stripedbassking

Summer striped bass ASMFC meeting

Rate this topic

90 posts in this topic

25 mins ago, Roccus7 said:

Totally believe that, but a cataclysmic crash in the striped bass population would not lessen those boat sales.  It would take closure of fishing in the Canyons for that to happen...

Don't even need to go to the canyons.  There's a good yellowfin bite 30-50 miles off, and the boat in the slip next to mine took a just-legal bluefin (72") off Brooklyn a week or two ago.

Share this post


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

They don't look that far ahead.

 

Can we make our numbers for the year?  Yes.  Will I get my bonus for the year?  Yes.

 

OK, all is good.  

 

And if things go bad five years from now, Shimano can just shift assets to its bycycle business, while Brunswick makes more wakeboats and pontoons.  Or the CEOs can retire on the money already made, or get a job elsewhere in the recreation industry.  Make a boat, make a camper, make a snowmobile, it's all the same to them.  Or even make freshwater tackle--fish are better managed there, and the market will always exist.

Okay, Shimano has the resources to do that but what about the smaller businesses such as the local mom and pops, or places like TD, The Surfcaster, J&H, etc?  Wouldn't that adversely affect them?  It is not that easy or cheap to divert resources to other markets.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe I shouldn't be looking at it logically.  This reminds of how NYC was run on the 70s to early 90s.  Sure there were people living there and business residing there but it was until Mayor Giuliani and subsequently Mayor Bloomberg, where they saw beyond 5 feet in front of them and what a difference.  People moved here.  Businesses invested here.  Tax revenue increased, etc.  Although NYC has been regressing due to our wonderful elected officials.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, jps1010 said:

Okay, Shimano has the resources to do that but what about the smaller businesses such as the local mom and pops, or places like TD, The Surfcaster, J&H, etc?  Wouldn't that adversely affect them?  It is not that easy or cheap to divert resources to other markets.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe I shouldn't be looking at it logically.  This reminds of how NYC was run on the 70s to early 90s.  Sure there were people living there and business residing there but it was until Mayor Giuliani and subsequently Mayor Bloomberg, where they saw beyond 5 feet in front of them and what a difference.  People moved here.  Businesses invested here.  Tax revenue increased, etc.  Although NYC has been regressing due to our wonderful elected officials.

 

 

The small shops are completely focused on the short term..

 

A number of years ago, one of the shops more active in the fishery management process--the guy opposed just about every regulation--summed it up by saying "I can't worry about next year; I have to get through this year first."  During the Amendment 6 debate, the shops all decided to boycott the old Nor'East Saltwater publication/website, after the owner polled his readers and reported the results of the poll at a hearing, because the majority wanted a quality fishery that included large fish, while the shops wanted more liberal regulations so the bucket brigade could go home happy, and so would be more likely to buy stuff.

 

It's just the way that they think.  

Share this post


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

If you take that position, then all of us who have taken the time to advocate for the bass, the bluefish, and various other species, but sometimes failed did nothing but rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, and in the end aren't worth jack**** because we didn't succeed.

 

I prefer Teddy Rooselvelt's view

 

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

There are good people at the ASMFC who are trying to do the right thing.  They don't always prevail, and in many ways, the ASMFC system is stacked against them.  I'll condemn the system, and I'll condemn the people catering to the short-sighted private interests looking for nothing more than a quick buck, but I'll stand up for the people who stand on principle and try to represent the resource, even though they don't always win.

 

Criticism is easy.  Making meaningful change is hard.

It certainly is, and we have yet to see one shred of it after 10 years.

 

I like the chair rearrangement quote, it's quite fitting in this case. Because in the end, when this fishery finishes out its ongoing crash and it lost forever and we hand out some participation trophies to those that tried but didn't succeed when can again wax poetic about Teddy's words.

 

I'd prefer people to be responsible to their plan rather than ignore it. I'd like people to manage the resource for its benefit, not to maintain some commercial fishery because at some point that it becomes no longer worthwhile. I'd prefer to see someone publicly spank the petulant child so we can at least see that someone there gives more than a ****. I prefer to see results vs a nice try. The problem is that the asmfc doesn't work that way, and it never will. It's just not possible.

 

I'm not privy to inside info, I don't have the luxury of knowing some of these people personally. All that i see (and everyone else) is a public resource being lost even though there were multiple opportunities along to way to affect change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Drew C. said:

It certainly is, and we have yet to see one shred of it after 10 years.

 

I disagree with that.  Amendment 7 was a real step forward.

 

The new recruitment trigger has already come into play.

 

We;'re going into a stock assessment assuming a low-recruitment scenario, and things are still on track for a rebuilding plan being fast-tracked an in place next season.

 

When the rebuilding plan is adopted, states will not be able to adopt conservation equivalency with respect to any of such plan's provisions.

 

That all constitutes progress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew C. said:

All should be taking the same cut.

