Possible Striped Bass Regulation Change

[Angler Paul]

As a representative of the NJBBA, I attended the Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Striped Bass Committee meeting on 10/15/09. In addition to the council members, several advisors from other larger organizations such as the JCAA and RFA were present. There were a lot of varying opinions but it seemed like the majority felt there was a need to protect the larger spawning sized stripers. There was also pretty strong sentiment favoring anglers being able to take home a smaller striper to eat.
There were mixed feeling as how to best protect our striper stocks. Our State could adopt more restrictive measures than the standard 2 fish at 28”. However, that would probably not sit well with the majority of anglers. Also, it was pointed our that if we were to adopt more restrictive regulations and at a later date the ASMFC were to mandate further restrictions we might be stuck with what we have or have to cut back even further.
As far as having a slot fish is concerned it could be approved but really would not do anything to conserve the breeding stock. Some scientists argue that it would since we would be keeping less large stripers but others argue that it would not since we would then be keeping far more small stripers that would never have the opportunity to grow to a large size.
The Division of Fish and Wildlife does not have the authority to set new regulations pertaining to stripers as it has to be done legislatively. However, the Division would make a recommendation if the vast majority of fishermen were in favor of a new regulation. Something that is controversial would probably not pass. Any new proposals would have to first be approved by the ASMFC.
It is my belief that the current 2 fish at 28” is favored by many fishermen but that allowing a slot fish is also favored by many as well. The Division presented us with an equivalency table which showed a number of different options. The one that generated the most interest was one that would allow us to keep one fish over 24” and another over 32”. This is not a slot limit – you would be able to keep two fish larger than 32” if you wanted but if you chose to do so you could keep one fish between 24” and 32” and another over 32”.
The bonus program was also discussed and could be altered at a later time so that if new regulations were passed it would not be so confusing. However, any changes in our regulations also might create problems for those who sail out of NJ and fish in the Delaware or Raritan Bay areas. If you are in other State waters you would have to abide by their regulations but once you return to NJ waters you would have to be in compliance with NJ regulations and vice versa. The Division would like feedback from fishermen, clubs and organizations on these possible proposals by the end of the month. Let me know your opinions and I will see that the Division receives them.
What do you prefer?
A – Leave the striper laws as they are now, 2 fish at 28” or greater
B – A slot fish perhaps 24-28” and one larger fish perhaps over 30”
C – One fish 24” and over and one fish 32” and over.

Paul Haertel

[erickoch]

i like the way they are now. but option C i like. especially if i wanted to hit the back bays.

[fishingfever]

I would prefer some flexibility to keep a fish below 28, so I agree that "C" would be nice. Especially later in the season when only small fish are around.

Current regs aren't too bad, but C would be fine with me as well.

[sweet release1]

i say we "REALLY" help the fish out and stop the mass killing of them down south!!!!!!!! all this talk about size limits really does no good . if we let go all the 40" bass up here they only get caught or "NETTED" down south. and vise versa with a 23" fish:rolleyes:. but for the sake of this thread i'd pick C ~matt

[JackStraw]

I like B as I believe it will help protect the breeders the best out of the three options.

[Ramtough750]

:thumbsup:I'm in for C but am also happy with current size & limits

[striper2278]

I like b the best. But why make it 30 and not keep it at 28?

[fatboy]

I like b the best. But why make it 30 and not keep it at 28?

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FishinPhil]

I also agree with option B and the fish being 28". There's alot of injured 24" fish being thrown back so guys can catch the legal 28". The other plus is that guys would be catching there limit quicker with the small fish and leaving the breeders alone. I'll tell you personally I perfer to eat the smaller ones anyway.

[MEATMAN]

I agree with option "C" due to the fact that I fish through December like FishingFever and mostly the smaller bass are present. I usually let the bigger (35" on up) fish go and keep the 28"s as they are tastier. My opinion.

[JoeyZac]

I think most would favor a slot. Option C would be preferable to me over what we have now.

