ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2013

[MakoMike]

ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2013
State of the Stock:
In 2012, the Atlantic striped bass stock was not overfished or experiencing overfishing
relative to the new reference points from the 2013 SAW/SARC57 (Figure B1-B3). Female
spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated at 61.5 thousand mt (136 million lbs), above the
SSB threshold of 57,904 mt, but below the SSB target of 72,380 mt. Total fishing mortality was
estimated at 0.188, below the F threshold of 0.213 but above the F target of 0.175.
When compared to the biological reference points currently used in management (ASMFC
2008), the stock is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing. Female SSB in 2012 is above
both the target (46,101 mt) and the threshold (36,000 mt), and F2012 is below both the target
(0.30) and the threshold (0.34).

[MakoMike]

The entire report is available at: http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/c...1314/partb.pdf

[piemma]

So I guess this means we are good to go and can expect the next new mark will be 4 a day 16" minimum!

If you believe this then I have some great Jersey shore property that I could sell you cheap. Undamaged by Sandy.

[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.

[buckman]

Appears to be good news if true ....no?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[redlite]

I have never really followed/ read / or understood the science and the data put together in these reports. I tend to base my assumptions on personal findings and those of fishermen as opposed to scientists.
That being said, i am perplexed
Not more than 15 mins before they announced they were reopening the commercial bass season, i was on the phone with a good friend of mine that is heavily involved in the stock assessment here in mass. They said that based upon their findings the stocks here in mass are scarily near collapse. Based upon their findings which they base on their test catches and licensed dealer landing reports. They said that other than the school off of chatham and a school in the bay, there is little to be found. The schools they usually have out on stellwagon were not there. The north shore was dismal. Buzzards bay/ islands were barren wastelands. They concluded that at the current rate and statua they estimate the sustainability of the stocks at maybe a year.
As for our shop down here we normally have 60k to 100k lbs of bass come in. This year 4 thousand lbs for the whole season. And a lot of those fish were sore covered
True reasonings for this and what it indicates i am not sure but it cant be good
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

the seals are doing an Irish Jig

[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 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.

[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".

[Jackbass]

You know all BS aside gamefish/commercial etc. The managers manage based on yield it is not in their interest to make sure there is a multitude of fish available. Just enough to re produce and feed the people etc.

The thing that bothers me is why can they not reduce the coastal quota by 10% every year for five years. Leave it up to the states on how to distribute the catch. Maintain commercial quota, reduce recreational to 1 a day however it works the best for the state. Then raise the SSB thresh hold by 10 annually for three years. Once the stock gets to a point say 30% greater than what it is now. Then try what ever you want. But why can't the bar just be raised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

There will be another moratorium within 10 years. if I were betting, the number would be six. Ssb was around 15 percent below target, as usual. and that is based on their crappy data.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Clammer]

less than 6 IMO

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There will be another moratorium within 10 years. if I were betting, the number would be six. Ssb was around 15 percent below target, as usual. and that is based on their crappy data.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reaction to a situation rarely leads to success in anything. No business or individual ever had success sitting around waiting for opportunity to fall
In its lap. I don't know why we accept this from fisheries managers etc. It is the management plan currently but why don't we as fisherman have the ability to change the situation. There should be enough for everyone. Commercial recreational etc. If they shift the SSB numbers gradually upwards and stay hard with the numbers. There will be plenty for everyone. Rather than allowing it to go to the toilet and then acting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

You know all BS aside gamefish/commercial etc. The managers manage based on yield it is not in their interest to make sure there is a multitude of fish available. Just enough to re produce and feed the people etc.

The thing that bothers me is why can they not reduce the coastal quota by 10% every year for five years. Leave it up to the states on how to distribute the catch. Maintain commercial quota, reduce recreational to 1 a day however it works the best for the state. Then raise the SSB thresh hold by 10 annually for three years. Once the stock gets to a point say 30% greater than what it is now. Then try what ever you want. But why can't the bar just be raised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They can't do that because that would raise the SSB above what is necessary to achieve MSY, by law they are required to manage the stock to 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.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

They can't do that because that would raise the SSB above what is necessary to achieve MSY, by law they are required to manage the stock to MSY.

I completely understand the law dictates MSY what I am getting at is if the SSB threshold is the management tool as opposed to what humans can take from the fishery the fishery would be better for all use groups. If we consistently manage based on what we can utilize or take there is real potential for an outside force to create epic collapse. For example in the sixties and seventies managers could not figure on how PCB's would effect spawn cycles. It took a lure make from Attleboro and a handful of biologists and fishermen to bring that to light.

Maybe the law is to manage the fishery to MSY I think we are learning in general we need to start looking at what we have in reserve. As opposed to what we can take and use.

If we continue to manage based on yield and spawning triggers we have the real potential to get to an overfished point with weak year classes pushing us straight back to moratorium.

