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

[BasicPatrick]

Very Good Report Jake...Thanks

I would have liked to see more but in my experience that was an above average turnout. A proposal has to be taking something away for people to fill the room.

[JakeF]

Another thing that really jumps out at me is this. Take another look at this graph...



In 1988 the Recruitment (YoY) was at approx. 5 million fish. During that same year, the Female SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) was also right at 5 million fish. So in 1988 you have biomass of approx. 10 million pounds of spawning females, and end up with an additional 5 million YoY fish as a result.

In stark contrast is the year 2007. In 2007, we had an estimated 120 million pounds of Female SSB, yet we had a Recruitment level of only 5 million fish, same as 1988.

That's scary to me... and just another indication that something is seriously wrong in the spawning grounds....

During the Rhode Island meeting I asked Ms. Meserve and the RI appointees to the ASMFC about this specifically and asked if they could give us any information on why the recruitment level is SO low, given the current level of female Spawning Stock Biomass. They did not have an answer for me. Ms. Meserve DID speculate that it is most likely due to environmental issues in the spawning grounds and confirmed that the fishery is NOT being replenished at anywhere close the the same rate at which it is being depleted.

[Slipknot]

Good stuff there Jake
thanks for posting and getting to the meeting

[numbskull]

The stock was not recovered until 1987. Including numbers from 1981 to 1987 when deciding where to set the JAI artificially sets it lower than it should be and makes it easier to keep the fishery open. Surely they know that, so why did they draw the line at 1981??????

[MAKAI]

Glad I was there to look them in the eye, glazed over as they seemed to be.

[BassDawg]

THANK YOU, very much, for making available the information and for your dedication to our beloved prey. i am still digesting your report and only had time for a brief perusal of your post, as the project that has me outside of DC for the time being prevented me from attending the hearing this week.

while i get that science takes time and handcuffs the ASMFC(they can't act without it), wouldn't American history indicate that more often than not "the" numbers can be manipulated to suit the interests with the deepest pockets? and i detest how science works in reverse of an event. that being said,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

i firmly believe that what would suit the stock biomass in the immediate future is a more proactive approach to limiting the TOTAL take (1 @ 36" rec, and a commensurate comm reduction) and an initiative to protect the forage. what good is it to reduce the take and let more stripers spawn and eat, if we do not increase the availability of their preferred forage? not coincidently, doesn't malnutrition make striped bass more susceptable to myco as well as impede the healing process once they become infected with it? as i understand it, pogies provide the best bang for the nutritional buck, providing there are enough of them to be mawed upon. on my former point, if we as recreational fishermen are willing to take a 50% hit and increase the size limit, then why can't the comm's join us in that proactive measure for the GOOD of the species?

please don't misunderstand my position, i am not making this an us versus them battle~~ my intention is to protect the SSB first and foremost. along the lines of leveling the playing field, somewhat, and steering us more towards a "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander" approach. if it means that they can no longer sell them profittably, then perhaps gamefish status is where we should be heading. besides, striped bass are loaded with pcb's and mercury levels continue to rise within them, through no fault of their own. i only eat striper twice a year for these same reasons.

lastly, i would like to thank Patrick for his tireless devotion and vigilence in seeing that our group stays engaged in the battle. kudos to everyone that made the hearing and for sharing your thoughts and understandings of the process. i shore hope to be there for the next one!

[JohnR]

Jake - I will add a couple points (OK, opinion ) tomorrow but thank you for putting something together that was better flushed out than what I was putting together. Good meeting you too

As stated above, the turnout was overwhelmingly (completely IIRC) against any expansion of the commercial quota. What was clear from the numbers is that we are heading for a crash if current trends continue. Add to the that the issues of the mycobacterioisis and the striped bass, as we know is in for some significantly hard times. Factor in the more conservative numbers of the juvenile index and we are getting even closer to one of the triggers that will bring about a more stringent quotas for rec & comm.

I wish I was able to go to RI today but I could not get out of work early enough. I proceeded then to catch my 2 smallest fish of this season.

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by numbskull

The stock was not recovered until 1987. Including numbers from 1981 to 1987 when deciding where to set the JAI artificially sets it lower than it should be and makes it easier to keep the fishery open. Surely they know that, so why did they draw the line at 1981??????

My understanding is that, for the Virginia survey which I used above as an example, that 1981 is the year in which the survey method was standardized for that particular spawning area. Years prior to 1981 either no data was collected, or the data that was collected is generally not believed to be as accurate as it should be. This is why the Technical Committee is recommending that they be removed from the data set.

The same goes for the New Jersey JAI index, were under the new definition, all years prior to 1986 will be removed from the survey. Under the new definition, the New Jersey JAI index will go from this (years circled in red to be removed):


To this (data sets in green were above the threshold prior to recalculation):





You asked me on another forum why I would support the proposed new definition, since it still includes years prior to when the stock was declared "rebuilt".

My answer was this. I support it because that is what is on the table and it's better than what we currently have. I agree that ideally we should get rid of all pre-1987 numbers, no argument there. Unfortunately that is not what is on the table.

There are two options on the table for this issue.
Option 1 = Status Quo, no change
Option 2 = Redefine the definition to a slightly more conservative position and make sure that future low JAI indices (which we know are coming) do not cause the bar to drop.

In my opinion, there is only one responsible choice given those two options.

If I was given the option to scrap the whole document and write my own, I'd go for that as well

It is also important to note that the New Jersey index and the Virginia index are the only two which are being redefined. The other 3 indices would remain unchanged ,,,, for now.

[JakeF]

Here's an update on this... All public comment is in and has been tallied. I have a PDF fresh off the presses from the ASMFC which is a breakdown state-by-state of all public comment received. It is attached at the bottom of this post.

The Management Board at the ASMFC will be voting on this Addendum at their annual meeting in South Carolina on November 9th.

I also have the contact information of every person on that board, and have emailed every one of them. It is also attached at the bottom of this post, in case any of you are interested in doing the same.

Fight the good fight...

[piemma]

Good job Jake. So if you take a look at the PDF you will see that the vast majority of the people submitting letters, calls, or other forms of communication, favor a reduction in the rec limit to 1 fish per day, perhaps a slot but most assuredly an increase in the size limit.

This is great news for us. The bass population cannot take the wanton destruction that is taking place. This is especially true of the charter boat guys who take out once a year sports and kill 2 fish for every man on board.