BASS BARN banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just curious on how people feel about resident bass that occupy the same inland waters year round.

0 No Effect
1 Very Beneficial
2 Beneficial
3 Don't know/care
4 Harmful
5 Very Harmful


You won't be graded, just curious about public opinion.

[ 03-26-2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: sunnydaze ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,072 Posts
sunny great poll topic, why don't you make it official abd start a real poll titled Resident Stripe Bass Poll. Click on start a poll and you will guided thru the process, good luck!

[ 03-21-2005, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: RodFather ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RodFather; I had tried and it still gives me that error.
"Sorry, you do not have permission to create a poll."


BobECT,
Let me refresh your memory.

------------------------------------------------
2000
"In recent years, from 65% to 85% of the recreational harvest of resident striped bass has been below 24 inches total length. On average, for comparable season lengths and creel limits, an increase in the minimum size of striped bass from 18 to 24 inches total length may decrease the number of striped bass harvested in the Chesapeake Bay recreational result in a large increase in discard mortality of sub-legal striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay. Clearly, there is a significant economic investment on the part of the recreational striped bass industry. An increase in the minimum size limit to 24 inches may negatively impact the growing economic gains associated with this valuable recreational fishery.

A varying percentage of the Atlantic striped bass stocks are part of a coastal migratory group which generally spends late May through March outside of producer areas. Consequently the size structure of fish generally present within the producer areas is skewed towards the smaller, non-migratory, resident component of the stock. Any increase in the minimum size would reduce the amount of fish available to the fisheries within producer areas. An increase in minimum size would also reduce the number of cohorts vulnerable to fishing. Since quotas within producer areas vary depending on incoming recruitment strength, the reduction in the number of available cohorts would result in more volatile changes in annual quotas. The buffering effect from having multiple cohorts contribute to the annual quota would be reduced."
http://www.jcaa.org/PID.htm
.

2005
"Some likely causes for low recruitment in no specific order are:

Low spawning stock biomass, however, this is unlikely given data from tagging studies (i.e. no apparent relationship between resident fish in Chesapeake Bay and the following years recruitment)"
http://www.jcaa.org/JCNL0503/0503fmlr.htm
------------------------------------------------


Amazing, in 2000 it's indicated that resident bass are beneficial primarily for economic reasons, then in 2005 it's indicated that the resident population has no proven effect on YOY rates and that biomass is sufficient.

Currently there is no proof that keeping resident bass around is beneficial. So why do we need them around Bob? For economic reasons that are beneficial to the recreational community or for valid scientific reasons?

Explain to me why it would not be good economically and for the fish to have a period where resident fish <24 are fished each year. I know, I'm crazy, but JCAA has already indicated that these fish do not affect the YOY rates so why do we need them here? And we also know from JCAA that allowing more folks to catch fish <24 inches would improve the economics of the sport. I'm just regurgitating the same stuff people like you work to print. I just want to understand the logic employed because it appears there is no science to support the premise.

So please tell me why we are trying to maintain a population of resident bass? Besides the antiquated notion that more is always better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Sunnydaze,

It could be me ... but it seems you want to mislead readers into thinking those are JCAA representative's comments and that they were both written in reference to stripers?

The quotes were not written by any JCAA representative, but were in fact ASMFC public information documents posted on their website.

The first quote is from the ASMFC Striped Bass Amendment 6 PID. The second quote is from the ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee meeting summary.

Both in reference to the Chesapeake Bay ... not here. What's your point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
I'm not sure what is quote and what is commentary. Is someone asking if there is a valid scientific reason to keep resident fish around????? Why keep any fish around? Catch 'em all if you can. The water would be much cleaner. Seriously, you can CATCH all the resident fish you want at ANY size. When you KEEP them they are gone - no longer residents - never to be caught again. The only people that matters to is the scientists? God forbid if there were no fish to study. Who else would care if there are no fish around?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
I'm not understanding a lot of what I'm reading here, what makes a bass residential? I thought they move around, what wintered here this year may winter somewhere else the next, they are a migratory species no?

Originally posted by sunnydaze:
Just curious on how people feel about the resident bass that are here year round.

0 No Effect
1 Very Beneficial
2 Beneficial
3 Don't know/care
4 Harmful
5 Very Harmful
Beneficial to whom?
Harmful to whom?


Originally posted by sunnydaze:


Currently there is no proof that keeping resident bass around is beneficial. So why do we need them around Bob? For economic reasons that are beneficial to the recreational community or for valid scientific reasons?

???? huh ???? I'm really really lost. Cause if we want the to disappear, that can be easily acomplished. Just ask Dupont to open the valves into the river!

Sunnydaze, seems like you know something, and really trying to put a point across, but, to the layman like me that just wants to go out and fish, I'm lost.

