BASS BARN banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well it started out really rough. I did see someone on the end of the jetty on the way out, he was hiding behind the siren tower. The waves were breaking over the jetty pretty good!
We were on the Super Chic so the boat takes the rough sea pretty well! We went up to the Ferris Wheel and worked that area all day, had 1 Striper on and the hook pulled at the boat. Nothing the rest of the day but small Blues. We didn't mark any Stripers either, no birds working. Maybe after the blow is over things will heat back up. The water temp was 53.8 Oh, we did catch a 7.9 lb. eel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Bob,
We did hear reports that there were still fish coming through Sandy Hook. Just have to catch them at the right place!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,460 Posts
I found plenty of fish yesterday. Conditions were a bit tough though where I was fishing.

We just aren't seeing the coastal migration we used to. We're not see the 5-6 mile long schools of fish busting the surface like we had 5-7 years ago. Last year we had one decent school move down the beach. Yeah bass are still around, I'm just talking about the offshore migrating fish though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Bob,
You hit the nail on the head. I think they are running offshore on the migration down. I know some draggers that see them out there all the time with massive bird plays! By offshore, I mean 10 to 25 miles off!

[ 11-15-2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Striper101 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,324 Posts
Oh No, Since the fish aren't right off the beach, the striper worshippers automatically think there's big problems, not! Most of the migrating fish are past the EEZ every year! If i could go out and fish the 5 fathom bank I'd do alot more striper fishing. Being forcerd to fish the pond or w/in site of the beach w/ all the yahoos sucks! How bout we push for a lift on the MPA for one fish and open the EEZ


[ 11-15-2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: CaptG ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,460 Posts
Originally posted by CaptG:
Oh No, Since the fish aren't right off the beach, the striper worshippers automatically think there's big problems, not! Most of the migrating fish are past the EEZ every year! If i could go out and fish the 5 fathom bank I'd do alot more striper fishing. Being forcerd to fish the pond or w/in site of the beach w/ all the yahoos sucks! How bout we push for a lift on the MPA for one fish and open the EEZ
But my observations are backed up by the coastal numbers. 2003 numbers show we are severely overfishing the large coastal fish. ASMFC didn't cut us back for 2005 cause they got no stones.

2004 numbers will include NY and Mass going from 1 fish to 2 and finally NC's number will actually be included, about 4 million pounds, instead of a few hundred thousand.

If we severely overfished in 2003, what do you think 2004 will look like?

Don't get your hopes up on the EEZ, with the current numbers coming out there is not much support for it. It almost got killed last week.

[ 11-15-2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Bob ECT ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,324 Posts
Overfished in who's opinion?? I think the #'s are being manipulated, just like the Regs were this season!! I'm all for protecting the over 40" cows some, but not if we are going to over protect the little ones too. Since we are fishing over quota, maybe that's a sign we need more liberal bag limits!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,324 Posts
Also, how many of the large coastal fish being overfished are due to the # of fish limit instead of lbs. allotted to the commercials down in NC in the winter that allows them to cull fish to get the 100 largest they can a day. That's gotta stop too, if your gonna cut the recs from harvesting large.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,618 Posts
there is no way in hell that will stop.it like its a born right--just like the couple boats that devastate the bluefin and have for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,460 Posts
The numbers are the numbers, nobody is manipulating them. Unless it's those guys who fix the NFL
This year they choose not to do anything in hopes they came in abnormally high, they won't be able to do that next year. It's not the same as the flounder type qouta problem. Bass limits are set on a percent of the population. Right now we're way over what Amend 6 set as a healthy harvest level. For larger fish we are supposed to be around F40, we came in at F60+, way over. Some say it's just a fluke year in the survey though, therefore no change in 2005. With NY, Mass and NC though, I don't see how they can possible go down.

