Jump to content

Proposed change to striped bass plan draws attention. By John Geiser APP

Rate this topic


feetinsand

Recommended Posts

Mike-Z...

 

Yes,...if a guy can afford a rod, reel, line, hooks, swivels, weights, lures, bait, the drive (gas) food, the time, fees etc...I don't think he needs a 24" Bass to feed himself or his family...

 

Good point, it makes this common man theme, hollow...no substance...except that the comms. are using it also with total success...

 

If the mortality of the Bass can be lowered, and the age and number structure can go up to "historical" levels, then the average angler probabilities of catching a larger Bass go up with it also.

 

With today's rules, the total number of Bass keeps shrinking, diminishing the opportunities for the average angler to catch ANY Bass, never-mind a 24".

 

[This message has been edited by CATCHnRELEASE (edited 08-21-2001).]

(*member formerly known as 'sevenxseventy01')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fabulous!!!!!

 

The fact that they give this board such attention in a newspaper shows that they are worried about opinions expressed on it!!! We're obviously now a force to be reckoned with!

 

The fact that they cherry pick a few lines shows how low their tactics are. I belong to no organisation, but I'm eliminating this pack of propagandists from any consideration. Reminds me of the IRA back home..... and I'm a Catholic!

[sIGPIC][sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Common Man.........is that the guy holdin' his batphone in 1 hand, coffee in the other, and pickin' his snoz with his third, all while doin' 80 per across 3 lanes?

Increasin' the size and limit to 1@36", is not excludin' "The Common Man" (he can still fish all he wants and teach his children also), it's protectin' the Bass. The young are the future......stop killin' the babys!

 

"The RFA represents all rec fishermen not just your special group of "qualified" striper anglers.Some of you are as elitist as the PETA people."

 

I fish......there for I am! I catch......there for I am gratified! I do not sell my catch......there for I am a rec. You do not represent me.....there for you do not represent "all rec fishermen".

 

Elitist fisherman........hmmmmmm.......could be worse.......I could be an Elitist lobbyist. Opps couldn't.......was raised to be honest.....damn......I'm, so COMMON!

 

Here Here Ox,Well spoken.

 

I'd like to add that untill the striped bass are well represented across their spectum, then how can they be considered "recovered" ?

 

There should be a correct proportion of stripers of all different ages and sizes out there swimming around, If we keep killing all the young ones then there won't be any large ones? How is that protecting the resource? Anybody?

 

 

WOW this thread is great, thanks for starting it Feetinsand. You sure didn't have your feet in the sand to put this up.

 

As far as I knew this site helps anyone who can read or ask a question to catch a striper. The so called elitists here are very generous when it comes to helping others catch fish.

 

Anyone can go out and catch a striper Jim, it's just that some of us would prefer that striper be big enough to spawn at least before giving up it's life, don't you get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The so called elitists here are very generous when it comes to helping others catch fish."

 

Slip, my thoughts exactly.

When I first read through this that was the first thing that came to mind. That and the RFA seems quite concerned with everyone being able to kill fish. That I do not understand.

I wonder how many checks the RFA gets from "The Common Man".

I had been a member previously and jumped in with the blind faith that I was giving my money to people who were concerned with conservation as opposed to "what I can bring home to eat"

Oh well, I guess I'm an Elitist that would rather see the fish have a chace to grow, an Elitist that can't tie a knot by the way.

 

Todd

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo, Charles. I was eagerly looking forward to the spin, ommissions, etc, you would put on that meeting. Preliminary numbers never stopped you in the past. All of the sudden... Your withholding information.

 

Anybody who spent more than 5 minutes reading this stuff would have seen that VPA, SSB, etc were going to go up, way up, over the next few years but we were told to act quickly, call for draconian new measures on anglers now...lead to believe a stock collapse was imminent...etc, hurry up and do what we tell you before the truth comes out.

 

C&R,

Your dignity? You've got to be kidding.

 

Here is some preliminary numbers for you, folks. ( I have been sitting on these for a few weeks waiting to see what was going to be said about it. Those who claim to be in the know stood by and watched as everyone got themesleves worked-up over the....how was it described? accident victim in the hospital? Bruised, broken teeth, etc?...)

 

The VPA will go up from 34million fish to approximately 47million fish. The best line I heard was, "You want 60million fish? Take the MD males out of the equation and you get 60million fish." (Male natural mortality increses sharply at age 8 and continues to age 10. Assuming 1-1 sex ratio through age 8, you can expect a sharp natural decrease in population beginning at age 8 since about 80% of all males are dead by age 10.)

 

"F" should drop from .32 to about .26 or .27.

 

SSB is on its way up no matter what scale you use and will soon be on a "rocket ride" as the 93 and 96 year classes are fully recruited.