Residential or not
Any marine life is a benefit. Period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Bob asked me how to identify a resident striper. I offered him language the JCAA uses, which was adopted from the ASMFC. I thought both the language and the sources were quite interesting and contrasted one another. I then made my point, which I thought was pretty clear. Sorry if anyone was mislead, I'll update the description accordingly so that we don't get stuck on location and instead can explore the idea of whether a migratory predator should have a resident population.

How about you? Do you feel a migrating predator should be intentionally managed to leave pods of predators behind to destroy limited forage and spread disease for the incoming migratory fish?

[ 03-22-2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: sunnydaze ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
Originally posted by sunnydaze:

How about you? Do you feel a migrating predator should be intentionally managed to leave pods of predators behind to destroy limited forage and spread disease for the incoming migratory fish?
Nope, I'm lost again, this will be accomplished how? with a shock collar and hidden wire fence?

Not being smart, like I said, you seem to have a point, but I don't see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,413 Posts
I think a seperate quota aimed at controlling the populations of resident bass in our bays certainly needs to be established. Implementing a slot limit aimed at the take of smaller fish would accomplish that.

[ 03-22-2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: CaptG ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Originally posted by design:
seems like you know something, and really trying to put a point across, but, to the layman like me that just wants to go out and fish, I'm lost.

Residential or not
Any marine life is a benefit. Period.
Understandable. That's unfortunate and I apologize for not doing a better job. It is much easier to understand that more is better.

Simply put, more is not always better. It's about quality, not quantity.

And since you asked, here is my layman's version.

If you had a tank of fish that was overcrowded and some of them got sick and started to die due to crowding and food. Would you throw 5 more healthy fish in there with them as a solution to the problem?

That's my point. Everything on earth is finite, the tank is just bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,413 Posts
It's been my beleif for years based on what I've seen just in CM harbor that there could be too many stunted resident bass in our back bay estuaries for the health of the striper stocks and the good of the ecosytem. Problem is the thought of killing such small stripers is sickening to many. Good luck convincing this crowd any different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Bob/Observer;

Please just read this stuff, keep an open mind. The walls are closing in and the options are limited once menhaden growth is shown to be limited by environmental and political factors that are many years away from control.

There are going to be some hard decisions to make when the facts are realized. I'm on your side, I'm a rec fisherman, I have no political or financial ties to the industry. I have no motive other than to point out something to this community in advance of it becoming a disaster when science says there are too many fish. You better be prepared to say No, there are too many of a particular class of fish that we thought we needed more of to sustain biomass and you better know exactly where to make the cuts. Otherwise all anybody on the outside is going to hear is that there are too many bass. You are walking into a scientific hailstorm that will undermine your efforts to date, I'm trying to help. It's time to cut some weak players from the team so that the remainder have a chance before somebody makes sweeping rules otherwise.

If 50% of success is getting there and the other 50% is staying there then where does that leave future reviews of the management plan? Downward with the stocks? :confused:

Live by the numbers, die by the numbers, 13% of the chessy stock and 10% of the Potomac >18 inches is diseased. It's a percentage around 10% of all the fish we keep producing, the more you produce the more infected you have. This is a fact that should concern anyone working on producing more fish who does not have an active solution for reducing that disease percentage. I would say it's borderline reckless given the data that is coming out.


-------------------
http://www.chesbay.org/lesions/

"Interstate management of Striped Bass has restored and maintained a high biomass in the 1990's with high size limits and low fishing mortality rates. Striped Bass biomass has increased greatly, while biomass of other two major inshore piscivores along the Atlantic Coast has decreased. An extended size structure in Chesapeake Bay now exists that was absent under low size limits and high mortality rates prior to 1985. Dominant year classes were produced in 1993 and 1996 and Striped Bass abundance is very high in the Bay. During 1997, a considerable fraction of legal-size Striped Bass (> 18 inches) were observed with ulcerative dermatitis and weight-at-length in September - October was significantly lower than in the early 1990's.

We have formed five working hypotheses to test as underlying causes of poor condition and ulcerative dermatitis. These are:

1. Unusual warming patterns or warmer than usual temperatures in 1997
2. Development of a temperature-dissolved oxygen (DO) squeeze because of high temperatures and high nutrient levels
3. Forage depletion from adverse environmental conditions
4. Forage depletion from high predation
5. A combination of some or all of the previous factors


Larger Striped Bass, primarily members of the 1993 year-class, might also be at a disadvantage in competing for forage with the 1996 year-class because younger fish could have continued to feed and grow in higher water temperatures that exacted a high metabolic cost on large fish.

By Fall, the predatory demand of these two year-classes may have outpace the supply of their main forage species.
We have begun developing approaches for testing these hypotheses and have approached other agencies and universities to help us."

