Striper1851

Where are the Stripers?

Rate this topic

197 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, MAArcher said:

Because I believe catch and release as it’s been practiced kills far more fish than commercial fishing.  Not just based on an outdated chart but from 50 years of personal observation and participating in it.

My biggest question is how do you know how many released fish go on to die? You’re saying that catch and release kills more fish than the commercial fishery… but is there any data showing that the majority of released fish die shortly after? And if so, how is this information being gathered? Unless a fish is being tagged with something that monitors the fishes vitals and can relay a signal to a database to tell us when the fish’s heartbeat has stopped, then there’s simply no possible way of gathering that information. By saying “from what I’ve seen over 50 years and participated in”… that’s anecdotal at best and it also leads me to think you simply throw a fish back in and let it float away rather than know how to properly revive it. I have a feeling (although I may be wrong) that you’re basing your release mortality off of people that are fishing with bait, catch an undersized fish, and then have to release it. The problem with that scenario is the bait part.. a lot of fish get gut hooked when fishing with bait, and yes, that would increase their chance of mortality after release. However, catch and release is really a term meant for the plugging fisherman where a lure is rarely ever swallowed. Does it happen, yes, but it’s not the norm because you’re setting the hook instantly when a bite is felt. 

 

I don’t think commercial fishing is the only thing to blame here. I think that a combination of commercial fishing quotas not being lowered, thousands of recreational charter boats that go out with six people twice a day and limit out, poaching, and also the fact that modern sonar equipment, fishing books, cellphones, gps, and sites like this have lead the average rec fisherman to significantly increase how many fish they catch annually on average. It’s a combined total of all of it. 

now, to say stripers are food first is simply not true. Florida is a really great example of a state that has a well regulated fishery and protects the species that need it. There are several species that “taste great” that aren’t allowed to be kept, or have strict regulations on size and when they can be fished for. One species that stands out is Goliath groupers.. they’re known to get up to 800 pounds and are delicious. I’ve personally caught a few in the 300-400 Lb range while on vacation in Sarasota. This fish had to be put on the endangered species list and was fully illegal to even take it out of the water let alone keep it. Fish that size were not being kept by recreational fisherman, no one needs 500lb of grouper meat to feed their friends and family. Where would you even store that much meat?? That species was specifically being decimated by the commercial fishery that was making major dollars off catching a fish that is marketable, tasty, expensive, and lots of meat per fish. So much so that they had to make it that no one could keep it.. BUT fishing for them recreationally was still legal. Just couldn’t harvest them. Catch and release ONLY! And guess what happened once the commercial fishery could no longer take them?? The species bounced back so much that they’re EVERYWHERE now. Florida is considering opening the commercial fishery for them back up because of just how many numbers there are.. they made a full recovery. So unfortunately that puts your catch and release mortality theory to bed.

 

lastly, I want to point to tuna, especially in the Japanese fleet. The United States has some of the strictest and most limiting regulations on blue fin tuna fishing in the world. But yet they’re teetering on entering the endangered species category. Our recreational fisherman and commercial fleets keep getting hammered by tighter regulations, but yet the stock keeps dwindling. Why? Because of commercial fishing in the western pacific. There are no enforced regulations in that market and the fish is worth an insane amount of money over there.. mix those two things and all moral responsibilities go out the window. Unregulated commercial fishing causes species to go extinct. Period. That’s the major difference between commercial fishing and recreational catch and release.. one of them released fish due to a feeling of moral responsibility, and the other has a dollar sign attached to the catch. When you put a financial incentive to catching more fish, people are going to try to catch more of them. If you regulate the size they can keep, they’re just going to start culling and tossing the smaller keepers back over. If you fine them for any accidental species or size bycatch in the nets, those fish are being tossed overboard dead. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAKE FISHERY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN!! Commercial fishing was so harsh and they were throwing back so many dead undersized fish that the amount of rotting flesh on the sea floor changed the chemistry of the ocean in those areas and caused dead zones where nothing could survive in it.

We’re experiencing similar situations in the Gulf of Maine with cod stocks due to overfishing.