 

Anyone who continues to claim a stock collapse is out of their gourd. Period.

 

Majority opinion is MRFSS data seriously overestimates rec. catch and dead-discards. Commercial bycatch numbers are "a joke" and "bogus".

 

There are questions left to be addressed and we will continue to examine the data, consult with experts, and solicit the opinions of members. The RFA position should be ready in October.

 

We remain consistent in our opinions and the data backs us up.

 

All indices of biological health are underestimated while mortality numbers are overestimated. We have been saying this for months. Around here, though, these statements were called reckless, lacking concern, in favor of big kills, etc.

 

Slipknot,

If you want people to "get it" fire the same shots at CCANY (askt them what have they been actively doing about the 18" minimum in the Hudson.)

 

Go ask CCAVA and CCAMD what they are doing about the 18" minimum in the Chessie and demand that they not take any fish until they have spawned once.

 

What does elitist and common man have to do with it? It goes to the stae of mind of those trying to sway you to support one position or another. Check people's motivations for pushing what they push.

 

Oh brother...

 

[This message has been edited by pennboy (edited 08-21-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by pennboy (edited 08-21-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pennboy--

 

No one has been claiming a stock collapse is imminent.

 

Population at age figures have not yet been developed. Talking about the '93s is particularly risky until then.

 

Yes, the '96s have added to the total population. But how many will survive to be fully recruited, given the fact that they're being targeted? If the '93s are any indication, not many.

 

And the fact remains that few fish make it past age 15, and that the population's age structure remains truncated.

 

If you want a fishery that looks the way it does now--lots of small fish in the harvest, few large fish in the population, maybe the preliminary numbers give you hope. If you want to see a fishery that targets ever-smaller bass, now down to the 4 and 5 year olds, the figures are good news.

 

If you want a naturally-structured bass population and a historical bass fishery that includes large fish, the figures give little reason to be optimistic. Maybe the population at age figures will--although I have my doubts--but we can't know that yet.

 

You can spin the numbers any way that you choose, but the fact remains that, under the current management regime, the dearth of big bass will continue.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no spin. That was alll statement of fact. You withheld information that did not suit your purposes. You sat by and watched as people got all worked up, yet you hold yourself up as someone with all the insider info. You helped to create an atmosphere of fear and did nothing to stop it while people spread bad info. Your "charts" use selective data points and time series. You took quotes from reports and other statements out of context. In the end if people want to reject the postion we take, so be it. But we will not put out partial information meant to steer people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surf,

VPA= Virtual Population Analysis.

 

SSB= Spawning Stock Biomass.

 

When the RFA position comes out, there will be a 'source document' with defintions of terms, charts, recommendations, implications of different options etc. We want everyone to be well-informed. All we can ask for is patience. This stuff takes time and stripers are one part of the on-going work. Look for this stuff in about 6 weeks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to add something to this and I really think this adds to the forum. Last weekend I went out on a party boat for striped bass for my bachelor party. I went on a boat expecting to have fun with my friends and to maybe have some of the guys that do not fish that much experience why I love to fish for striped bass. Now I made sure everyone had circle hooks, so that the worms we were drifting hopefully would not damage the fish. I tried bucktails most of the night. For the whole night 7 striped bass came on board. 4 of them shorts, 2 of them belly hooked, one keeper(barely). Now I'm not the greatest fisherman, but I have been fishing for 25 years. I have caught bass from one of my hot spots for years, shorts, just shorts, and keepers, all with using tins or bucktails. I can count on one hand how many fish I gut hooked/gills in those 25 years using tins and bucktails. Here come my points. Everyday, head boats go out using bait to catch bass, nothing is wrong with that. What is the percentage of short fish that get thrown back that are mortally injured using baited hooks. And since this was my first bass trip on a head boat in a while for striped bass, was this just a bad day in the summer doldrums, or is this normally fishing for 45+ people on a beautiful night. Because if this is normal, the fishery seems to be going down.

 

------------------

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pennboy--

 

The quotes, charts, etc. that I provided were accurate. If you feel I quoted something "selectively" and out of context, please feel free to provide the complete quote to the board.

 

In fact, some of the numbers you provide really need a little explaination.

 

Take the reduced F. The raw number appears to be accuratee, but what does it mean? The target F of 0.31 and overfishing definition of 0.38 are only valid for a single reference point--the current 28 coast/20 producer split. However, in March, it came up at the tech committee meeting that the various slots, reduced minimums, etc. that had been implemented effectively reduced the coastal minimum from 28 to 26 inches, which would be below that reference point.

