CWitek

BST Users
  • Content count

    5,992
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About CWitek

Converted

  • What I do for a living:
    Attorney

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Babylon, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

2,563 profile views
  1. I'll preface this by saying that I'm a boat fisherman, so casting distance isn't important to me. But my favorite use for a Redfin is fishing in marshes and around sod banks when the water is absolutely still. Under those conditions, a painfully slow, steady retrieve with a high rod tip will let the lure swim right on the surface, leaving a wake, which can be extremely effective. The fact that the Redfin is light, and doesn't make a lot of noise entering the water, seems to make a difference when everything is dead quiet and the water is thin. The slow-twitch retrieve described by Cascade has also treated me very well in slightly deeper water around rocks, etc. Almost like fishing a lure slowly for largemouth.
  2. That's always been my feeling. When I was young, and everyone still measured stripers in pounds, "school" bass were under 15 or so, although I know of some folks up in Massachusetts back then who drew the line at anything under 20.
  3. I'd tend to agree, particularly at this time of year when the fish are still in the bay. Probably no one knows the bay better, and he draws a lot of experienced party boat anglers who regularly fish on that boat and create a pleasant environment. Other decent boats for new anglers are the Capt. Gillen, which caters to families, and the older Laura Lee, which tries to show people a good time. Always strikes me, in the rare times when I fish near the fleet, the the folks on the Laura Lee are always the ones I can hear cheering and laughing and having a good time, which is always a good atmosphere when you're breaking in someone new.
  4. Saying that tariffs have had no impact when tried before may not be completely accurate. A lot of economists have suggested that it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that put the "Great" into the Great Depression. Now, if you said that they had no positive impact, I'd tend to agree...
  5. It's a design that supposedly holds bottom better in heavy surf. I've seen them in shops, but never used them.
  6. Never fished there, but years ago I kept my boat at a marina in Copiague, so I know that it's possible to find early-season fluke in that general area within the bay.
  7. Back when there were no limits, or more liberal limits, there was a well-established practice of selling them back in Co-Op City, and other big housing complexes. No question that lower-income folks tend to like them, but the fact is, I like them, too. If I get on a school of dinner-plate sized porgies, there will be blood on the ice.
  8. More complexities that we had considered. Thanks; As far as my comment And your response "What difference does it make? Once the fish is dead, it doesn't matter." The point is that if you're fishing commercially--and if you sell any portion of your catch, you are--you should have a commercial license, fish under commercial quota, and report your fish as commercial landings. If you fish recreationally, you shouldn't sell. I've never believed in condoning or facilitating illegal recreational sale.
  9. Probably work. I'd be tempted to ditch the usual "walk the dog" retrieve and try the same sort of fast, straight retrieve that works with the tube lures.
  10. Sort of. That cut was a response to Addendum IV, which required the coast to cut landings by 25%, compared to 2013, and the Chesapeake to cut by 20.5%, compared to 2012. Both groups of commercial fishermen met their required cuts. The coastal recreational fishermen actually cut by more than 25%. But the anglers in Chesapeake Bay didn't cut at all, and actually increased their landings to about 150% of 2012. And a lot of that increase was release mortality on undersized fish from the big 2011 year class that we were, at the time, depending on to rebuild the stock. Since we're dealing with ASMFC, the Chesapeake anglers were not held accountable, kept overfishing, and any 2020 cuts will be made from their current landings, not from where they should have been in 2015, so crime does pay. In 2015, overall landings--recreational and commercial, coast and Bay--averaged out as a little more than a 25% reduction from the benchmark figure. But in 2016 and 2017, largely due to the number of small fish in the Bay, landings went up to pre-Addendum IV numbers. About half of the recreational kill dies in Maryland waters. In 2018, landings dropped again, to mid-1990s level, largely due to less angler effort--which, if I guessed, was probably due to a lack of fish.. So yes, the 2015 cuts worked on the coast, but because no one required Maryland to comply with the Addendum, over all, they were not too effective.
  11. It's funny, but it really is the way you answer when people ask "What's new," because it's what you care about. I suspect it's how Mike respond, and I know that I do. Fortunately, just about everyone I hang around with fishes, so it works out OK.