 

the list goes on and on my man… it’s no doubt a little of everything.. but the answer has proven multiples times over to be solvable by making a species “catch and release only”. It has worked for several species, so, I’m sorry but your release mortality argument just doesn’t hold water. That’s an argument that has been designed by the commercial fishing lobbyists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 mins ago, nickd9283 said:

My biggest question is how do you know how many released fish go on to die? You’re saying that catch and release kills more fish than the commercial fishery… but is there any data showing that the majority of released fish die shortly after?

 

However, catch and release is really a term meant for the plugging fisherman where a lure is rarely ever swallowed. Does it happen, yes, but it’s not the norm because you’re setting the hook instantly when a bite is felt. 

 

now, to say stripers are food first is simply not true. Florida is a really great example of a state that has a well regulated fishery and protects the species that need it. 

 

they made a full recovery. So unfortunately that puts your catch and release mortality theory to bed.

 

the list goes on and on my man… it’s no doubt a little of everything.. but the answer has proven multiples times over to be solvable by making a species “catch and release only”. It has worked for several species, so, I’m sorry but your release mortality argument just doesn’t hold water. That’s an argument that has been designed by the commercial fishing lobbyists. 

The only mortality data I know of is what's put out by the government and it assumes a 9% mortality rate of released fish.   I don't know how they came up with it but my money says that's conservative based on personal observation and experience.  But even if its only 3%, it still results in more dead fish than the entire commercial take.  Its only hard for you to believe because it takes place over thousand of miles of coastline over an entire season and it happens under water, you don't see them piled up all at once and you don't want to accept that you killed any more fish than you personally witnessed with your own eyes.

 

Catch and release is a legal term defined by law, not what you think it should mean.   There is a crap ton of fish caught on bait and thrown back and called "caught and released" and the majority of them are not kissed, thoughtfully revived and lovingly watched swimming away.

 

"Food first, fun second" is a moral philosophy and I coined the phrase just a few months ago at the DMF's public hearing on the new commercial regs. It has nothing to do with how to generate the most cash off a fish.  I meant it to recognize that we have a moral responsibility to nature; and preserving the natural order supersedes recreation.

 

Its flawed logic to say that stopping commercial fishing saved some fish so that's the only way to save fish.  Do you know what would have happened to fish stocks if you instead stopped recreational fishing all together and also properly managed commercial fishing (even if it meant a moratorium)?  I bet you can guess.  What saves fish is toping men from killing them.  It doesn't matter to the recovery if that man is a commercial fisherman or a recreational fishermen.  A dead fish is a dead fish.  Whether it died after release or consumed for dinner doesn't matter to the fish population, the population is reduced by one fish either way.  My argument is that if only one fish death can be afforded, it should be eaten, not fed to the crabs.  

 

If you don't believe the outdated mortality data, join me and write to the state and federal governments and ask them to perform a current study so we don't have to have this argument.  If catch and release doesn't kill fish then we don't have to talk about it any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If let's say 9% of the catch and release die what % are breeding size fish . My guess would a very small percentage . On the other hand 100% of the commercial caught stripers are breeding size fish . It's kind of hard to bring back the stripers when you're targeting the female spawning fish of the species .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shark lobster said:

There seems to be a lack of fish here in ma. But other states have been doing well with bass big bass to! 

Are there really a lot of big fish in other states or are we only hearing about the big fish caught elsewhere because they are all that’s left? Right now any big fish is a big deal and gets big publicity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, z-man said:

Are there really a lot of big fish in other states or are we only hearing about the big fish caught elsewhere because they are all that’s left? Right now any big fish is a big deal and gets big publicity. 

Z,

A small charge of real big fish showed I'm the canal on Monday  at one of the worst locations.   Since then, the story has been blown out of all proportion.   This is right here in town.  I can't imagine what this story will be once it makes its way to the NY and NJ circles. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MAArcher said:

The only mortality data I know of is what's put out by the government and it assumes a 9% mortality rate of released fish.   I don't know how they came up with it but my money says that's conservative based on personal observation and experience.  But even if its only 3%, it still results in more dead fish than the entire commercial take.  Its only hard for you to believe because it takes place over thousand of miles of coastline over an entire season and it happens under water, you don't see them piled up all at once and you don't want to accept that you killed any more fish than you personally witnessed with your own eyes.

