Reduced slot.

[lurejunkie00]

I think it’s insane what they are doing. I also think a lot of 31 1/8-36” fish will end up as casualties. I would rather go back to the 36” minimum and having a closed season. I don’t have any problem releasing a 20-27” fish unharmed.  Larger fish , because it takes longer to land them, are usually more stressed. 

Edited June 4 by lurejunkie00
Spelling

[albacized]

I think however they determined the 36" limit back in the late 80's/early 90's was genius...I can't tell you how many 33 to 35 inch stripers I caught during those times. Admittedly it was frustrating at the time because while I had no intention of actually keeping a fish, I just wanted to eclipse that mark just to say I did. They then dropped the limit to 33" and I started catching 36-40 inch fish. 

Segue to this year - I'm catching a lot of fish that fall right into the slot size...no big fish, and very few micros. I feel like that's counterproductive to what their stated goal is (although admittedly, what I'm stating is only anecdotal )

[LockedDrag]

It was incredibly stupid. Good luck enforcing it. Bunch of clowns making regulations. Doesn’t stop poachers. If they want it, they taking it. Especially here in RI where there is no enforcement to speak of already and most of the EPOs don’t really care

[Fergal]

ASMFC - stupid is what stupid does.

[CWitek]

4 hours ago, albacized said:

I think however they determined the 36" limit back in the late 80's/early 90's was genius...I can't tell you how many 33 to 35 inch stripers I caught during those times. Admittedly it was frustrating at the time because while I had no intention of actually keeping a fish, I just wanted to eclipse that mark just to say I did. They then dropped the limit to 33" and I started catching 36-40 inch fish. 

Segue to this year - I'm catching a lot of fish that fall right into the slot size...no big fish, and very few micros. I feel like that's counterproductive to what their stated goal is (although admittedly, what I'm stating is only anecdotal )

Amendment 3 to the ASMFC's striped bass management plan was adopted in 1985, and was designed to do just what you describe--set a continually increasing minimum size that protected the 1982 year class and all subsequent year classes.  The minimum size inched upward every few years, to assure than no more than 5% of the '82s and later year classes were removed from the population annually.

 

So yes, when the minimum was 36", you did have a lot of 33" to 35" bass, because those were the bass that the limit was intended to protect.

[CWitek]

The question is, if you don't like the emergency measure--the 28- to 31-inch slot, what do you propose that would work better?

 

Remember that there are won't be many bass coming into the spawning stok for at least the next 8 years--the 2016 year class was below average, the 2017s and 2018s were best described as "strong average" year classes, and the 2019-2022 year classes were far below average.  2023 will also probably be poor.

 

So to provide some reservoir of spawning fish, you need to protect bass that are already in the spawning stock; there just aren't many sub-28 bass to take their place.

 

Set the size limit at 36" and you might protect the 2015s for this season, when they average 31 1/2 inches long, but beginning in 2024, some of that year class will already be big enough to keep. And, the other big year classes--2011, 2003, and whatever might remain of 1996 and even 1993--could all be killed under a 36" minimum.

 

So let's hear your ideas.  If 28-31" is no good, what will work better and, more importantly, WHY will it work bettert than the emergency rule?  (And no taking the easy way out by saying "just close the whole fishery" because we all know, or at least should know, that won't happen anything soon.)

 

Really curious as to your logic on this one, and how you balance both landings and release mortality.

[willcodfish]

wrong post...no idea how that one happened...lol

Edited June 4 by willcodfish

[willcodfish]

28 mins ago, CWitek said:

The question is, if you don't like the emergency measure--the 28- to 31-inch slot, what do you propose that would work better?

 

Remember that there are won't be many bass coming into the spawning stok for at least the next 8 years--the 2016 year class was below average, the 2017s and 2018s were best described as "strong average" year classes, and the 2019-2022 year classes were far below average.  2023 will also probably be poor.

 

So to provide some reservoir of spawning fish, you need to protect bass that are already in the spawning stock; there just aren't many sub-28 bass to take their place.

 

Set the size limit at 36" and you might protect the 2015s for this season, when they average 31 1/2 inches long, but beginning in 2024, some of that year class will already be big enough to keep. And, the other big year classes--2011, 2003, and whatever might remain of 1996 and even 1993--could all be killed under a 36" minimum.

 

So let's hear your ideas.  If 28-31" is no good, what will work better and, more importantly, WHY will it work bettert than the emergency rule?  (And no taking the easy way out by saying "just close the whole fishery" because we all know, or at least should know, that won't happen anything soon.)