(Though I think the best option would be 2 at 24" or over. 24"s are just as good to eat, and why not save 2 big fish instead of just one?)

[striperman1]

option c sounds best to me. i know i would take a small one first and then if it got the bigger one, most likely release it, unless i am having family over for a striper dinner, which isnt that often. would like to have some bass a little more often for the table, but i dont need a lot as my wife doesnt eat it.

[Angler Paul]

Striper 2278,

A 24-28" slot and another over 28" would not fly with the ASMFC. With their equivalency charts we would probably have to go with a one ove 30" if we wanted a 24"-28" slot. That question was brought up at the meeting and that is why I wrote perhaps in option b. There was not a definite answer but the councils best guess was that it would have to be 30" although it could be even larger.

[circlehook]

weve already done this equivalency. 2 over 28" is the same as 1 from 24-27.99 and 1 over 34". We had that reg already.

Maybe the regs have loosened since :confused:. I doubt it, especially since the trend of the SSB has been down the last few assessments. 1 fish 24-28 and 1 over 30" wont fly if comparing to 2 over 28"..

[Fluke4960]

"B" for me

[sandwashslugger]

I would say B for sure. A 24-28" fish is perfect eating size. We need to protect our big breeder females. Regardless of whether or not they get netted down south, it still gives them the possibility of spawning another 500,000-1,000,000 eggs while they are up here. People really need to keep that in mind. :thumbsup:

[Bluewater sportfishing]

I would like to see "B" put to use as well. I think it would even out the fishing a bit. What I would really like to see is a coast wide size limit put into place with a under and over. The stripers need a break from some of the southern states.

[Striper101]

I would also like to see option B. As the law stands right now we are killing way to many big fish and by that I mean Breeders! I'd really lik to see a slot fish!

[Rita Please]

Like the idea of "C" but " B" would also work.

[Mullica Bob]

None of the above!

How about one fish 28 or above?

[FisherDan]

I vote for B as well. I would be content to keep just one in the smaller 24-28 inch range for the table and let the bigger one(s) go! I don't need a lot of fish or big ones for the table, just one once in a while and still protecting the resource.

[fdformicola]

I would like any regulation that would protect the bass in the 15 to 30 lb range, they are the backbone of our stocks, they are the prolific breeders and are the ones that should have more protection

[Let's Talk Fishin']

I think Option B may be the way to go. If were talking about some relief for the bigger breeders this option makes the most sense eh?

[TheAdamBomb]

I like option B as long as the gap between the two sizes isn't as big as a few years ago. It was 24 to 28 and one over 34 and telling people to let go 32 and 33 inch bass was tough...

[Capt Harv]

I would prefer an option like b or c, but I would recommend a stipulation that all fish over a certain size had to be released. I think this way for the following reason. The basic tenets of species preservation when it comes to fish, is that we must:

1. provide a healthy environment for reproduction and proliferation.
2. keep an adequate population of juveniles to replenish the breeding stock.
3. provide adequate protection of the spawning population

1. Alot has been done to improve the water quality of the spawning areas, although more work clearly is needed. Water quality in other areas is better, but dead areas of the bay and ocean still occur.

2. The reason the striped bass stock is considered still rebuilt is largely due to the large quantity of juveniles and young spawning age fish. The spawning stock biomass (ssb) is still considered adequate, but declining.

3. Our current regulations do little to protect the spawners other then the current recreational limit of 2 per person

The greatest concern to me is the steady decline of bigger stripers. When I started fishing the rips in the early 90's, the number of bigger fish far exceeded the current ratio present today. The downward trend has continued. It worries me when we start to see a decline in the population of the larger members of the any species of fish.

Fortunately, I get to scuba dive in many different areas of the world. In many of the third world countries, fish populations are poorly protected. As an example, two years ago I dove in Utila, just off the coast of Honduras. These reefs are normally populated by many large fish species. During a week of diving we saw no large fish and very few numbers of the juveniles of the same species. This area has no enforced fishing regulations on its reefs.