When F30 was set we were already above target. Now you have two large states doubling their limits and we finally have real numbers for NC. How could it possibly go down? Get ready for 1 fish


Bass are our fish, we catch 75% of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,324 Posts
Originally posted by Bob ECT:
Get ready for 1 fish

Yeah, and get ready to see me and a shirt load of others not fish! Sad part is, that is exactly what would make the elitist most happy :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,460 Posts
1 fish would be dramatic, hopefully if it's needed it will be something like 1 fish in the spring/summer and 2 fish in the fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,324 Posts
No, sewer carp nazi would be a better term :D Just kiddin buddy


[ 11-15-2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: CaptG ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,460 Posts
Happy reading
There will be a quiz in the morning


SBTC Report #2004-4
A report prepared by the
Striped Bass Technical Committee
for the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board
November 2004

2004 Atlantic Striped Bass Advisory Report

State of the Stock

Stock Size: The estimate of total abundance for January 1, 2004 is 56.7 million age-1 and older
fish due to the strong 2003 year-class. This estimate is about 11 million fish higher than the
average stock size for the previous five years and 23.8% higher than the 2003 abundance.

Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB): The female spawning stock biomass for 2003 is estimated at 30
million pounds which is above the recommended biomass threshold of 28 millions pounds (12,726
mt). However, most TC members expressed concern over the current estimates spawning stock
biomass and, hence, the conclusions derived from these estimates.

Recruitment: Recruitment of the 2003 cohort for all stocks combined is 21.6 million age-1 fish
and is the highest observed in the time series. Preliminary survey indices for young-of-the-year
striped bass for 2004 in Chesapeake Bay indicate that the 2004 year-class is of average strength.
Fishing Mortality Rates: Based on VPA results, average age 8-11 fishing mortality in 2003 is
estimated at F=0.62 (a 77% increase compared to 2002) and exceeds the Amendment 6 target of
0.30, and above the threshold of 0.41. However, all technical committee members expressed
concern over the terminal year estimate of F from the VPA and, hence, the conclusions derived
from this estimate.

Based on spawning area tagging programs, stock-specific, model-based estimates of fishing
mortality in 2003, for fish greater than twenty-eight inches total length, were 0.40 for the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay; 0.28 for the Rappahannock River; 0.28 for the Delaware
River, and 0.09 for the Hudson River. Based on coastal tagging programs, fishing mortality
estimates ranged from 0.09 for MA to 0.24 for the New York Ocean Haul Seine. The tag-based F
estimates were not similar to the F (N-weighted) estimates (F in 2003 = 0.53) produced in the
VPA and did not show an increase in F for 2004 (except for Maryland).

Chesapeake Bay fishing mortality in 2003 is estimated at F=0.20 by the direct enumeration study. This F represents mortality during the June 2002 ? June 2003 period, so it is not directly
comparable to the average, weighted (by N) VPA calendar-year F on age 3-8 striped bass equal to
0.18.

Exploitation Rates: Based on the tagging programs, R/M estimates produced by 3 (New York
Ocean Haul Seine, Delaware River, Maryland/Chesapeake Bay) out of 8 programs were generally similar in magnitude to the exploitation rates derived using F estimates from the current ADAPT assessment for years 1990-1999. However since 2000, the R/M estimates have declined, indicating exploitation has decreased.

Catch: Total catch in numbers including landings and discards increased from 3.7 million fish
in 2002 to 4.7 million fish in 2003, a 26.3 % rise losses. The 2003 catch was above the 1996-
2003 average of 4.0 million. Ages 3 to 7 represented 64%, and ages 8+ represented 30% of the total catch in 2003. The 1998 and 1996 year-classes dominated the catch, accounting for 29% of total catch. Total catch of age 8+ fish increased from 926 thousand fish in 2002 to 1.4 million fish in 2003 (the highest level recorded in the time series) and the proportion of 8+ fish in the catch increased to 30% in 2003 from 25% in 2002.

Recreational harvest (2.4 million fish) and discards (1.2 million fish) accounted for 76% of the total 2003 catch. Maryland recreational fisheries harvested 21.8% of total recreational landings, followed by MA (16.9%), VA (16.7%), NJ (16.3%), and NY (13%). The remaining states each
landed 5% or less of the total recreational landings.

Commercial harvest (0.86 million fish) and discards (0.27 million fish) accounted for 24% of the total 2003 catch. Maryland commercial fisheries harvested 50.8% of the total commercial
landings, followed by VA (18.7%), PRFC (9.6%), NY (7.9%), and MA (6.4%). The remaining states each landed 4% or less of the total commercial landings.

