East Coaster

BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About East Coaster

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Fields

  • Gender
  1. I don't fish the salt that often compared to a lot of you, but I've been checked at least 4 or 5 times in the last 3 years. Always glad to see them checking. For those that don't know the background, this was mandated by the feds (NOAA) under the Magnuson-Stevens act. Anglers are exempted from registering with the National Saltwater Angling Registry (currently costs $15/year) if their state has either a saltwater license or registry. As others have mentioned, NJ is one of the states that doesn't require a license, so we're lucky in that regard.
  2. Pretty sure he's asking about silver hake, given the other thread about the Long Branch pier. I think most people in NJ asking about "whiting" during spring/summer would be referring to Northern Kingfish, and then in fall/winter would be referring to silver hake.
  3. If you do the Google search, you will see references, and some of those discuss the quality as well as the quantity of the eggs produced. I'm sure you could find the same articles using other search terms. The info is out there.
  4. Google "striped bass fecundity" and you'll see that this has been examined, and the data indicates that larger fish produce healthier eggs (as I mentioned previously).
  5. Yes, the literature is readily available and suggests that egg numbers are related to weight, which was what I used in my calculation. There are other factors at play (different populations, etc.), so there is variability in the data, but it generally shows a linear correlation.
  6. Sorry, @Roccus7, I misread when I replied earlier. For stripers, the available literature suggests that using the weight as an indicator of the eggs is reasonable (obviously there is some variability). The larger fish will produce healthier eggs, so more likely will benefit recruitment. My argument that it's better to harvest the smaller fish stands whether the number of eggs per pound is constant (but would even be more valid if like cod, the larger fish produce more eggs per pound). Sorry about the misread on my part.
  7. Sorry, thought I was clear. Yes, the larger fish produce more eggs, that's why even though in the example there were a lot fewer big fish, the number of eggs would be similar (I calculated total weight of each group and they're pretty close). The eggs produced are generally related to the weight of the fish, so if you add the total weight of each group, you can get a sense of how many eggs would be produced by that group. Disease doesn't affect every member of the group equally. You're not considering that the fish that are older have been exposed to some already and have survived, which means they are more fit. That's the whole concept of survival of the fittest - those individuals that are more fit live longer and reproduce to pass their genes on. There are scientific papers that support that larger fish also produce eggs with a better chance of viability, thus increasing recruitment. Search "striped bass fecundity" and they'll pop up. That's the reason the biologists have pushed for the current recreational slots rather than a minimum - it will be better for recovery if we're not selectively removing the larger, older breeding females.
  8. Assuming that the two groups you list would produce the same number of eggs (although the total weight is different, so that may not be a good assumption), the older fish have survived longer so it's reasonable to assume that they are more fit, and therefore it would be a greater advantage to the species to have their genes passed along. Keep in mind that there are other sources of mortality (predation, disease) in addition to fishing (and theoretically, they may have survived C&R multiple times, so they may be the result of some human selection as well). In the example you provided, it's not equal weight, and I'm not sure where those numbers come from, but it's reasonably close enough that I would still prefer to keep the larger fish around to have them contributing to the gene pool.
  9. The peak of the Leonids was actually last night, but tonight around 1 am, there may be a brief spike in activity, which will be more likely to see looking to the east. The Leonids will last another week or so, but the numbers will be low, so it's really hit or miss after tonight.
  10. ....won't be down for a croissant this morning. Robert Clary died yesterday at age 96. The last of Hogan's Heroes.
  11. The old-school click/pawl reels are extremely simple and can be dunked with no issue. Most non-sealed reels by design are made to tolerate immersion. I know you're a newbie, but don't buy into the hype - you don't need a sealed drag system, even for salmon/steelhead and other fish that would be more likely to take line than your typical stream-dwelling trout. Some of the most classic upscale reels (e.g., Hardy Perfect) are simple click/pawl and many are still going strong after literally 100+ years of use.
  12. .
  13. To use a recent buzzword, it's optics. Whether the numbers support it or not, it sends an unpopular message if you let people profit from a diminishing resource at the expense of the rec angler who merely wants to put an occasional fish on the table. The cuts in mortality need to come from all sectors. In the short term, severely limit the commercial take, reduce the catch-and-keep numbers by issuing a set number of tags (use a lottery system as is done for big game out west), and prevent targeting concentrated breeding pops by full closure in certain areas at key times of the year. No one is completely happy, but everyone has a chance to participate. Of course you will still have people disregarding the rules for their activity, but absent a huge investment in enforcement resources, there's no way to ensure absolute compliance. But at least this approach sends a clear message to everyone that actions are being taken to prevent a complete crash and allow the pops to recover to more sustainable levels (at which point you can ease the restrictions).
  14. When the end user (the consumer) buys ground beef (i.e., there is no consumer demand for stripers), the demand signal moves backwards to the fleet through the chain. Prices drop at retail first, then wholesale, then the fleet shifts their effort. Not sure why you think this is so complex or don't grasp that the wholesalers set demand for the fleet by their decisions (most of which are driven by their estimate of what the consumers will be doing). Your assumption that Pakalolo is my "compadre" is amusing, since you don't know anything about my position on commercial fishing for stripers (I don't support it given the current state of the fishery). I was simply pointing out that the statements in the first post of yours (regarding demand) that I quoted were erroneous (and you still seem to be unwilling to own that error). Not going to continue back-and-forth on this. As you've come to acknowledge over the last couple of posts, the scenarios are a lot more subtle than you depicted in terms of what demand is - it's not solely people jumping up and down because there is a supply shortage.
  15. Sorry, but you're looking at this the wrong way. Demand comes from the immediate downstream node or rung. The wholesaler's willingness to buy fish from the fishermen creates demand at that level. Fisherman will calculate their potential profitability based on what the wholesalers want and are willing to pay and make decisions on what to target on that basis. If the wholesalers believe for whatever reason that they won't be able to sell their fish to retailers, they will not pay a premium. If they are wrong, they lose money by not having taken advantage of being able to sell, but their decision also directly affects the actions of the fleet, as they won't put the effort into pursuing those fish. That is supply/demand at work for that rung of the ladder. You're right that the wholesalers are speculating that there will be a downstream (retailer) demand for what they will purchase and subsequently sell. This cycle continues all the way through to the final consumer. The initial purchase is linked to the expectation of consumer demand, but it's equally correct to say that the wholesaler's willingness to purchase is demand as noted above. As far as perishability, it only compresses the timeline and links the consumer to the initial provider more closely, since building long-term inventory as a hedge against supply shortages or consumer shifts is less (or not at all) viable. And just to be clear, the way you tried to make your point was flawed as none of this could be inferred by what you wrote regarding gas station lines and people complaining to the government about empty shelves.