 

Catch and release is a legal term defined by law, not what you think it should mean.   There is a crap ton of fish caught on bait and thrown back and called "caught and released" and the majority of them are not kissed, thoughtfully revived and lovingly watched swimming away.

 

"Food first, fun second" is a moral philosophy and I coined the phrase just a few months ago at the DMF's public hearing on the new commercial regs. It has nothing to do with how to generate the most cash off a fish.  I meant it to recognize that we have a moral responsibility to nature; and preserving the natural order supersedes recreation.

 

Its flawed logic to say that stopping commercial fishing saved some fish so that's the only way to save fish.  Do you know what would have happened to fish stocks if you instead stopped recreational fishing all together and also properly managed commercial fishing (even if it meant a moratorium)?  I bet you can guess.  What saves fish is toping men from killing them.  It doesn't matter to the recovery if that man is a commercial fisherman or a recreational fishermen.  A dead fish is a dead fish.  Whether it died after release or consumed for dinner doesn't matter to the fish population, the population is reduced by one fish either way.  My argument is that if only one fish death can be afforded, it should be eaten, not fed to the crabs.  

 

If you don't believe the outdated mortality data, join me and write to the state and federal governments and ask them to perform a current study so we don't have to have this argument.  If catch and release doesn't kill fish then we don't have to talk about it any more.

Do you think that none of the shorts that comm guys are releasing are dying? How careful are the comm guys at releasing their shorts that they just gaffed? You’re just trying come up reasons justifying yourself wanting to become a commercial bass fishermen. It’s lame. Stop raping the sea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 mins ago, bob_G said:

Z,

A small charge of real big fish showed I'm the canal on Monday  at one of the worst locations.   Since then, the story has been blown out of all proportion.   This is right here in town.  I can't imagine what this story will be once it makes its way to the NY and NJ circles. :laugh:

It’s already on YouTube 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bob_G said:

Z,

A small charge of real big fish showed I'm the canal on Monday  at one of the worst locations.   Since then, the story has been blown out of all proportion.   This is right here in town.  I can't imagine what this story will be once it makes its way to the NY and NJ circles. :laugh:

I’m sure there will be hoards of people there chasing a few unicorns. I have little desire to fish the canal anymore and deal with its chaos. I’m happy catching smaller fish from the beach or kayak with virtually no other people around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nickd9283 said:

My biggest question is how do you know how many released fish go on to die? You’re saying that catch and release kills more fish than the commercial fishery… but is there any data showing that the majority of released fish die shortly after? And if so, how is this information being gathered? Unless a fish is being tagged with something that monitors the fishes vitals and can relay a signal to a database to tell us when the fish’s heartbeat has stopped, then there’s simply no possible way of gathering that information. By saying “from what I’ve seen over 50 years and participated in”… that’s anecdotal at best and it also leads me to think you simply throw a fish back in and let it float away rather than know how to properly revive it. I have a feeling (although I may be wrong) that you’re basing your release mortality off of people that are fishing with bait, catch an undersized fish, and then have to release it. The problem with that scenario is the bait part.. a lot of fish get gut hooked when fishing with bait, and yes, that would increase their chance of mortality after release. However, catch and release is really a term meant for the plugging fisherman where a lure is rarely ever swallowed. Does it happen, yes, but it’s not the norm because you’re setting the hook instantly when a bite is felt. 

 

I don’t think commercial fishing is the only thing to blame here. I think that a combination of commercial fishing quotas not being lowered, thousands of recreational charter boats that go out with six people twice a day and limit out, poaching, and also the fact that modern sonar equipment, fishing books, cellphones, gps, and sites like this have lead the average rec fisherman to significantly increase how many fish they catch annually on average. It’s a combined total of all of it. 