I realize this is all fantasy land. But maybe the laws should be changed to protect the biomass benchmark as opposed to protecting the yield.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[goosefish]

The managers have created paper fish--fish that exist only on paper. Stock assessment work is full of uncertainty. The commonsense rule--of what people see on the water--is impossible to quantify--and our present fishery management system is totally dependent on data, dependent to the point that science cannot fulfill it--because of $$$$. Who is going to pay for state and federal surveys, good surveys? And using landings and discards to come up with stock estimates seems tricky at best.

The paper fish thing happened a few years ago with codfish and back in 2004 with mackerel. Huge overestimates of stock abundance. Fish weren't there. The mackerel estimates were so big it brought over from Alaska a few of the pair trawlers. What tiny schools of mackerel those guys did find they annihilated and then quickly shifted to sea herring.

I'm glad my job isn't to come up with a single number that tells the fishing communities how many fish swim in the sea. But what is the alternative? We need the number. Not easy. It's a fu*cking labyrinth.

[Nebe]

Temporary MPA's are the only solution that will yield total recovery of a complete top to bottom ecosystem
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Woops. Thought this was another thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Mpa's work on ground fish.

I saw the writing on the wall back in '05-'07. How many times can you get skunked without coming to the conclusion that there are not as many fish around? Yes bait patterns change. I too think a moratorium is coming our way and I can't understand why the limit of 2 @28" can't be reduce to one at "36, or something... Why wait till its a serious problem?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Mr. Sandman]

I have spoken to fish counting scientists at the DMF...and asked them why were there so many more stripers around years ago and far fewer today...

Not a direct quote but I am summarizing: "That is because there were too many fish around before...there are enough around now"

I asked:
how do know there are enough around:
We have a good handle on the numbers and size of fish in the population.

I then asked...

what if you are wrong? You said the same thing about codfish stocks and now you admit you were wrong about that. wouldn't it be prudent to be more conservative with your estimation? What is your confidence in these numbers?

silence... then canned BS response about they feel good and can sleep at night. I told him I am glad someone sleeps well cause I sure as hell don't.

I have ZERO confidence in the people managing fishery resources. Technically I am sure they are brilliant people in the ranks but there are too many bureaucratic holes that allow public opinion to morph the final regulations making them meaningless.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Mpa's work on ground fish.

I saw the writing on the wall back in '05-'07. How many times can you get skunked without coming to the conclusion that there are not as many fish around? Yes bait patterns change. I too think a moratorium is coming our way and I can't understand why the limit of 2 @28" can't be reduce to one at "36, or something... Why wait till its a serious problem?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because like Mike said it is managed to MSY. States could alter how they manage their portion of the yield via 1@36 recreationally but odds are under the current plan if they do that recreationally they will add to commercial quota. Resulting in a net zero fish saved for future.

It is pretty telling though that in MA they re opened the fishery twice and did not fill the quota when in recent years they have always exceeded the quota.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Because like Mike said it is managed to MSY. States could alter how they manage their portion of the yield via 1@36 recreationally but odds are under the current plan if they do that recreationally they will add to commercial quota. Resulting in a net zero fish saved for future.

It is pretty telling though that in MA they re opened the fishery twice and did not fill the quota when in recent years they have always exceeded the quota.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not quite true. There are two Catch quotas (ACL), one for recreational and one for commercial, and in states where there is a commercial fishery one doesn't affect the other. In NY, where there is a commercial fishery the rule for recreational anglers not fishing on a charter/party boat is one fish over 28 inches and one fish over 40 inches. I believe that in Maine there is a slot limit and its not 2 at 28. So states can elect to be more conservative than 2 @ 28 without increasing the commercial limit, in that state. Of course if the population eventually grows the TAL for both recreational and commercial fisheries will eventually be increased.

[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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I have ZERO confidence in the people managing fishery resources. Technically I am sure they are brilliant people in the ranks but there are too many bureaucratic holes that allow public opinion to morph the final regulations making them meaningless.

Prior to amendment 6, action would have been taken years ago based on a bad yoy index. Now six out of seven years of lousy yoy lead to no change because of one good year. I get so fired up at the idiots who make these rules and by the same token I wanna say fu to the guys who think it we shouldn't say anything about idiots who repeatedly kill tons of big fish in order to show their buddies in order to overcome other feelings of inadequacy. I don't care if the law says they can. The lawmakers and idiots are fing up something very important to me.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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.

Duh.

As long as the fishery is manipulated for maximum yield....as it will be when commercial interests are involved....the quality of fishing will suffer.

Obviously if recreational fishermen kill equivalent numbers of fish there is no difference. But that is not what happens. Once a fishery loses economic value it is managed for recreational quality rather than maximum yield and the pressure to kill and keep fish diminishes as does the pressure on the fishery scientists to keep justifying such kill for the economic well being of a small subset of resource users.