is the year-of-the-young index out yet?

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I think the largest fish chart really has no significant meaning since the last couple of years people are reporting large amounts of large in the EEZ, and the lack of large inshore. They are probably onto a new source of bait, a change in cycle or an adaptation if you will. There also appears to be no consistancy in the YOY index across the whole time line. I am too stupid about this stuff anyway

The largest fish chart are actual facts, "reports of large amounts in the EEZ" are more or less hearsay without numbers of any kind and therefore less significant than the derby's numbers. That said, I am sure there are a body of fish migrating offshore, and perhaps this is where satellite tagging would help, but no one is really looking into the decline of the size, quality and numbers of fish.
I have to say we had plenty of fish around here in July nothing huge but decent numbers of 20's.

According to all the experts and articles I have read, we should have broken the world record by now...we were supposed to be seeing more 50#+ fish by now.

All of this IMO points to a overall decline in size, number and quality of bass. No doubt bait is a big part of the problem as well but as long as fishery "experts" focus on the problems by a species by species approach and not a big overall picture (including forage fish) I think we are doomed.

[JohnR]

Maybe we are in a mixed area, combination of being spoiled by the great 96 class of fish AND we are at a loss on the later classes.

[numbskull]

Time is running out for those of us over 50. If we are looking at 20 years for a 50 lb fish, these consecutive low year classes are grim news.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The largest fish chart are actual facts, "reports of large amounts in the EEZ" are more or less hearsay without numbers of any kind and therefore less significant than the derby's numbers. That said, I am sure there are a body of fish migrating offshore, and perhaps this is where satellite tagging would help, but no one is really looking into the decline of the size, quality and numbers of fish.
I have to say we had plenty of fish around here in July nothing huge but decent numbers of 20's.

According to all the experts and articles I have read, we should have broken the world record by now...we were supposed to be seeing more 50#+ fish by now.

All of this IMO points to a overall decline in size, number and quality of bass. No doubt bait is a big part of the problem as well but as long as fishery "experts" focus on the problems by a species by species approach and not a big overall picture (including forage fish) I think we are doomed.

I don't think the biggest fish taken over a 5 week period of the derby really represents a realistic sample of the overall health of bass. There are so many factors that can affect shore fishing - as stated above, the gray seals for one.

As a friend of mine once said, "when we shore fish, we are just outlining the vast area these fish live in. Those big fish from back in the day could still be around, just 5 miles off shore."

Even when a scientific research study of the health of fish stocks is done, there still seems to be an immense difficulty pinpointing the health of the fish stocks. Just looking at the YOY chart demonstrates this - numbers completely all over the place with no real consistency or statistically significant trending aside from in the 80s.

Or maybe I'm just hopeful that all the stories I hear from the old timers talking, that start "remember when" and "back 15 years ago" will come around again sometime.

[Mr. Sandman]

While I don't deny it's not the best statistical sample but it is a somewhat consistent sample that has been taken for 63 years and shows some general trends even if you ignore the absolute numbers themselves...besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?...Oh yeah, I forgot, they are being forced by the feds to create a saltwater fishing lic...this will fix everything 50 years from now, IF they use the money correctly and require all fishermen to report their catch.

Moreover, if you look an any other trends from any source do you see improvements of any kind? All I hear is "according to the best science available" the fish is not over fished. Their best science is pretty bad if you ask me...if this fishery goes to the point of collapse again I think recs should demand prison sentences for all those working in the fishery departments. I am serious.

[numbskull]

[QUOTE=Mr. Sandman;717861]...besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?...Oh yeah, I forgot, they are being forced by the feds to create a saltwater fishing lic...this will fix everything 50 years from now, IF they use the money correctly and require all fishermen to report their catch.

[QUOTE]

Actually, the more likely outcome is that the data obtained after the registry begins will establish a new "baseline" which they then will consider the norm for the population....even though it is only a shadow of what we once had.

[l.i.fish.in.vt]

''or if we were stupid we'd have a kayak'' it is amazing the differance a few hundred feet can have

[JFigliuolo]

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

''or if we were stupid we'd have a kayak'' it is amazing the differance a few hundred feet can have

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?..

How about doing real sampling on the spawning grounds every spring? MD DNR has been doing sampling up in the spawning rivers for years. BTW- they are also the ones that do the YOY survey. NY DEC also sample the Hudson population in the spring. If you want to really get the facts start at http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocument...tockStatus.pdf

[maddmatt]

if we weren't eternal optimists we wouldn't be surfcasters


or

if we weren't dumb we'd have boats