jps1010

How soon we forget - Striped Bass decline

Rate this topic

83 posts in this topic

8 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

My point exactly. 1 @ 36", what have we got to lose????

 

What is comical is we don’t really focus on reasonable harvest levels, and agreed biological abundance reference points, but jump right into debates about seasons / size / bag / slots

 

the Long Island east End guys are probably always going to be ok with 36, while the guys to the west and south will argue for slots because they just don’t see as many larger fish

 

But what I can say with certainty - and I saw this when we went to 28 - is that keeper means keep 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 0:07 AM, Stonesipher said:

It may be a different place but the bottom line is when the fish are taken before they have a chance to breed for a couple of years recovery will never happen. That’s a fact 

 

This.  That's it.  Let them breed. 

 

Moratorium, let'em grow and breed, and then re-open with a slot limit.   Let the little ones grow, leave the cows to breed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

20 hours ago, JohnP said:

 

What is comical is we don’t really focus on reasonable harvest levels, and agreed biological abundance reference points, but jump right into debates about seasons / size / bag / slots

 

the Long Island east End guys are probably always going to be ok with 36, while the guys to the west and south will argue for slots because they just don’t see as many larger fish

 

But what I can say with certainty - and I saw this when we went to 28 - is that keeper means keep 

 

 

I don’t find it comical at all; the bottom line is that management cannot seem to effectively manage the fishery conservatively with the limits they decide on which may or may not be “scientifically” arrived at. Politics trumps science and if politically the resource is primarily valued in dead fish the likelihood of a move towards abundance doesn’t look possible until there aren’t any fish. 

Edited by rollincoal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 2:09 PM, DZ said:

You want to read something eerie?  Change the date of this editorial to 2019 and it just about hits the nail on the head.

Montgomery SB 1977.pdf

Dennis, Exactly like the things we talk about endlessly now. That one point about the heart of the school is exactly what the in / on shore fisherman see now. The territory shrinks and expands as the population does the same. This is true with all living organisms in the world, from bacteria, to birds, to mankind. Why so few inshore fish of size. The population has shrunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

2 hours ago, rollincoal said:

I don’t find it comical at all; the bottom line is that management cannot seem to effectively manage the fishery conservatively with the limits they decide on which may or may not be “scientifically” arrived at. Politics trumps science and if politically the resource is primarily valued in dead fish the likelihood of a move towards abundance doesn’t look possible until there aren’t any fish. 

Political "climate" would have to be changed. Good luck with that. Then wait how many years to see if what worked one time could work again? I don't know but it appears to me that there's less bunker, less herring, and less mullet. Why is there no mullet? Acidic water or something? I never see spearing.

 

The bunker and herring would be stripped from the sea if there were no regulations and they could. There's plastic everywhere. And there's rampant poaching by all groups. When the populations shrink as other posters said there appear to be a good fishery in some smaller locations to those there. But overall it's not close to what it was even 8-10 years ago. It sucks.

Edited by Rainmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two other quick thoughts on "the Comeback" and "Climate Change".

The Comeback.....let's not forget that along with the moratorium, we had PCB's on our side. The warnings about the PCB's in the Hudson were rampant. Who would eat a striper then ?

Climate change....striped bass look downwards mostly for their meals, probably over 90% of the time. They also migrate at some depth or we would see hoardes passing our beaches on their way east and north. The water at about 40-60 feet off NJ in July is about the same temperature as that depth range in Labrador in January. The only serious water temperature issue in the "Striper Corridor" is the varying position of the gulf stream from year to year as it relates to distance from shore and that only effects those that are part of the offshore population, and probably some of the baitfish migrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 55555s said:

 

This.  That's it.  Let them breed. 

 

Moratorium, let'em grow and breed, and then re-open with a slot limit.   Let the little ones grow, leave the cows to breed.

 

 

:howdy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought....... anyone of us make the choice to not kill / harvest anything under 32" this will help to give the smaller ones a few seasons to reproduce. I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

Just a thought....... anyone of us make the choice to not kill / harvest anything under 32" this will help to give the smaller ones a few seasons to reproduce. I'm in.

I have never kept a striper.  Not once.  Not ever. 

 

Small blues and legal fluke i eat.

