Jump to content

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

Rate this topic


feetinsand

Recommended Posts

Vinny, I wasnt trying to ban guys head boat fish. So please dont read into it. I would like to see it go into a artifical fishery only though. Thats what I was getting at. As for gut hooked, my friend caught 3 that night, 2 of them where gut hooked, because he didnt know how to fish.

 

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

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennboy,

 

I'm not looking to cause any more trouble here, but you are throwing around lots of numbers and mixing what may be the conclusions of the tech committee with your own opinions. (yes you can say 'Sir Charles' is doing it, but 2 wrongs dont make a right).

 

Please be sure the specify what were the conclusions or concensus of the tech comittee, what were the comments of one member, and /or what were comments made by others, an what are your own opinions (and as for your opinions, let us know what your background or training is in marine biology / population biology, thats my background by the way, I'm not saying i know it all cause I don't, but you have to know what you arereading, and how to interpret the results)

 

Some of the conclusions you are making don't seem logical based on what I've read over the last 4-5 years coming from that same group of scientists.

 

Maybe there was a big revelation? And if there was great. I will make it a point to call a member of the tech committte directly, as I generally do these days.

 

I'm just very sorry that you didn't have the respect to point out any data you may have had when I spoke to you on the phone last week, and when I faxed you the data I had.

 

(yes sportsfans, despite what you may read here, some guys ARE trying to work together)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravenar, I was not saying (or at least did not mean to say) you did. There are a few here that would like to, is all I am saying. These party boat captains are often the son of a party boat captain. Taking passengers out to fish is there life. To suggest that they want to wipe out a fishery or would support an organization that does is unfair. Most party boat captains are very careful in ensuring that the rules are enforced often to the point where they have some very disgruntled passengers. But they realize if a fishery is closed, they won't be going out at all.

 

The RFA was instrumental in closing down the EEZ for stripers. They have now come close to banning reduction boats from operating in New Jersey. All this criticism of them based on assumptions concerning their position on Amendment 6 is patently unfair. Re-read the article. They are commenting about comments of certain people on the message boards that say or at least imply that you need special qualifications to fish for stripers. That position is absurd, in my opinion.

Vinny, I wasnt trying to ban guys head boat fish. So please dont read into it. I would like to see it go into a artifical fishery only though. Thats what I was getting at. As for gut hooked, my friend caught 3 that night, 2 of them where gut hooked, because he didnt know how to fish.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep spinning and using selective quotes. You rushed out numbers when they suited you and ignored them or explain them away when they don't.

 

Commercial bycatch numbers are "a joke" and "bogus".

 

At the last meeting, Crecco said that the MRFSS data tends to skewer the numbers higher than actual and are hard to believe.

 

"1998 MD spring numbers of 280,000 fish were extrapolated from 2 charter boat intercepts and 5 phone interviews."

 

I expected the "CCA was first" remark. First does not make your right. Of course, the original RFA position paper came out in 1997.

This whole thing smacks of a membership drive.

 

1) Create crisis.

 

2) Show crisis is result of 'enemy' Those in favor of "Big Kills"

 

3) Offer 'leadership' to defeat enemy and avert crisis

 

4) Sign-up new members.

 

Your tactics have been shameful.

 

John,

You have got to be kidding. The two of you rushed out numbers and quotes when you suited you and said nothing when they didn't.

 

The numbers I posted are straight out of the meeting. Period. So are the quotes. Just to show I play fair. I invite you to put up some of the ASPIC numbers. They were less optimistic.

 

I say it agian. For months an atmosphere of crisis and fear was created and encourage here. New info comes out, and silence.

 

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennboy----if that's the case, as an unbiased observer on the sidelines, I would have to voice the opinion that you and Jim Donofrio fell for it hook, line and sinker, because I think your posts here have been more "over-the-top" than Charlie's, and that you have harmed your organization in the process. Attacking the messenger, rather than the message, smacks of defensiveness. If your ideas are sound, throw them out there and let them speak for themselves. Like many others (I assure you there are many others), I find that the side who turns the argument away from the facts and into a mud-slinging contest is the side whose ideas can't carry the debate.

