Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NIGHT STRIKES

Possible 2015 Striped Bass Reguations

Rate this topic

558 posts in this topic

I know its a pipe dream but I'd like to see something like the FL tarpon regs for bass

 

Florida Regulations:

Regulations Gulf State Waters Atlantic State Waters

Minimum Size Limit No Minimum Size Limit

Daily Bag Limit

Tarpon is a catch-and-release only fishery.

One tarpon tag per person per year may be purchased when in pursuit of an International Game Fish Association (IGFA) record. Vessel, transport and shipment limited to one fish.

 

The FWC Commission also approved several changes to how tarpon is managed at the June meeting in Lakeland. These changes went into effect Sept. 1, 2013, and include:

All harvest of tarpon will be eliminated, with the exception of the harvest or possession of a single tarpon when in pursuit of an IGFA record and in conjunction with a tarpon tag.

Tarpon tags will be limited to one per person, per year (except for charter boat captains).

Transport or shipment of tarpon becomes limited to one fish per person.

One fish per vessel limit is created for tarpon.

Gear used for tarpon will be limited to hook-and-line only.

People will be allowed to temporarily possess a tarpon for photography, measurement of length and girth and scientific sampling, with the stipulation that tarpon more than 40 inches must remain in the water.

Tarpon regulations will extend into federal waters.

Tarpon tag cost will remain $50 per tag but tag validity will change from July through June to January through December. Tags purchased from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2013, will be good through Dec. 31, 2014.

Prohibit the use of a multiple hook in conjunction with live or dead natural bait to harvest or attempt to harvest tarpon

 

It works because no one wants to eat tarpon.

 

The same situational conservationists who hail the success of tarpon regulations cry and kick their feet like spoiled two-year-olds when they're not allowed to keep more snapper or grouper than the science or the law will allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People that don't fish should be allowed to enjoy some bass if they choose to.

 

This argument always annoys me, mostly because it has no roots in wildlife management.

 

I didn't draw a permit for elk, mule deer or pronghorn last year. Yet there are no professional hunters out there assuring that I can be "allowed to enjoy" some of that game meat if I choose to.

 

I didn't get a chance to go up north for ruffed grouse, either. Yet, again, I can't go down to the local butcher and buy some wild grouse.

 

Nor did I catch a wild brook trout, or a landlocked salmon, or a lake sturgeon. But no one is catching them for me, and putting them in the stores.

 

Shouldn't I be allowed to enjoy all of those things if I don't kill them for myself.

 

The law, and virtually all sportsmen, would say no. That the sale of such wildlife is properly prohibited pursuant to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which emphasizes broad public access to natural resources, as opposed to privatization and sale.

 

Now, the ocean is big enough that there is plenty of room for healthy commercial fisheries for some species, though not all. But the decisions on which species may or may not be sold should be based on sound public policy, and not some notion of public entitlement that is not supported by the prevailing philosophy of wildlife managers generally.

 

Fish are wildlife. As soon as we accept that notion and manage accordingly, things will get better across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ASMFC comes up with a regulatory recommendation, it will apply to the entire coast. However, ASMFC also recognizes the concept of "conservation equivalency", so if they go with 1 @ 28", for example, a state could opt for 2 @ 33" and ASMFC will almost certainly approve it as an "equivalent" regulation.

 

Guess I don't see 2 dead bass equivalent to 1 dead bass :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're saying Cwitek to a certain extent as well as the fish farming argument but let's be honest we are not there yet. Would I love to see aquaculture and shell fish farming catch up to the levels where all wild sea life is given sportfish status. Sure, but that's unrealistic at this point in our society. The striped bass is managed just like haddock or swordfish or any other seafood the world likes to eat just on a smaller scale. The science is supposed to support the regulations and while this is a highly flawed practice that's the way it is. Like it or not our fisheries are managed to get the maximum sustainable yield from a resource and my whole argument was that a united front may help influencing fisheries managers into making smarter quota regulations based on all rec/comm observations. I love this species of fish as much or more than anyone and know it can be managed back to abundance if we work together to regulate the biomass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I don't see 2 dead bass equivalent to 1 dead bass :confused:

 

as long as it would result in the same amount of dead fish overall, it is the equivalent. Its not managed by what an individual catches, its managed based on what everyone catches, so if two fish at a higher size limit results in the same amount of bass killed overall, then it is the "conservationally equivalent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 @ 36" Or no harvest, Other than that the fish is going to be wiped out or critically in danger of being wiped out, by the end of the 2014 season!!!!