 

Since fishing on smaller fish would require a reduced Ftarget and Fmsy, and since the increase in rec harvest occured primarily among 4 and 5 year old fish, that suggests that the current Ftarget and Fmsy are actually too high, and means that a 2000 F in the 0.26-0.30 range, as it now appears to be, may be the equivalent of, or higher than, the F=0.32 harvest level that occurred in 1999 when adjusted for the de facto 26/20 split.

 

Also, two of the statements you made were self-contradictory. You claim that MRFSS far overstates rec harvest (which is generally true). You also say that there are a lot more bass than previously thought. The problem is, MRFSS is one of the primary fishery-dependent measures of stock size.

 

Essentially, if people are catching fish, they have to come from somewhere. So biologists looked at the large number of 4 and 5 year old fish caught in 2000 and, using the methodology incorporated in the VPA, plugged in that catch number as one means to determine the size of the 4 and 5 year old population. If the MRFSS numbers are excessively high, the population estimate, of necessity, will be excessively high as well (although other gauges of abundance will reduce the figure from what it would be if only MRFSS was used). Obviously, there is some room for sampling error, but that should be smoothed out next year. Right now, the 2000 numbers are what we have to use, and we must accept them as valid. Next year, we'll see if the '96s still remain strong, or whether the current estimate is an artifact of the terminal year of the VPA.

 

However, assuming even a strong '96 population and a '93 year class that is larger than thought last year, the notion that SSB, and particularly the large-fish component of SSB, is going to be on a "rocket ride" is not supportable by fact. Dr. Gary Shepherd assumed such a popultion in his March, 1999 paper, "Population Projections of Atlantic Striped Bass under Varying Management Scenarios." He stated:

 

"Under the current target F of 0.31, large fish [defined as age 10, 34"+] will increase in abundance until the year 2000, then decline, followed by two more peaks as large year classes in the system pass through the fishery. After the 1996 year class passes through the large fish abundance will decline to a stable level below that seen in 1998. However, depending on the strength of incoming recruitment, there is a slight probability that abundance of large fish would remain higher than 1998 levels...At the current target of 0.31, the biomass levels will remain at historic levels even after the large year classes currently in the system pass by. However the abundance of fish and particularly the abundance of large fish will not be sustained at 1995 levels. This is not to imply that the abundance will return to levels seen in the 1980's but only refers to the benchmark year of 1995."

 

That paper included assumptions that the 1996 year class, at age 2, was 14,423,000 fish, twice the size of the 1997 year class at age 1 and nearly 4 times the size of the 1998 yer class at age 3, so I doubt that the 2000 numbers make the 1996s a stronger cohort than Dr. Shepherd assumed in his paper. Which means that our current dearth of large fish is likely to continue.

 

I'd love to see real evidence that I'm wrong, but no one has produced it yet.

 

Bycatch mortality "a joke?" To the extent that the number is not quantified, perhaps so. But as I recall, the possible range was between a few hundred thousand and a few million fish, and no one knows where in that range it falls. Crecco of Connecticut felt strongly that it was at the lower end of that range, others felt that it is higher, but right now it can't be quantified.

 

I look forward to seeing RFA's final recommendation, and hope it looks something like what CCA puts out. Working together would be a good thing.

 

In the meantime, until I see hard evidence suggesting that the truncation of the age/size structure of the population will be remedied, I will continue my personal fight to reduce harvest and restore the bass to what nature meant it to be--the apex predator of our inshore seas, and not a mere panfish available for convenient and thoughtless consumption.

 

 

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy o boy.

 

Back when I originally posted the 1 @ 36 petition thing I did it to show that the majority of fishermen view the Striped Bass fishery from a exploitative standpoint rather than a conservative one. This thread bears that home. Policy that supports maximum harvest isn't recreationally minded. It is consumptively minded.

 

"Recreational" Fishing Alliance?????

Better "Consumptive Fishing Alliance".

 

It seems to me that managing for a diverse age structure broadens the recreational opportunities for all fishermen. Not to mention improving the welfare of the fishery itself. Managing for an age structure that skews the age structure towards containing a disproportionate number of young fish narrows the recreational opportunities. So again, is the RFA being truly recreational or rather consumptive in regads to the policies they support? I guess I will see when they publicize their position on Amendment 6.

 

As far as harvesting fish, I am not convinced that the taking of 24" juveniles really does offer more "fish for the table for the common man". I kill a 24" fish I've got 2 - 2.5 pounds of fillets. I kill a 36" fish I've got something like 8 - 10 pounds of fillets. So if I take home a 36" fish every four trips I consume just as much fishmeat as in four tips taking home a 24" fish. Plus I've only killed one fish instead of four. With the increased number of big fish around as a result of the diverse age structure it is easy for me to believe that the fishermen might well be able to consume more fish.

 

 

'Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish.' Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...