 

However, I seriously doubt that was Charlie's intent. But if it has that effect, IMO you and Jim only have yourselves to blame.

"…if catching fish is your only objective, you are either new to the game or too narrowly focused on measurable results.” - D. Stuver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks,

With all due respect... I've been following this thread with great interest and unfortunately, things never change. What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, we need to take a few breaths and stop attacking each other. Also, if this is going to be an "informational" thread.... Let's not withhold information and use it for other strategical gains. The truth of the matter is, we all care for the health of our bass fishery and we are at a stage where it's time to act on it! Now... like me, I hold several "Sportsfishing / Organization positions" and the statements I am disclosing are my personal opinion! Please do not quote me - nor take this out of context.

 

 

First of all, Since the reopening PCB's crisis and current reports...many things has changed! I believe we need to take ample time to absorb everything there is to know!

 

 

I agree, its time to evaluate what's happening with our fishery and the "status quo" can no longer hold! I commend the parties that generated enough public interest for immediate action, but we need to wait and gather all pertinent sources to put something constructive (big picture) to the table. For starters, the Amendment 6 is a good thing... but I also believe something better (in addition to,gathered full reporting assessments) can come out of it! Also, let's not degrade each other's organization simply of this thread's exchanges. If you are going to judge one's creditability on account of one issue... You are equally at fault and hurting the future of our fishing future!

 

 

Now, unquestionably, these magical fish needs management again... We have to be accountable and something needs to be done. Personally, I am really appalled with the NJ regulations. It's disgraceful and it needs to be readjusted! All in all, I've said it before and I will say it again.... Let's stop the name-calling and let's be constructive here! I can see the agendas behind each post (very calculative) and it saddens me that we have to go that direction again. Let's get the truth out, be "honest and truthful" with your comments and stop the jabbing so the SOL members are well informed ...Once we get this out of the way... we can ALL act responsibly and supportive on the fishes behalf! That's what we are arguing for anyway... am I right?

 

 

"Crazy" Alberto

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennboy I think you are wrong on the membership drive. I think that if the bass numbers stink, that will turn people off and make them less likely to sign up. They will say, "in X years the (RFA/CCA/??) was fighting the fight and now its only worse." they will not say "the numbers are bad, gotta mail in my check"

 

See, unlike a paid rep, I do this volunteer, (and I'm pretty burnt out) and any time i spend on conservation stuff is time I dont spend on fun stuff (fishing). I didnt grow up with a desire to be involved in this kind of stuff, and if anything it costs me tens of thousands per year on donations and lost time.

 

so please get that notion out of your head.

 

anyway...

 

I just got off the phone with Gary Shepherd. There's a lot that can be read into the recent set of numbers, which are not published by the way.

 

What I come away with...

 

~The overall stock size has increased due to more 96 fish showing up and some more '93s. As you are aware (or should be aware) through cohort analysis, the more fish you catch, the more must be in the system (assuming a percentage of the fish caught/recaught, and release mortality assumptions). And we are reportedly catching more fish. BTW, if the commercial bycatch/bykill is grossly underestimated, that can be interpreted as actually good, according to the VPA, the stock is much better still (thats my opinion).

 

~There still needs to be work done on what level of spawning biomass is needed for longer term stability.

 

->We are living in a time when the fish that should be large are few, as there were back to back bad spawns.

 

You can conclude,

 

(1) yeah great, its only a matter of time before we have better numbers of spawning aged fish and everyting is stable (but that depends on how hard we hit em).

 

and /or

 

(2) ok, but that also shows we can indeed have strings of years with very bad spawns, so we do need enough fish to have stability in the system and can't use 90 yoys as our reality.