now, to say stripers are food first is simply not true. Florida is a really great example of a state that has a well regulated fishery and protects the species that need it. There are several species that “taste great” that aren’t allowed to be kept, or have strict regulations on size and when they can be fished for. One species that stands out is Goliath groupers.. they’re known to get up to 800 pounds and are delicious. I’ve personally caught a few in the 300-400 Lb range while on vacation in Sarasota. This fish had to be put on the endangered species list and was fully illegal to even take it out of the water let alone keep it. Fish that size were not being kept by recreational fisherman, no one needs 500lb of grouper meat to feed their friends and family. Where would you even store that much meat?? That species was specifically being decimated by the commercial fishery that was making major dollars off catching a fish that is marketable, tasty, expensive, and lots of meat per fish. So much so that they had to make it that no one could keep it.. BUT fishing for them recreationally was still legal. Just couldn’t harvest them. Catch and release ONLY! And guess what happened once the commercial fishery could no longer take them?? The species bounced back so much that they’re EVERYWHERE now. Florida is considering opening the commercial fishery for them back up because of just how many numbers there are.. they made a full recovery. So unfortunately that puts your catch and release mortality theory to bed.

 

lastly, I want to point to tuna, especially in the Japanese fleet. The United States has some of the strictest and most limiting regulations on blue fin tuna fishing in the world. But yet they’re teetering on entering the endangered species category. Our recreational fisherman and commercial fleets keep getting hammered by tighter regulations, but yet the stock keeps dwindling. Why? Because of commercial fishing in the western pacific. There are no enforced regulations in that market and the fish is worth an insane amount of money over there.. mix those two things and all moral responsibilities go out the window. Unregulated commercial fishing causes species to go extinct. Period. That’s the major difference between commercial fishing and recreational catch and release.. one of them released fish due to a feeling of moral responsibility, and the other has a dollar sign attached to the catch. When you put a financial incentive to catching more fish, people are going to try to catch more of them. If you regulate the size they can keep, they’re just going to start culling and tossing the smaller keepers back over. If you fine them for any accidental species or size bycatch in the nets, those fish are being tossed overboard dead. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAKE FISHERY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN!! Commercial fishing was so harsh and they were throwing back so many dead undersized fish that the amount of rotting flesh on the sea floor changed the chemistry of the ocean in those areas and caused dead zones where nothing could survive in it.

We’re experiencing similar situations in the Gulf of Maine with cod stocks due to overfishing.

 

the list goes on and on my man… it’s no doubt a little of everything.. but the answer has proven multiples times over to be solvable by making a species “catch and release only”. It has worked for several species, so, I’m sorry but your release mortality argument just doesn’t hold water. That’s an argument that has been designed by the commercial fishing lobbyists. 

Nailed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pickerel92 said:

It’s already on YouTube 

Haha, yep. I'd be pretty pissed off if that guy was standing behind me, filming, not fishing, and then posted it on YouTube the same day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2021 at 9:57 PM, MAArcher said:

I'm new to the conversation.   What's wrong with the chart?

There's no way to accurately measure the recreational harvest and rec release mortality. It's based on modeling and estimates. We know how many rec licenses are issued, so we have that datum, but how many licensees fish for bass, as opposed to ground species, for example? In other words, it's based on educated guesses. Which, I guess, are still better than wild-assed guesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All fisheries management is based off modeling and estimates. They use the best numbers that they have, so unless you think you have a more reliable estimate, I don’t find that to be a very meaningful criticism of the recreational mortality numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoverStriper said:

Haha, yep. I'd be pretty pissed off if that guy was standing behind me, filming, not fishing, and then posted it on YouTube the same day. 

New term: pork-tubing. Musta been from NJ.

 

But in all seriousness, I’d have only myself to blame for deciding to fish that area of the canal lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmei said:

All fisheries management is based off modeling and estimates. They use the best numbers that they have, so unless you think you have a more reliable estimate, I don’t find that to be a very meaningful criticism of the recreational mortality numbers. 

I have an estimate that works for striped bass. No commercial or recreational take :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MAArcher said:

Apples and oranges.  Hoards of people aren’t taking a weeks vacation to sit on the beach and kill baby cod all day.  And no ones trawl netting striper.  Try again.

Actually where I fish there are gill nets for stripers and they are destroying tons on marine life on our beaches from seals to dolphins to turtles no less hoards of striped bass. Much more destructive than trawlers... 

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.