 

Occassionally Northern puffer and Kingfish, if they are larger. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rollincoal said:

I don’t find it comical at all; the bottom line is that management cannot seem to effectively manage the fishery conservatively with the limits they decide on which may or may not be “scientifically” arrived at. Politics trumps science and if politically the resource is primarily valued in dead fish the likelihood of a move towards abundance doesn’t look possible until there aren’t any fish. 

 

When I see the same stories recycled over 20 years I just gotta laugh. 

 

Fisherman #1: there seems to be a problem, we are just not seeing fish anymore

Fisherman #2: Well we catch mostly smaller fish, so it’s the bigger breeders that should be protected, we need a slot. Yep it’s those guys who go out and kill the big fish, they are the problem.

Fisherman #3: No way, you can’t tell a fisherman who charters me to throw back a trophy. And besides my customers only fish a couple times a year. And you know it all sports fish a lot more and probably kill more. But raising the size limit a bit and giving em a chance to spawn is the way to go.

Fisherman #4: I don’t know what you guys are talking about, I saw more bass this last fall than I’ve ever seen before, and trust me, I’ve been fishing hard since 2015.

Fisherman #5: Well here in New Jersey we have gamefish status, and each year we aim to kill more fish than any state on the east coast, but we can be proud that our commercial fishery has been shut down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohnP said:

 

When I see the same stories recycled over 20 years I just gotta laugh...

 

You might as well add those to your list of people of people to be laughed those who can seem to believe that we can just set a more reasonable optimal yield. This management system is based on establishing that there aren’t any fish before there is hope of managing fish for living fish. The only other reasonable options are to accept the idea of a resource grab primarily valuing the fishery in living fish or accept the system as is and push for a fish grab to increase ones share of the remaining fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnP said:

 

When I see the same stories recycled over 20 years I just gotta laugh. 

 

Fisherman #1: there seems to be a problem, we are just not seeing fish anymore

Fisherman #2: Well we catch mostly smaller fish, so it’s the bigger breeders that should be protected, we need a slot. Yep it’s those guys who go out and kill the big fish, they are the problem.

Fisherman #3: No way, you can’t tell a fisherman who charters me to throw back a trophy. And besides my customers only fish a couple times a year. And you know it all sports fish a lot more and probably kill more. But raising the size limit a bit and giving em a chance to spawn is the way to go.

Fisherman #4: I don’t know what you guys are talking about, I saw more bass this last fall than I’ve ever seen before, and trust me, I’ve been fishing hard since 2015.

Fisherman #5: Well here in New Jersey we have gamefish status, and each year we aim to kill more fish than any state on the east coast, but we can be proud that our commercial fishery has been shut down. 

 

#4&5 - spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you laugh too hard, check to see if you might be on the list of “those to be laughed at”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 6:42 PM, jps1010 said:

 

Think about it, you have less fishing coming into the mix, poor YOY, but the bags limits don't change for a number of years, what do we think is going to happen.

The mantras of the NJMFC and all of the other regulating bodies of marine wildlife conservation is "management by extinction".   Regarding YOY: the "data" regulators use to establish bag limits is bogus based upon the collection methods used.

Unfortunately, water quality will probably continue to deteriorate based upon the rapidly increasing human population and the need to feed it.  About the only way to change this will be to eliminate fertilizers and pesticides in crops and homeowner lawns, and to build water treatment plants that can actually satisfy the demand of coastal populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jettyhound said:

The mantras of the NJMFC and all of the other regulating bodies of marine wildlife conservation is "management by extinction".   Regarding YOY: the "data" regulators use to establish bag limits is bogus based upon the collection methods used.

Unfortunately, water quality will probably continue to deteriorate based upon the rapidly increasing human population and the need to feed it.  About the only way to change this will be to eliminate fertilizers and pesticides in crops and homeowner lawns, and to build water treatment plants that can actually satisfy the demand of coastal populations.

It would be ideal but we will never be able to count every single fish in the ocean nor do we need to.  The YOY index gives us a good idea as to what we could potentially expect in the future but we need to be mindful that these fish may be taken out of the mix through things like predation, disease and overfishing. 

The water quality has always been an issue and is what they said was the cause back in the 80s.  It wasn’t.  Overfishing was.  I’m not saying water quality isn’t a problem, it is and should be addressed but it’s not the cause of this latest decline.  Besides, the water quality hasn’t drastically declined in just a matter of a few years to cause the latest population dip.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.