 

(reacting to these two different scenarios is tough, my own observation is its easy to relax the regs and give folks the fish, but taking them back in lean times is almost impossible)

 

I still think

(1) We need to have a scientifically based reference (of how many spawning aged fish we need in the system for optimal egg production anything beyond that is ok, but it becomes diminishing returns). This needs to be pretty much spelled out in the plan.

 

(2) The age/size structure issue beyond that is a social issue.

 

a trade-off

 

Being able to keep the most small fish

vs.

keeping fewer fish, for the sake of lettng more grow to larger sizes.

 

(no secrets, thats out of page 6 of what I faxed to you at the RFA office)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennboy--

 

"CCA was first?" Where'd I say that? RFA had a position in '97? What was it--other than opening the EEZ?

 

Create a crisis? Take a look at the threads. The dearth of big fish is real, and most people--whether they fish boat or beach--who remember what a healthy bass fishery was is aware of that fact. Nothing you've presented has made anyone beleive that those fish exist. Nothing you have presented suggest that the population structure will be reestablished under status quo management.

 

To say that I'd create a crisis, and misled people in order to build membership, is a scurrilous charge. I have not attacked you personally, but only your positions. I will not attack you personally--although you have taken a dislike to me, I feel no personal animosity toward you. But I do resent the attack on my integrity. Tell me I'm wrong--I can live with that, and I'll take up your side if you prove your case. Call me a liar, and I take offense. I've been the target of a lot of name-calling here recently, for no crime other than to try to restore some fish--an effort I don't get paid for, and that costs me considerable amounts of time and cash.

 

I didn't even mention my relationship with CCA until it was forced upon me. I spoke for myself. But people tried very hard to tie me and the organization together, then to discredit me. If there are games being played, I'm not the one playing them.

 

In fact, if the folks--you included--who have been attacking me don't have a position on Amendment 6 yet, I have to wonder why they're trying so hard to discredit me and what I say. After all, it's conceivable that I'm right...

 

In my last post, I mentioned Crecco intentionally, to see if you'd accept or reject his thoughts on commercial bycatch--because I suspected that he was the person you're relying on for everything else. He is the primary advocate for status quo and high removal rates on the tech committee. The others who ran models disagree. And even he stated in March, that if large fish are the goal, fishing mortality should be reduced to no more than F=0.25. I believe he referred to that figure as Ftrophy.

 

Again, perhaps "selective" is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

 

Alberto--

 

To you and to others who take offense at this thread, I apologize.

 

I know I should just walk away.

 

If people ever stop taking shots at me personally, and invoking my name, or parts thereof, as if they were a malediction, and stick with debating ideas, I will.

 

But, so long as attacks continue, silence can be construed as consent.

 

"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

This is quite shameful...while I am no moderator or deputy on this board...I suggest that you three(Dio, pennboy and JimD) take the mudslinging posts off this board...its not constructive debate and really doesn't belong here. If you guys want to call each other names and play all the he said stuff, use email. If you want to objectively discuss the numbers, get input from the community and perhaps come to some kind of concensus that may be used as a position, then by all means do that.

 

Personally, I am appalled that three people who are actively involved in organizations that represent recreational anglers are fighting like a bunch of school children on a public forum viewed by many. It does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of buttheads...and to publically publish such in print does nothing but make the recreation angler look bad and erodes our position for influencing fisheries management. Perhaps the three of you and Tom Foote should get together over a few cocktails and discuss your differences over management, bury the hatchet, and come up with some kind of unified stance to ensure we have a healthy population of bass for the future. To do otherwise and squander this opportunity is nothing short of a complete failure to all of the recreational anglers who support your organizations and who's dues fund you.

 

Phil L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennboy...you wrote:

 

C&R

Your dignity? You've got to be kidding.

 

I might not have any dignity in your opinion, which bothers me not at all, but you sir have given us a picture of a dignified representative of the RFA.

 

Calling people names, liars etc...projects an image of a mature, well-informed adult, who is the representative for a National Org.

 

Read your posts, and see how dignified you sound.