  12. You basically described the same thing that I did, but with editorial comments. I disagree that they start with the biomass, and apply what you refer to as the "CSV." The SSC does start with the biomass, but then they calculate the OFL based on Fmsy. At that point, they apply the "CV" (actually "CV" or "coefficient of variation")--what I described as buffer for scientific uncertainty--to come up with an ABC that sets the maximum harvest level. After that, they do just what I describe, breaking down the ABC into recreational and commercial allocations, coming up with ACLs, and then deducting dead discards to calculate the AHL, which is then allocated among the states. If you go to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's website and look up last August's meeting at this address https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5b636e49f950b76aa91e9ab0/1533242969584/Tab07_BSB-2019-Specs_2018-08.pdf. and then to to page 3, the way the calculation was done for both the recreational and commercial sectors is laid out, with a description of how each number is derived in the right-hand column. It is as I described. And if you look at that chart, you'll find that the difference between the OFL and the ABC--which the document explicitly notes is based on "Stock assessment projections and Council risk policy" is a little over 13%, not 50%. The CV is as high as 60, but that is just a coefficient used in the calculation, not the calculation's result. As far as MRIP goes, it's everyone's favorite whipping boy, but as far as I know, no one but NMFS itself, along with the National Academy of Sciences reports, has ever done a statistical evaluation that identified its weak points and strong points. Lots of folks like to complain about the numbers, but they never come up with statistically valid arguments--only opinions, which they try to support by either misusing the numbers or finding outliers with high PSEs. As you said, MRIP is meant to be used on a large-scale. It was never meant to be used as, for example, New Jersey uses it for black sea bass, where they have a 10-fish bag and 12 1/2-inch size for a couple of months, then close the season for a couple of days, then drop the bag to 2 fish for a couple more months, then close the season for a month, then increase the bag to 10 fish for three weeks in October then increase the bag limit to 15 and the size limit to 13 inches for the last two months of the year. That will give you garbage numbers and sub-optimum management, but it's not a problem with MRIP, it's a problem with New Jersey, who tries to get away with such regulations, and with ASMFC, which lets them do it. We see the same thing in Connecticut, where they try to have separate regulations for for-hires for part of the year, or in other states where the limits change wave-by-wave. That doesn't mean the MRIP is bad; it means that managers are trying to use a screwdriver to pound in a nail. If MRIP was applied as it should be--as it is with scup--you'd have the same regulations throughout the northeast, to include the states landing more than 90% of the fish, and another set in the south where the fishery is smaller, and leave it at that. But when you try to slice and dice by state and wave and/or mode, you're using it wrong. If someone wants to challenge the MRIP numbers, they need to tell us what the real catch and effort figures are--based on a statistically valid model--and not merely maintain that the MRIP numbers are "wrong" and throw out an arbitrary figure. Down that road lies chaos. As far as fluke go, the percent standard error for MRIP's recreational fluke landings in 2018 is 7.7, which is certainly accurate enough to calculate the recreational harvest limit. Even if it was less accurate, and if the MAFMC's risk policy is a little too conservative, you can't pull numbers out of the air. The SSC has a well-thought-out process for creating its risk policy, based on multiple factors. If you want to reduce the buffer, you need to have an equally thought-out methodology that takes all possible factors into account, but provides them with different overall values; and you need to do so objectively, not trying to increase the ABC, but rather to come to a better answer, even if it ends up reducing the ABC. Again, slashing the figures arbitrarily, and so arbitrarily pumping up landings, is not an alternative. And by the way, the difference between the OFL and ABC for fluke, after the CV is applied, was about 25% in 2018, twice what it was for black sea bass, but still a long way from 50%. As far as scup go, efforts to increase landings increase every year. Last year, the minimum size dropped from 10 inches to 9; this year, the season is likely to run all year, and the for-hire "bonus season" bag limit is probably going up to 50 (it's 30 for everyone else, including the for-hires outside the "bonus" season). 30 9" fish--if you want to take them that small--is fairly liberal. And, as I mentioned, the regulations have been steadily liberalizing over the past few years. The limitation on scup right now is that neither sector even wants to catch its full allocation, not regulations. Yes, we might be able to liberalize more in the future, if that trend continues, but at what point do people stop fishing for personal use and start selling them back in the neighborhood, the way they did in the old days?
