jps1010

BST Users
  • Content count

    341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About jps1010

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • About Me:
    Creator of cell phone app called the Fisherman's Mobile Weigh Station.
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Promoting catch & release
  • What I do for a living:
    Sr. Business Mgr.

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Long Island

Recent Profile Visitors

1,255 profile views
  1. Something needs to be done. Status quo is not working.
  2. Okay, thanks. Please keep us posted.
  3. I am not saying that beach replenishment doesn't play a part. I'm sure it does to a small degree. However, I am saying that it is not the cause for the poor fishing we have been experiencing over the past few years. Overfishing is just like it was in the 80s. There has been 0 beach replenishment where I fish and there is 0 hard structure but when there were more fish around less than 10 years ago, those beaches produced plenty of fish both large and small.
  4. Are they out of their minds and expect us to buy that BS? I'd like to know who is saying that so I can share with them the horrible fishing I have had for the past several years.
  5. Funny, I just came across this. I can say the same about you. No leave it as is and continue to blame everything else and watch the stocks decline further. So I guess its only a coincidence that the poor fishing most have had coincides with the recent findings below. As for the carp in my lake, the dock is not in the water or even over it. We built it along the grass line. Article from Fissues: Many striped bass anglers up and down the coast are very concerned about the status of the stock. Last week, a stock assessment workshop (SAW) held a public webinar, where a Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) was provided an opportunity to review the science surrounding the benchmark stock assessment set to come out in February 2019 at the ASMFC meeting. There is a lot of explaining to do in order to understand what I’m about to show you. First and foremost, the SARC/SAW conclusions on the status of striped bass still have a very long process ahead. The final assessment and peer-review reports are still in draft. The main report will include the peer-review as well as potential changes from the Striped Bass Technical Committee. So, while the science is clearly there, we have a lot of obstacles to face before something meaningful can be done to save our beloved striped bass. I’d like to revisit 2012 when harvest was reduced on the coast by 25% and in the Chesapeake Bay by 20.5%. Those reductions should have been in the neighborhood of 34%. But, the young of the year numbers for the 2011-year class came out and showed one of the best recruiting years on record. The 2011-year class was supposed to save the stock. It was also a huge excuse not to take the cuts we needed. Furthermore, the bay states used the fact that female stripers start leaving the Chesapeake at age 3. So, it is a predominately male fishery. As the stock is managed on the population of spawning age females, males don’t really count in the grand scheme of things. So, rather than do what was needed, the reduction was chipped away to 25% and 20.5% respectively. All the coastal states besides New Jersey met the goal. The bay states, in particular, Maryland did not. In 2012, Maryland anglers harvested 1.26 million pounds of striped bass. As the robust 2011-year class matured, the harvest skyrocketed to 4.3 million pounds in 2016. Here’s the link. It is on page 22 for those interested. I’ll ask the folks from the coast one very simple question. Did you see a dramatic rise in the number of striped bass in the 28 to 32-inch range? If you didn’t, it is because Maryland anglers slaughtered the year class as soon as it became legal to do so. Apparently, not all the females leave at age 3. Striped bass are managed on biological reference points (BRP’s). The dotted line is the threshold and the stock of spawning females cannot fall below this number. Please note that this chart is based on pounds of fish. You will need to remember that moving forward. The threshold female spawning stock biomass was based on its abundance in 1995. That makes a lot of sense to me. 1995 was the year the stock was declared recovered. It should be a valuable memory to hold dear. 1995 represents a time when all of the sacrifice played out in the most important fishery in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coming back from the brink. I do some work in the clean water arena. One of the greatest tricks ever played is to shift baseline. When an entity doesn’t meet water quality standards, the standards can always be lowered. That’s a lot easier than doing the hard work needed to meet the standard. Attempts have already been made to shift the baseline for striped bass. About a year ago, I started hearing whispers in various meetings. People were saying that the current biological reference points (BRPs) were unattainable. Then, things got worse. Entire models were developed for alternate management approaches. As you can guess, these models would have allowed for greater harvest. I want you all to consider the ramifications of these events. If the BRP’s are adjusted, that will be the new normal. If the threshold is lowered, 2018 is the new norm… shifting baselines at its best. The alternate models failed peer review at SARC/SAW. We dodged a bullet. It is striking to think that biologists would work so hard to make striped bass fishing worse, but that was the task that they were given by the Striped Bass Management Board. So the threat is still there. There will be a great effort to shift the female spawning stock biomass threshold to a lower level, and increase the threshold for fishing mortality. We should all be familiar with the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). It is the recreational data collection system that managers use to estimate our catch. MRIP is a relatively new system. It was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences earlier in the year and found to be acceptable. There were