 

I better start taking lessons from you.

 

By the way, with your dignified matter and informative posts, people must be busting down your doors to join your organization.

 

Nowhere in my posts did I disrespect you or Mr. Donofrio, on the contrary it was Mr. Donofrio who insulted me without provocation.

 

 

(*member formerly known as 'sevenxseventy01')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another view

 

 

CONSERVATION : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>

 

 

1999 STRIPED BASS MORTALITY BY STATE (number of fish), ASMFC data

 

State..Recreat...Release...Commercial

... ...Landings..Mortality..Landings..Totals

 

Mary.. .260,981...190,415..650,022..1,101,418

Vir....301 ,368....75,260..205,143....581,771

Mass...138,190 ...366,343...40,838....545,371

N.J....237,009...1 11,169........0....348,178

N.Y....197,672....97,1 40...49,795....344,607

Conn....55,813....68,034.. ......0....123,847

R.I.....56,318....29,920...11, 559.....97,797

N.C.....46,799....21,074...21,040. ....88,913

Maine...21,102....51,985........0..... 73,087

Del......8,772.....8,455...34,841.....52,0 68

N.H......4,641....11,658........0.....16,299

 

 

1999 Keep/Kill Ratio* vs Fishing Regulations

 

Vir....(+4.00).....2@28" ocean / 2@18" bay

N.C....(+2.22).....2@28" ocean / 3@18" bay

N.J....(+2.13).....1@24"-28"/1@28/tag 1@28"

N.Y....(+2.03).....1@28"

R.I....(+1.88).....2@28"

Mary...(+1.37).....2@2 8"

Del....(+1.03).....1@24"-28" / 1@28"

Conn...(-1.21).....1@24"/32"-1@41"

Maine..(-2.46).....either: 1@20"/26" or 1@40"

N.H....(-2.51).....1@32"

Mass...(-2.65).....1@30" ( went to 28")

 

* Keep/Kill Ratio... Ratio of recreational landings to recreational release mortality. a score of +1.37 means that 1.37 bass was kept to every one that was killed. In contrast -2.51 means 2.51 bass was killed to every one kept. + score means more conservation, - score means more waste.

 

The two charts above clearly show a number of things:

 

1. Even though NJ regulations may appear lax compared to other states. The total fish killed in NJ falls in line with other states since it does not allow commercial fishing.

 

2. Release mortality is calculated at about 10% in catch/release fishing and is responsible for about 1/3 of the striped bass being killed.

 

3. As many fish are killed by release mortality as killed by the commercial fisherman. Why is everyone focused on the commercial fisherman when release mortality kills just as many.

 

4. States that have lower size limits have a lower keep/kill ratio, and therefore are better at conserving fish. Look at Mass release mortality, and their keep/kill ratio, that had regulations at 30"; compared to any of the states that have 28" or less.

 

5. Fish limits set to 36" min is not conservation, it promotes a higher release mortality and is nothing more than a wasteful managment alternative. In comparison a "Ban" is conservation, no waste. Keeping and eating everything you catch is conservation, no waste.

 

6. Lower size limits kill less fish and therefore allow more fish to grow up.

 

7. More fish can be caught with lower size limits and therefore strict control over bag limits by qty or seasons must be upheld to compenstate.

 

 

Amendment 6 is suppose to address the future of the stripedbass by reducing mortality. I think the tables above shows that to reduce mortality and still have an acceptable bag limit the majority of fisherman want, the lower size limits are necessary. They must however be accompanied by strict bag limits and adjusted seasons to work.

 

Under Amendment 6 a lot of people wanted to vote for a return to "historic size and qty". However,It seems nobody knows what that means! Historic, are you talking about the days of Abe Lincoln? What historic size? 100 Lbs? What historic qty and how do you quantify that? How big of a biomass is required to support the "historic size and qty". There is a lot of evidence now that the current biosystem (food, habitat), cannot support the current biomass (number of fish), the reason for choice "C". So how do you expand to "historic size and qty", whatever that is ? I wish sombody would answer the question in detail, "WHAT IS HISTORIC SIZE AND QTY" ?