Often the first sign of a decline in a fish population, is a decrease in the number of larger fish. Stripers are currently showing that pattern. Some will argue that there are plenty of large stripers out there, including the population that migrates beyond the 3 mile legal limit. Some will point out large fish that have been caught this past season. Clearly though, all trawl surveys and angler surveys reveal a reduced catch of larger fish.

I think it unwise to wait to the population gets into serious trouble like occurred in the mid 1980's. As anglers, we all like to brag about that trophy sized fish we caught. But.............do we have to kill it! Snap a quick photo and let her swim. This idea is clearly offensive to many anglers and a few folks would probably not fish if they couldn't keep that monster they caught.

I don't know for sure what the maximum size limit would be, perhaps 40 inches. Having a maximum size limit would narrow the window for throwbacks of medium size fish. Another words, the old regulation we had where we could keep a fish from 24-28 and one over 34, might be changed to a fish 24-28 and one over 30, and still maintain bioequivalency. Biostaticians on the technical committee would have to figure that out.

Adjustments may need to be made to the commercial regulations too, but that is another discussion.

Food for thought.

[JoePhotographer]

Regulations where a slot fish and a larger one seem to be a better idea ie: C or B, but a max size should also be set. However, the fish they are trying to regulate wind up being the migratory fish. They're not just NJ fish at that point. NJ is just one of the breeding and feeding grounds for these fish. Unless the regulations apply to the whole coastal migratory area, what success can it have? Are NJ fishermen the only ones that are responsible for the conservation or depletion of the species? We throw back fish that NJ regs won't allow us to keep, while that same fish gets caught again and kept by someone else further south because their regs allow it. Seems to me that there should be a maximum size limit as well to keep the breeding population strong. Sure, we can say that NJ did it's part by setting regs, but if the other states don't do anything similar, our saying "I told you so" to the other states when the species becomes on the endangered list won't help to put any more fish on anyone's hooks. Some combined effort needs to be coordinated across all the coastal states for regulations to actually be effective.

[Ugly Mug 2]

Like B but as Harv said with a max release lobbied for a red fish type limit before like 2 @ 24-40 B is similar with the 28-32 in gap. Tournaments would still be exciting at the scales weighing the fattest 40 you could catch! DITTO On JPs post

[Don C]

I like c but think there should be a max size limit. How about a "tag" for one big fish a year? We need to protect our big fish, but maybe not take them away all together, but limit there take. I would like to be able to take a little smaller fish then 28" maybe down to 26" then up to say 32" they are a nice size for MY family because we like to eat stripers.

If we are going to protect the big fish it has to happen up and down the whole coast. We need to handle our stripers like we do tuna or sharks and make a HMFS permit for them. Every boat need a permit and the law is the same along the WHOLE coast.

Don C

[trip1078]

i like option c, however i also think more effort needs to made to protect the baitfish stripers feed on, ie. more regulation on the bunker boats. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link

[Joseph Lamberty]

I think the regulation should be stretched further to maybe one or two fish between , 26"- 40" with a possession of only two fish, and only one over 40. I believe this would better protect the successful breeding female stock. Most 32"and smaller fish are either male or females that have not generally entered the breeding or long migrating stock of fish, residents . I hate to see those big cows kept. While I believe everyone is entitled to keep a trophy if you must . The reality is those smaller fish are better table fare. I say take a picture and assure the species for our children and childrens children. JMO.....:D




Live 2 Fish
<><
Forced 2 Work

[slamming snizz69]

I like plan C

[TheAdamBomb]

Great thoughts about the maximum size. A limit of 24" to 40" would be great, and then provide ONE TRUE TROPHY TAG PER YEAR for a fish over 40". The bonus program would be better served as a TROPHY program. Let the big girls swim!