several suggestions to improve the data. One of these suggestions was using cell phones rather than house phones for surveys. While that has not yet been done, MRIP has replaced the household telephone survey with a survey sent out in the mail. This simple change resulted in more robust data as well as the reality that stripers are being harvested at a greater rate than previously thought. The amber line is the previous accepted harvest rate. The blue line is the new harvest rate based on the MRIP re-calibration. Please understand the MRIP is a data collection system for anglers, not commercial fishermen. Because the harvest is greater, that means that there must have been more fish in the system that previously assumed. It isn’t a one for one transaction. Statistics and models never are. But, let’s just say we weren’t just harvesting more, there were more fish out there than previously assumed. This data adjusted the BRP’s by proxy. That’s about all the background information you need to understand what I’m about to show you. This is a screen shot of the conclusion from the SARC/SAW webinar. Striped bass are overfished and overfishing is occurring according to these numbers. The re-calibrated threshold is 91,436 mt. The SSB population is at 68,476 mt. That’s less than 75% of the threshold number. The last time we have been this low was in 1993, two years before the moratorium was lifted. The (f) number is the variable used to represent fishing mortality. The max allowed is .240. We are killing them at a rate of .307. Striped bass aren’t out in the ocean. We aren’t using the wrong bait. It isn’t the commercial sector’s fault. WE KILLED THEM. Let that sink in. There is no 2011-year class waiting to replenish the stocks. They died at the hands of Maryland anglers. We now sit on the precipice of a managerial struggle. There are many that will try to shift the baseline by using lowering the BRP’s. They will say that the holding capacity of the Chesapeake Bay isn’t the same as 2006 when the stock peaked. They will say that the current levels are unattainable. How can we attain the proper population level, while killing them at this rate? They will try every trick in the book. It rests on our shoulders and ours alone to make sure the striped bass population recovers. It will take a herculean effort to turn the tide. But we can do it. Do we have any other choice? Striped bass have given us all countless good memories. They have taught our children countless lessons about the ocean and how to care for it. They have helped forge friendships. They have created a mutual bond across the coast. Don’t they deserve our time and effort when it is most needed? Haven’t stripers given enough? At what juncture do we decide to give back? The time is now. Saddle up everyone, we have until February 2019 to create an uproar. Be certain that the harvest more side will be working tirelessly to exploit the system. We have to work just as hard and hope that it is enough to ensure that those bonds, friendships, and lessons can continue with the next generation.
  6. I'm a size 9.5 but used to go with the size 9. I had about 3 pairs and never got a full season out of them with moderate use and rinsing after fishing. I had contacted the manufacturer and explained my expectations and got no where. I switched to LL Bean and only wish I would have done so sooner.
  7. It would be ideal but we will never be able to count every single fish in the ocean nor do we need to. The YOY index gives us a good idea as to what we could potentially expect in the future but we need to be mindful that these fish may be taken out of the mix through things like predation, disease and overfishing. The water quality has always been an issue and is what they said was the cause back in the 80s. It wasn’t. Overfishing was. I’m not saying water quality isn’t a problem, it is and should be addressed but it’s not the cause of this latest decline. Besides, the water quality hasn’t drastically declined in just a matter of a few years to cause the latest population dip.
  8. This was a good find. Thanks for sharing.
  9. I included this article for comparative purposes. Nearly 40 years ago we were having similar arguments as we do today when in reality, its not that complicated. Overfishing was the main cause then as it is now. I can say that with the upmost certainty having fished the 80s, the resurgence and the decline. I'm not saying pollution and global warming shouldn't be concerns, they should and they should be addressed but if pollution and global warming were behind this decline, it wouldn't have happened is such a short time frame. 2012 to even up to 2015 weren't bad and in some places it was pretty good. I fish the south shore of LI and the past three seasons have been abysmal in the waters I fish. I remember I was on a sand eel bite in 2013 and thought to myself I hope these fish leave because they were getting hammered from the beach and the boats. That, plus poor YOY recruitment for a number of years, I'm only surprised we didn't get here sooner. We overfish virtually everything. E.g. Goliath Grouper were nearly extinct. They implemented strict laws and years later I hear there are so many of them that they have become a nuisance. Also, when there were more bass around 10 years ago, they were getting plenty in the Carolinas. Think about it, you have less fishing coming into the mix, poor YOY, but the bags limits don't change for a number of years, what do we think is going to happen.