 

A few have looked at a 36" min as a means of conservation. A 36" min is far from conservation due to the waste of release mortality already killing 1/3 of the stripedbass. A 36" min will only drive the release mortality up. In comparison to ducks unlimited who pratice true conservation, in that they; develope habitat, manage duck species with bag limits, and keep everything they kill. They do not leave dead ducks laying around rotting with shoot and release hunting.

 

If you like to eat fish keep everything you are entitled too. If you don't like to eat fish catch them and give them to family or friends, or someone living on a fixed income, they get tired of eating corn flakes and dog food. This will also show some respect to the stripedbass, in that they served a purpose, food, rather then letting them rot on the bottom of the ocean due to release mortality. Dont let the fanatics who kill hundreds of fish in a year by release mortality intimidate you into thinking that catch and release is conservation, and it's bad to keep fish. Catch and release is not conservation, see definiton above, and is only a wasteful managment technique, that we have to live with because of size limits, and only promotes a "kill for fun" fishery.

 

Since the collaspe of the striped bass, the managers have brought them from a biomass of 8 million to over 35 million, far from another collaspe. And, now their are indications that the biomass is even greater than expected. The current regulations have been working till now, and the numbers prove it. Granted there are inconsistencies from state to state, some are justified because they are producer states, or they do not permit commercial fishing like NJ and have a larger recreational kill to compensate, which they are entitled to. Naturally there is always room for improvement but bottom line the mangagers have done a good job on the bass and we have to give them a chance. Some do not believe the bass are in a healthy state because they no longer catch the numbers of fish they did in the past. All I can say is get a grip mother nature is one very unpredictable fickle ***** , and combine that with the damage man has done to the environment and we will probably see more dramatic changes in the future. The New England states and the tounament results for Va, http://www.state.va.us/mrc/vswft/00striper.htm ,show there are hugh numbers of large bass in the biomass, they just aren't in the same places they were a couple years ago.

 

Crazy Alberto, I don't agree but respect your opinion on NJ regulations for the reasons outlined above. I could also say I'm appalled that you let NY still have commercial fishing for stripedbass. Bottom line looking at the charts above both states killed about the same amount of fish, however they did it. However, I fully agree with you that the recreational infighting has got to stop and find a more constructive path.

 

The stripedbass are a great fish that are part of the food chain, nothing more and nothing less, and it's sad but true their value is only calculated by economics. And, it is this economic value that will not only keep the fish from another collaspe, but also determine the min size and their overall future. The sooner those facts are accepted the sooner everyone will work together.

 

Hey if its not broke why fix it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil L--

 

You're right.

 

I'll apologize again for allowing myself to be baited into this thread, and letting it run as long as it has.

 

Someone once said, "Never wrestle with a pig; you'll both get covered with mud, and the pig will like it."

 

I forgot that sage advice, and succumbed to the temptation to respond.

 

Therefore, in the interests of ending this thread, I will leave at the end of this post, and not return to this thread again.

 

The fish deserve better than what we've been doing "for" them the last couple of days.

 

Again, my apologies to all.

"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

Following JohnP out the door!*

 

Keep/Kill Ratio... Ratio of recreational landings to recreational release mortality. a score of +1.37 means that 1.37 bass was kept to every one that was killed. In contrast -2.51 means 2.51 bass was killed to every one kept. + score means more conservation, - score means more waste.

 

This has to be a misprint. Physicaly impossible.

 

*Exercise in futility!

 

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

PLEASE PICK UP YOUR TRASH! OX 'THEDITCH'

 

[This message has been edited by OX 'THEDITCH' (edited 08-21-2001).]

PLEASE, PICKUP YOUR TRASH! SOL#342
Quote:Originally Posted by fish'nmagicianI try to inject humor....I often fail.
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...