 

 

DITTO!!! 1 @ 36". been saying this for 10 years now!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works because no one wants to eat tarpon.

 

The same situational conservationists who hail the success of tarpon regulations cry and kick their feet like spoiled two-year-olds when they're not allowed to keep more snapper or grouper than the science or the law will allow.

 

I'm going disagree with that. It's thought of as a gamefish. Atlantic salmon too, pretty darn tasty but you would never keep one. People would even think about killing one because of the mindset - they know its far more valuable alive than dead. It different with bass, people feel for some reason that they're entitled to kill one just because. Guys keep their limit not because they want fresh fish but because they caught a keeper, and you're supposed to keep a keeper after all. They'll catch two 20lbers, keep both and then struggle to give the fish away. They knew darn well they didn't need that much fish but they kept them anyway. Until that mindset is broken its going to be dead bass after dead bass. Heck, even people that don't keep fish still have the mindset - "what did you catch last night - a couple of shorts, a couple of keepers, etc". We all speak that way.

 

I think bass are too valuable to have a kill fishery. I know its a pipe dream but they should be gamefish only. You want to keep something - go fluking, togging or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by CWitek View Post

That actually works for king salmon up on the Kenai River in Alaska. As soon as you kill a fish, you have to sign and date a line on your license immediately and keep your line out of the water after that. But, of course, it works because there is always a boat or two containing guys in green uniforms keeping tabs on the river.



Same as deer hunting season.    Different rules for different zones, but in some zones you shoot one you tag it and your hunting is done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going disagree with that. It's thought of as a gamefish. Atlantic salmon too, pretty darn tasty but you would never keep one. People would even think about killing one because of the mindset - they know its far more valuable alive than dead. It different with bass, people feel for some reason that they're entitled to kill one just because. Guys keep their limit not because they want fresh fish but because they caught a keeper, and you're supposed to keep a keeper after all. They'll catch two 20lbers, keep both and then struggle to give the fish away. They knew darn well they didn't need that much fish but they kept them anyway. Until that mindset is broken its going to be dead bass after dead bass. Heck, even people that don't keep fish still have the mindset - "what did you catch last night - a couple of shorts, a couple of keepers, etc". We all speak that way.

 

I think bass are too valuable to have a kill fishery. I know its a pipe dream but they should be gamefish only. You want to keep something - go fluking, togging or whatever.

 

Actually, we're more or less in agreement, we just express the thought differently.

 

"Gamefish" and "foodfish" are managed differently, something a lot of folks out in the fisheries advocacy world haven't quite realized yet (down in the Gulf, there's a bunch that keep saying that red snapper should be managed "like striped bass," completely ignoring the fact that fishermen go out for the two species with different expectations.

 

The one disagreement we have probably lies in what you do with a "gamefish." "Gamefish" doesn't necessarily mean no-kill. It means that the fish will be managed for abundance, and for a well-stratified age and size structure so that large fish are a reasonable part of the population; it also means that maintaining a commercial fishery will be difficult if not impossible, as commercial fisheries are typically managed for maximum sustainable yield, in order to produce the most product, which will lead to less abundance and far fewer large fish in the population, as a Fmsy will generally perpetuate a growth overfishing situation. On that basis, other than for the commercial fishery, striped bass are managed much like other "gamefish"; e.g., snook, red drum and billfish. Harvest is allowed, but bag limits are low and size limits are relatively high; you can't fill the cooler with them. Folks say that striped bass are managed for maximum sustainable yield, but that's just not true. Fmsy for striped bass would be represented by the fishing mortality threshold, F=0.41 (or 0.213 pursuant to the new stock assessment); bass are harvested with reference to a fishing mortality target, F=0.30 (hopefully reduced to 0.180 by year-end). So what we have with bass is a sort of hybrid management approach, with a fairly robust commercial fishery and a fishing mortality rate that is really too high for true abundance and good age/size stratification, but far below the optimum level for commercial harvest, which woujld be clloser to Fmsy.

