figures to avoid doing anything that would further restrict fishing? My bet is that they will act to rebuild the species, but we won't know for sure until after the board meets in May.