Cuts should be proportional to harvest. The rec sector kills the majority of bass and should take the heaviest cut. Unless there’s an underlying reason you feel the cuts shouldn’t represent harvest   

Share this post


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

Cuts should be proportional to harvest. The rec sector kills the majority of bass and should take the heaviest cut. Unless there’s an underlying reason you feel the cuts shouldn’t represent harvest   

Is there data on what the annual recreational catch is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, adam42 said:

Is there data on what the annual recreational catch is?

Yes.

 

The 2018 benchmark stock assessment indicated that the commercial fishery in 2017 was responsible for 10% of all striped bass fishing mortality (8% landings, 2% discard mortality), while the recreational fishery was responsible for about 90% (42% landings, 48% release mortality) 

 

Supplemental material provided for last week's ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting (available here:  http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2022SummerMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardSupplemental.pdf) show that proportion has changed just a little in the years since.  In 2018, the split was 13% commercial (11% harvest, 2% discard) 87% rec (39% landings, 49% release mortalityt), in 2019 14% commercial (12%/2%) 86% recreational (39%/47%), in 2020 12% commercial (11%/1%) 87% rec (33%/54%), and in 2021 14% commercial (12%/2%)  86% rec (36%/50%).  (Note that, because of rounding error, all percentages may not add up to 100%, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Drew C. said:

It certainly is, and we have yet to see one shred of it after 10 years…

In this management system there is zero opportunity for any conservation until it can be demonstrated that the fish aren’t there anymore. Managers will take, take, take, until the can be embarrassed into reductions; and even then will seek to protect the special interests if they can.

 

While it is noted that “industry” and its pressure on management is short cited, we should also note that any “sanctioned” conservation efforts are also short cited. We are often scolded about the impossibility of any long term proactive conservation by those raising the conservation flag, lest it be perceived as a resource grab.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CWitek said:

Yes.

 

The 2018 benchmark stock assessment indicated that the commercial fishery in 2017 was responsible for 10% of all striped bass fishing mortality (8% landings, 2% discard mortality), while the recreational fishery was responsible for about 90% (42% landings, 48% release mortality) 

 

Supplemental material provided for last week's ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting (available here:  http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2022SummerMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardSupplemental.pdf) show that proportion has changed just a little in the years since.  In 2018, the split was 13% commercial (11% harvest, 2% discard) 87% rec (39% landings, 49% release mortalityt), in 2019 14% commercial (12%/2%) 86% recreational (39%/47%), in 2020 12% commercial (11%/1%) 87% rec (33%/54%), and in 2021 14% commercial (12%/2%)  86% rec (36%/50%).  (Note that, because of rounding error, all percentages may not add up to 100%, etc.)

Just curious.. how do they determine the release mortality rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 mins ago, JimK said:

Just curious.. how do they determine the release mortality rate?

Right now, the best information is deemed to come from a study performed in Massachusetts a number of years ago.  Other studies, performed in Maryland and New York's Hudson River, are not inconsistent with the Massachusetts study, although they both suggest much higher mortality levels under adverse conditions (high water and air temperatures, low salinity, longer fight times, etc.)  All generally agree that hooking location is the greatest contributor to fishing mortality, with bait fishermen ikilling a higher proportion of their released fish than those who use lures.  It is hoped that circle hooks will prevent some deep hooking, although  some anglers dispute that assertion based on personal experience.

 

Massachusetts is, from what I understand, now tabulating the results of a new, state of the art release mortality survey that used acoustic tags to determine the survival of released fish.  The data-crunching is still going on, but preliminary information that I've heard suggests that it will either confirm the 9% rate or perhaps return a rate that is slightly higher.

 

The one thing that all of the studies assume is that the fish will be returned to the water as quickly as practicable.  None involve holding a fish in the air while someone looks around for a camera and starts taking photos.  Given that it is usually the large, most highly stressed fish that receive such treatment, it's not unreasonable to susped that if such behavior was emulated in a study, the release mortality rate would rise higher still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CWitek said:

The small shops are completely focused on the short term..

 

A number of years ago, one of the shops more active in the fishery management process--the guy opposed just about every regulation--summed it up by saying "I can't worry about next year; I have to get through this year first."  During the Amendment 6 debate, the shops all decided to boycott the old Nor'East Saltwater publication/website, after the owner polled his readers and reported the results of the poll at a hearing, because the majority wanted a quality fishery that included large fish, while the shops wanted more liberal regulations so the bucket brigade could go home happy, and so would be more likely to buy stuff.

 

It's just the way that they think.  

Wow, that's brutal.  They're more clueless than I even thought.  It is such a shame that this mindset has been allowed to bring us to where we are today for the second time around.  Thankfully the Salt Water's Edge and the American Saltwater Guides Assoc. understand more fish are better for everyone's business.

 

I am hopeful but not too confident, things improve in the future through meaningful regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2022 at 3:23 PM, Roccus7 said:

Totally believe that, but a cataclysmic crash in the striped bass population would not lessen those boat sales.  It would take closure of fishing in the Canyons for that to happen...

Enter the Hudson Canyon Marine park.

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.