Data and Uncertainty: No new data sources are included in this year's assessment. Tuning
indices are similar to those used in past years, with some minor adjustments to the age-specific
indices (Maryland SSN, Massachusetts, and NEFSC).

The Technical Committee expressed great concern over the divergent patterns in F observed
among the VPA and tag-based programs and believes that both methods need to be further
scrutinized to reconcile the differences. Violation of the model assumptions is the primary
reason believed to have created the model differences, and these are discussed below.

Some members of the Technical Committee were concerned that the VPA is not adequately
robust when dealing with a mixed stock such as coastal striped bass. In addition, the survey
indices used in the tuning process of the VPA may not be providing accurate trend estimates for
older fish due to the surveys? abilities to track the striped bass abundance as the population
abundance has potentially plateaued in recent years. Some members of the Technical Committee
were concerned that the distribution of larger striped bass may have shifted to offshore waters as the population has increased in abundance. Since the EEZ is closed to harvest and there is
limited fishery independent survey data for older striped bass beyond state waters, these fish may
not be fully represented in the assessment. However, other TC members suggest this may not be
an issue since MD and VA spawning ground surveys provide relative abundance data on these
larger fish when they have migrated from the EEZ to the spawning grounds in the spring. Other
methods that are capable of directly accounting for mixed stock management units should be
explored in the future and self-evaluation of surveys by each state should be performed,
following recommendation made by the VPA indices workshop.

Other members expressed concern that there is considerable error in the catch produced by the
MRFSS survey in 2003. Some states did not believe that the increased harvest in some waves
was real because the trend contradicted independent observations on fishing effort (hurricanes interrupted angling in 2003) and angler opinions. However, some states could account for the increases in harvest. Other members expressed concern that the estimates of harvest are underestimates because the winter fisheries in North Carolina and Virginia are not being taken into account. It is recommended by the TC that, at least, MRFSS survey in NC should be
expanded into wave 1 to account for winter fisheries? harvest. Due to error in MRFSS catch
estimates, the TC also recommends that some statistical catch-at-age models that be explored
that could incorporate error and tagging information.

Some members were also concerned that the tag based estimates of survival among coastal
programs were so variable and that the estimates changed considerably depending on the year
reported. It is possible that the assumption of mixing and dispersal is not being adequately met
to provide a comprehensive estimate of mortality. If such assumptions are violated, the estimates
could change in trend and magnitude. Others questioned whether the reporting rate derived by
DE and used by all states is accurate. Since reporting rate is an important variable used in
tagging model and R/M estimates, the TC recommends that a high-reward, coast-wide tagging study be conducted in the future. In addition, more analyses to examine the violation of assumption in the tagging models should be conducted.

Some Technical Committee members believed it is time to notify the Board that there appears to
be a problem with increasing natural mortality in Chesapeake Bay. Des Kahn, Vic Crecco, and
John Hoenig presented analyses that showed an increase in natural mortality on younger
individuals, which is concurrent with the incidence of mycobacterial disease. Several members agreed that the TC should tell the Board that there is some statistical evidence for an increase, but that not all empirical data (e.g., landings in Chesapeake Bay have increased despite supposed rise in M) supports the results of the model estimates. The TC could not resolve any plan of attack to address this issue, but recommends that it be further addressed over the next few
months via email discussions.

Management Advice

Most striped bass technical committee members expressed concern over the current terminal
estimates of F and spawning stock biomass from the VPA and, hence, the conclusions derived
from these estimates. Most members agreed that the landings increased in 2003 compared to
2002 (some states liberalized regulations), and fishing mortality has probably increased
compared to 2002, but they are skeptical that the F estimate from the VPA doubled. Since the
2003 F is a terminal year estimate and it has the highest error, most members believe that the F
estimate produced by the ADAPT model will likely decrease when the stock assessment is
updated in 2005, given the current retrospective pattern. Based on the ADAPT VPA estimates,
the technical committee cannot say with certainty that overfishing is not occurring and that the
population is not overfished. However, since harvest increased compared to 2002, and the
F estimates have been over the target since 1997, there is certainty that the target is still being
exceeded. Until the uncertainties and divergences between the VPA and tag-based models are
more fully investigated, the technical committee recommends that no liberalization of regulations
occur at this time.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top