  10. Here is an interesting article I wanted to share. Way back when, they were also scratching their heads trying to figure out what was causing the decline. At that time they believed pollution may be the main culprit. I'm not saying that it didn't play a part but by no means was it the cause. Overfishing was. It reminds me of the arguments going on now. The suggested issues may have changed (i.e. climate change, changed migration routes, forage food issues, etc) but the main cause is still the same. OUTDOORS; Pollution and Striped Bass By NELSON BRYANT JUNE 27, 1981 The New York Times THOSE involved in the recently-launched study to determine the reasons for the decline in East Coast striped bass populations have already come up with one possible cause: the backbones of the fish may have been weakened by toxic chemicals. Scientists at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's National Fisheries Research Laboratory at Columbia, Mo., led by Dr. Paul Mehrle, a biochemist, and Dr. Terry Haines, a fisheries biologist, have been studying striped bass. They found that fry and fingerlings from the Hudson River, the Potomac River and the Nanticoke River in Maryland had weaker backbones than those -which contained no significant chemical residues - from the Edonton (N.C.) National Fish Hatchery. The extent to which a weakened backbone can affect survival is not clear but, as Dr. Mehrle noted, such a condition, in severe cases, would certainly ''reduce the ability of the fish to compete for food, avoid predators, or endure the stresses of migration or reproduction.'' The Columbia scientists found that striped bass from the Hudson had relatively high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead and cadmium. Potomac River fish contained lead, zinc, arsenic and selenium, and the Nanticoke stripers arsenic and selenium. The Hudson stripers' backbones were 42 percent weaker than those of the Edonton hatchery fish and those from the other two rivers were 20 percent weaker. The backbone-testing procedure is an attempt to come up with a standard measure of health for the fish, and according to Dr. Foster Mayer, chief biologist at the Columbia facility, it appears to be one of the more logical procedures. The striped bass research at Columbia and elsewhere is being carefully orchestrated. Dr. Geoffrey Laurence, a fisheries biologist at the Narragansett, R.I., laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries Service, said in a telephone interview that the cooperation between the various state and Federal agencies is unprecedented in its depth and coordination and that he expects that academic institutions will soon join in the three-year study. The money for all of the Narragansett work and most of the work at Columbia is derived from the so-called ''Chafee Amendment'' (after Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island) to the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, which was re-authorized last year. As of this writing, funding has been authorized for five additional striper projects (with the Federal share being $244,896) in four states - New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia. The New York study will include measuring recruitment of juvenile bass, the impact of commercial fishing on stripers in the Hudson estuary, and investigation of morphological characteristics that may identify a bass's river of origin, and an assessment of the area's populations of mature fish. The other studies include assessments of larval striped bass stocks in Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia waters, and a measure of the fish's abundance in the York, James and Rappahannock Rivers in Virginia. The last-named project will also attempt to define the relationship between year-class strength and the size of commercial landings. Clearly some of the key questions are: how many stripers do we have along the coast, how much commercial and sport-fishing pressure can they stand and how serious has pollution affected their ability to reproduce and survive. The striper, like the shad, the alewives and the Atlantic salmon, is an anadromous fish, spawning in fresh or brackish water, living there for up to four months after hatching, then descending to the greater salinity of the estuary for two years or more before moving out to sea. The shad and alewives store less chemical pollution than the striper because their offspring - and to a lesser extent the adults as well - dally less time in a river or its estuary. Another question being probed in the joint effort between the Narragansett and Columbia laboratories is the relationship between the level of chemical pollution in larvae and their survival rate. The Narragansett laboratory has been monitoring the growth and survival rate of larvae spawned by bass from the same rivers involved in the Columbia study. This includes measuring the natural fats, carbohydrates and protein components which are essential to larval growth. Larvae from the same fish are being sent to Columbia to be analyzed for their chemical pollutant load. In addition, the Columbia laboratory has the female bass from which the larvae being studied at both laboratories came. To put it another way, the females and the larvae they produced are so identified. This will enable the Columbia people, among other things, to see what correlation, if any, there is between the pollutant load carried by the mother fish and that of the larvae she produced. Obviously, a splendid start has been made in an effort to sustain viable populations of the most highly-regarded light-tackle marine game fish from Maine to North Carolina.
  11. Very true. I forgot to mention those excuses. Can anything be done to bring them back? What about an moratorium and maybe an initial stocking program? Its a such a shame that we wipe out these fish and now that becomes the new normal.
  12. There are some that do discount overfishing. I have heard people blame the cormorants, global warming and pollution instead.
  13. Agreed. Their numbers started taking a hit long before global warming became the popular scapegoat. Maybe the fact that people used to catch garbage can loads had something to do with it. In the 80s pollution was the excuse for the precipitous decline of the striped bass when in reality the main culprit was overfishing.
  14. I can tell you from what I had witnessed. I agree some species of fish are more tolerant than others. While snapper fishing a young kid, I know spearing would practically die the moment you pulled them out of the water but killies on the other hand, you could use over and over again. I'm not saying striped bass were as hardy as killies but they were certainty more durable than spearing. The brownish, dirty looking water that had feminine hygiene products floating by lead me to believe the latter.