[CTW]

Plan B gets my vote, best option for us and the fish stock. That 2" gap will give some fish that are at a good breeding age to go another year or two. This will also diversify the sizes of the stock as well. The current regs have been removing a large portion of some year classes. This was very evident 20 years ago, then the switch to 28", a few good years of fishing, things slowed, slot limit in affect, few good years of fishing, things slowing now a bit, get the picture. The size limits need to be rotated every few years to ensure good size ratio within the stocks. This is all too evident with the fluke and seabass populations. In my opinion, there should be slot limits on any of these fish we target inshore.

[Joseph Lamberty]

Great thoughts about the maximum size. A limit of 24" to 40" would be great, and then provide ONE TRUE TROPHY TAG PER YEAR for a fish over 40". The bonus program would be better served as a TROPHY program. Let the big girls swim!




Thats exactly right, preserve successful breeders. a 24" fish is too small a
26" still gives a meal for a family of 4.



Live 2 Fish
<,><
Forced 2 work

[brew]

What do you prefer?
A – Leave the striper laws as they are now, 2 fish at 28” or greater
B – A slot fish perhaps 24-28” and one larger fish perhaps over 30”
C – One fish 24” and over and one fish 32” and over.

Paul Haertel

For the purpose of trying to answer your question, I would prefer B if it is indeed one over 30". If this ends up being 32" or 34", I would then say C.

Otherwise the need for ME to NC coast-wide consistent regs is what is really needed. NJ alone can not save the bass. I also like the other thoughts of 2 fish 24" to 40". Finally, I also would agree that the bonus program be turned into a trophy program limited to 1 40" or larger fish per year, like the BFT.

[underdog]

B is fine by me out of the listed options

[Spooled]

Great thoughts about the maximum size. A limit of 24" to 40" would be great, and then provide ONE TRUE TROPHY TAG PER YEAR for a fish over 40". The bonus program would be better served as a TROPHY program. Let the big girls swim!

Im with this 1

[West Ave Mike]

I'm for option C on this one. We had something like option B once and it wasn't too popular.

[Desert Dog]

I also like C and 28"

[B-faithful]

i like "B" and think the ASMFC should mandate it as a federal creel limit for the migratory run population of striped bass.


it would reduce the harvest of breeders along the coast by more than half by recreational anglers.
it would greatly reduce the harvest of juvenille fish in nursery areas like the chesapeake bay by half allowing more fish to move into the breeding population.
It would also provide more of a fishery for the bay fisherman along the coast.

It seems as if this is a win situation for all involved. More anglers would have the fishery open to harvest too.

[Easy Going]

I would say "B"

[hattrickll]

Option "C" for me.

[boostedcpe]

I like B........take that, doubt it will happen though.


hattrick.......thanks Jim, rods & reels were in much better condition then you led on to me.......I took all the line off to set them up with braid and the spools looked brand new. Thanks again, appreciate it.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[dreamer10]

b or c works! need to let the big fish go !!

[mw1020]

i would say go with option b the only problem i have with option c is that people could still go out and keep to big breeders in one trip. i mean is there really any reason to keep two 30lb fish what are you going to do with all that meat. just my 2cents

[Marine Tom]

Great thoughts about the maximum size. A limit of 24" to 40" would be great, and then provide ONE TRUE TROPHY TAG PER YEAR for a fish over 40". The bonus program would be better served as a TROPHY program. Let the big girls swim!

I vote for this idea.:thumbsup:

[century32]

You can put me in for option B. Lets try and save some of our breeders.

[BUCKTAIL WILLIE]

If we really want to protect the best breeders
it should be option D
1- fish 24-28 and one over 40"
28-40" are the best breeders

[CM Reel-ty]

I would have to agree with "C" I like the idea of a slot fish. It is fun to catch the big bass, but the smaller bass taste better. It would be nice to keep the tag program. I also agree the Southern states need to tight up on their regs.

[THawk]

I vote for B. At least I'll get a fish on the table