 

Really curious as to your logic on this one, and how you balance both landings and release mortality.

guess ill be that guy and bring it up...i understand what your saying as far as why its been implemented but why hasnt the commercial limit been adjusted is my question ,the basic fish that theyre trying to save is going to be caught by the comm..crew nxt season..my only suggestion would be to increase there size limits and slot them too, say to 38"-42'' now it gives those younger breeders as well as the prime ones 2 to 3 spawns maybe even a 4th for the younger class as opposed to 1 maybe 2...or they could shut it down not keep any all together...lol..just messing with u...but thats my only gripe ..slot for recs then should be a slot for comm..also

[CWitek]

5 mins ago, willcodfish said:

guess ill be that guy and bring it up...i understand what your saying as far as why its been implemented but why hasnt the commercial limit been adjusted is my question ,the basic fish that theyre trying to save is going to be caught by the comm..crew nxt season..my only suggestion would be to increase there size limits and slot them too, say to 38"-42'' now it gives those younger breeders as well as the prime ones 2 to 3 spawns maybe even a 4th for the younger class as opposed to 1 maybe 2...or they could shut it down not keep any all together...lol..just messing with u...but thats my only gripe ..slot for recs then should be a slot for comm..also

Something like that is probably going to be a part of Addendum II.  There's going to be a Plan Development Team meeting tomorrow morning, and I plan to sit in and see what they say/

 

The emergency measure--the narrowed slot--was merely intended as a hasty bandage to stop further bleeding.  Based on the motion that was made at the May meeting, it seems that the intent is to adopt a commercial slot for next year.

[willcodfish]

6 mins ago, CWitek said:

Something like that is probably going to be a part of Addendum II.  There's going to be a Plan Development Team meeting tomorrow morning, and I plan to sit in and see what they say/

 

The emergency measure--the narrowed slot--was merely intended as a hasty bandage to stop further bleeding.  Based on the motion that was made at the May meeting, it seems that the intent is to adopt a commercial slot for next year.

thanks for the reply...hopefully they do i believe itd help alot more than just a sm slot on recs..leaves alot more breeders to breed

[lurejunkie00]

I remember a complete ban on stripers, I supported it.  I remember a 40” minimum, I supported it, although it was very hard releasing a 36” surf caught fish. If you catch a 28” striper and put it on ice for 3 hours, when

you get to the boat launch your screwed 

[ged]

6 hours ago, LockedDrag said:

It was incredibly stupid. Good luck enforcing it. Bunch of clowns making regulations. Doesn’t stop poachers. If they want it, they taking it. Especially here in RI where there is no enforcement to speak of already and most of the EPOs don’t really care

Enforcement isn’t easy. RI used to publish names of all fish and game offenders. That was brilliant. 
 

Slots have worked incredibly well in Florida. Although I would prefer a different slot, I think this recent action will protect a lot of fish. 
 

I would prefer to protect larger fish. The MA/RI commercial season needs to go. 

[LowEnd]

11 hours ago, lurejunkie00 said:

I think it’s insane what they are doing. I also think a lot of 31 1/8-36” fish will end up as casualties. I would rather go back to the 36” minimum and having a closed season. I don’t have any problem releasing a 20-27” fish unharmed.  Larger fish , because it takes longer to land them, are usually more stressed. 

What’s insane is the recreational side that has to kill every legal fish they can and poach a ton as well.

Your “stressed” logic applies across the board for Rec’s and Commercial.

 

Any bass can be stressed at any size. If you think a slot limit has anything to do with that then you should quit bass fishing, 

[Fergal]

The 'emergency measure' is just another example of the asmfc pretending to do something. The reality is that it is completely worthless.

 

This measure isn't based on any data so there's no way to calculate any potential 'savings'.

 

Mass will still decimate the larger breeders with their commercial season(35" and up). Their quota is 702,000lbs, divide that by 25lb avg and that's 28,080 larger breeding fish removed from the stock, and that doesn't count illegally caught/sold fish which likely approach the quota.

 

NY still hasn't adopted the 'emergency measure'.

 

NJ won't adopt it and will fish 24-38" thru October.

 

Finally, good'ol Maryland land will fish 19-31" thru the rest of the year (with a 2 week closure, that'll help a lot, lol).

 

Put this 'emergency measure' right up there with the circle hook rule. 

 

 

[CWitek]

13 hours ago, lurejunkie00 said:

I remember a complete ban on stripers, I supported it.  I remember a 40” minimum, I supported it, although it was very hard releasing a 36” surf caught fish. If you catch a 28” striper and put it on ice for 3 hours, when

you get to the boat launch your screwed 

There was never a coastwide ban.

 

Fisheries were shut down on a state-by-state basis, for various lengths of time.  Massachusetts and New Jersey never shut down at all.  New York only shut down for one year, 1984, for health (PCBs) rather than conservation purposes.  Virginia shut down late in the process, oncce rebuilding was well underway.  Maryland and maybe Rhode Island probasbly had the longest closures.