  13. A week or so ago, someone posted a thread asking how they could keep "minnows," by which they apparently meant some variety of killies, in an aquarium or similar container. The generall consensus was that killies were pretty tough. Yesterday, I came across this article, which describes just how tough killies can be. Although it concentrates on a Texas species, note that the species is able to survive due to somehow acquiring genes from our local Atlantic killifish. This Fish Has Evolved to Thrive in Intensely Polluted Water Ryan F. Mandelbaum Yesterday 2:08pm A small fish somehow evolved resistance to the heavily polluted water of the Houston Ship Channel by mysteriously acquiring genes from another fish from thousands of miles away, according to a new paper. The Houston Ship Channel’s filthy water is the result of 60 years of industrial dumping, contaminating the water out into Galveston Bay. But despite the grime, a population of Gulf killifish have managed to evolve resistance to the otherwise lethal pollution. Genetic sequences revealed that the fish have integrated a small bit of DNA from another species of fish, the Atlantic killifish. These results show the extreme luck and difficulty required for animals to adapt to environments changed quickly by humans. In order to survive humans, “you need to be a superstar in terms of genetic diversity and need to be super lucky,” study author Andrew Whitehead, associate professor at the University of California, Davis, told Gizmodo. “That doesn’t bode well for most species we care about conserving.” The researchers captured killifish from 12 increasingly polluted sites along the Houston Shop Channel and in Galveston Bay. They had the fish spawn in a laboratory and tested how the embryos fared against a pollutant called polychlorinated biphenyl. Fish from the most polluted sites could withstand concentrations 1,000 times higher than normally harmful levels, according to the paper published in Science. But the incredible realization of how this fish evolved its pollution resistance came from genetic testing. A pair genes from the pollutant-resistant Gulf killifish, including a segment with deleted DNA that seemed to account for the resistance, appeared to come directly from another species, the Atlantic killifish. The researchers estimated that this little bit of genetic material entered the Gulf killifish’s gene pool no more than 34 generations ago, after a Gulf killifish hybridized with an Atlantic killifish. You might be thinking, oh, that’s not so surprising; they’re both killifish in the same ocean. But that’s not really what’s happening. “These fish are the size of your thumb and can’t swim very far,” Whitehead explained. “They’ve got a small home range and they’re not a migratory fish. A fish you catch in a marsh was probably born within a hundred meters or so.” The mystery, now, is how the fish managed to make it from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf of Mexico. “We can only speculate,” said Whitehead. “It was almost certainly human assisted. These fish aren’t capable of swimming around the straits of Florida.” Perhaps an Atlantic killifish was scooped up in a ship’s ballast water and dumped into Galveston Bay. Other researchers were impressed by the paper. “This was really solid,” Michi Tobler, associate professor at Kansas State University, told Gizmodo. “This story builds on some decades worth of research. They really capitalized that, and very explicitly tested a hypothesis. I thought that was really neat. They sequenced a lot of genomes.” Tobler, too, was “flabbergasted” about how this could actually happen. While the ballast water explanation made sense, he wanted to see how common this sort of evolution via hybridization event is in polluted waters around the world. Don’t get the idea that hybridization is always beneficial, though. It can also threaten some species with extinction, Karin Pfennig wrote in a commentary for Science. Your takeaway might be the old “life finds away,” or even “evolution is the solution to pollution.” But this isn’t really what’s going on here, explained Whitehead. Without an unlikely stroke of luck, Gulf killifish might have been completely killed out of the Houston Ship Channel. And far more species are dying out than getting lucky. “Many of the species we care about are in big trouble when it comes to the pace and severity of environmental change and climate change,” Whitehead said. It’s unrealistic to rely on luck or even genetic engineering to maintain the species that humans care about, and other species more generally. “What’s feasible is to change our behavior as a species.”
  14. Not quite right. We're going to hopefully reduce fishing mortality "next year with even less fish." No guarantee right now that rebuilding will also start.
  15. I did not notice that--my eyes read it as MAFMC. Having said that, I think that it is now very likely that the person who I heard the rumor from made the same mistake that I just did,