 

However, no-kill regulations such as those in place for tarpon are a special case. And there I'll continue to believe that fact that folks don't eat tarpon plays a role. If they did, you'd see a slot limit such as they have for sturgeon up in the Pacific Northwest, or some sort of permit that allows retention for other than a record claim. Because when you come right down to it, record claims are a far worse reason to kill a fish than for food, although they occur far less often, and thus do less harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HALLELUJAH, ! finally some positive change in size and limit, 1 at 32in. or larger, the boat guys, either party or private 1 at 36in. or larger, NO extra tags for party boats, got to start somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks say that striped bass are managed for maximum sustainable yield, but that's just not true. Fmsy for striped bass would be represented by the fishing mortality threshold, F=0.41 (or 0.213 pursuant to the new stock assessment); bass are harvested with reference to a fishing mortality target, F=0.30 (hopefully reduced to 0.180 by year-end). So what we have with bass is a sort of hybrid management approach, with a fairly robust commercial fishery and a fishing mortality rate that is really too high for true abundance and good age/size stratification, but far below the optimum level for commercial harvest, which woujld be clloser to Fmsy..

 

I have a problem with that statement.

Why are the stocks dropping so rapidly if they are so conservatively managed?

If we already are managing them more conservatively than for maximum yield and almost as a sport fish than what's the problem? Obviously those numbers are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with that statement.

Why are the stocks dropping so rapidly if they are so conservatively managed?

If we already are managing them more conservatively than for maximum yield and almost as a sport fish than what's the problem? Obviously those numbers are wrong.

 

That's the problem--the old numbers are wrong.

 

The last stock assessment used a kludged-together methodology that combined two age-based models with two Ricker models. Classic garbage-in, garbage-out situation. It resulted in a fishing mortality threshold of F=0.41 and F=0.30.

 

This assessment used a single age-based model, which shows that the old fishing mortality reference points are far too high (not surprising when Ricker models are involved; Ricker models are usually used for fish such as salmon, which spawn in streams where habitat is strictly limited and a large population can actually result in less successful spawns, and not for fish such as striped bass that spawn in habitats that cam more easily support the Year 0s).

 

It turns out that the right reference points are Ftarget=0.180 and Fthreshold=0.213. So even though, under the current management plan, the bass are theoretically being managed to a semi-conservative Ftarget, the reality is that the current Ftarget is far too high, and exceeds what the benchmark assessment tells us the Fthreshold SHOULD be by a significant amount.

 

As you said--bad numbers. But they're not managing for MSY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by CWitek View Post

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by giggyfish View Post

People that don't fish should be allowed to enjoy some bass if they choose to.


This argument always annoys me, mostly because it has no roots in wildlife management.

I didn't draw a permit for elk, mule deer or pronghorn last year. Yet there are no professional hunters out there assuring that I can be "allowed to enjoy" some of that game meat if I choose to.

I didn't get a chance to go up north for ruffed grouse, either. Yet, again, I can't go down to the local butcher and buy some wild grouse.

Nor did I catch a wild brook trout, or a landlocked salmon, or a lake sturgeon. But no one is catching them for me, and putting them in the stores.

Shouldn't I be allowed to enjoy all of those things if I don't kill them for myself.

The law, and virtually all sportsmen, would say no. That the sale of such wildlife is properly prohibited pursuant to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which emphasizes broad public access to natural resources, as opposed to privatization and sale.

Now, the ocean is big enough that there is plenty of room for healthy commercial fisheries for some species, though not all. But the decisions on which species may or may not be sold should be based on sound public policy, and not some notion of public entitlement that is not supported by the prevailing philosophy of wildlife managers generally.

Fish are wildlife. As soon as we accept that notion and manage accordingly, things will get better across the board.





+1   This makes too much sense to ignore. :agree:


Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.