[ 03-22-2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: sunnydaze ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Guaranteed, that if there are fewer stripers there will be fewer stunted or diseased fish. Is there some evidence that SJ back bays have too many fish? The Chesapeake is a different question. If they come out there diseased then theres not much that can be done except the fences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
And isn't it bizarre that these lesion percentages were found during the year with the highest spawning stock biomass of menhaden in the last 15 years? 1997!




:confused:

[ 03-22-2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: sunnydaze ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Splash, the issue is coming to NJ real soon. Like last week.

Smith, "Waiting on the data", famous last words.

Here's the data Mr. Smith;

"Three months later the biologists estimated the total striped bass population at 56.7 million fish, the highest since the rebuilding program was begun in 1982"


----------------------
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050311/SPORTS06/503110435/1017/SPORTS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 03/11/05

Marine biologists with an interest in striped bass must be walking around with perpetual frowns these days.

On the one hand they are concerned about possible overfishing by anglers, and on the other hand they are troubled by the physical and nutritional health of the fish because forage is limited and disease is spreading.

Morone saxatilis was declared fully recovered as a species in 1995. Three years later the scientists were alarmed by evidence that survival of young fish in Chesapeake Bay was declining.

They found a high prevalance of the potentially deadly disease mycobacteriosis. Health studies done in Maryland's half of the bay have revealed possibly as high as 50 percent of the striped bass are infected with bacteria of the genus Mycobacterium.

Biologists in Maryland and Virginia also learned that a large percentage of the stripers in the bay had no visible body fat. Comparisons made between the wild stripers and fish kept in captivity revealed the wild bass resembled captive fish that had been deprived of food for two months.

Assemblyman Robert J. Smith, D-Gloucester, and chairman of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, which hears all striped bass bills, announced Feb. 11 that he would not support any bill aimed at changing the current striped bass law before an updated stock assessment is released in August by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's stock assessment committee.

Smith said his decision was based primarily on the fact that the new striped bass stock assessment could show the fish are being overfished, and it would not be prudent to make changes until the status of the stocks is known.

Last year the technical committee could not come to agreement on its own data during the summer. The virtual population analysis did not agree with the tagging study results. The stock assessment committee did not recommend specific action, and left the decision up to the ASMFC's striped bass management board when it met Nov. 10. That body ultimately did nothing, and left the coastal benchmark at two fish at 28 inches and up.

Three months later the biologists estimated the total striped bass population at 56.7 million fish, the highest since the rebuilding program was begun in 1982.


The ASMFC's technical committees will meet March 28 through April 1, and included in the data that the striped bass committee might consider is the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey information from 2004.

The preliminary data include the information that the recreational sector caught 19,645,284 striped bass in 2004, up from 17,354,691 in 2003.

However, MRFSS concluded that actual landings of stripers dropped from 2,503,800 in 2003 to 2,411,896 in 2004.

If release mortality is figured at 8 percent, then 1,571,622 stripers were killed through hook and release alone last year.

Meanwhile, the disease and nutrition factors are not going away, and the biologists are trying to come up with some answers.

Mycobacteriosis is a "wasting" disease that progresses very slowly through a fish and results in a loss of body mass. Scientists feel that it is already affecting about 50 percent of the fish in Chesapeake Bay.

Further, mycobacteriosis is zoonotic, which means it can be transmitted to humans. Called "fish handler's disease," it is contracted through direct contact with infected fish. Fishermen in Maryland and Virginia ? recreational and commercial ? have been affected by handling striped bass.

Picking up cuts, stabs or scrapes from releasing or handling bass is common because of the nine or 10 sharp, stiff spines in the first dorsal fin and the sharp-edged gill covers of the fish.

According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, infections in humans are generally limited to fingertips and bare feet, but joints, bones and lymph nodes may be affected. People who already have cuts or open wounds are at a higher risk of infection.

The most frequent symptom is the formation of a persistent bump or nodule under the skin. Others are ulcers, painful joints and swelling of the lymph nodes.

The question most people ask: Can the fish be eaten if they are infected with mycobacteria? Maryland authorities claim they can, if they appear healthy and are properly cooked.

Fish that have open, red lesions on the body or show signs of hemorrhaging or have dark patches in the fillets should be discarded.

The symptoms of mycobacteria in fish are not always visible to the naked eye, and can only be evident microscopically. The first signs are usually found in internal organs involved in the immune system and in the spleen and kidney.

Ulcers on the skin related to the disease are not typically found except in the most advanced cases when numerous internal organs and tissues are severely infected.

All striped bass that have ulcers or areas of hemorrhage on the skin are not necessarily burdened with mycobacteriosis. Biologists found that many of the lesions found in the fish in Chesapeake Bay were caused by other fish pathogens.

Beginning in 2003, Maryland biologists began studying all age classes of stripers to determine the incidence of mycobacteriosis while fisheries managers are now taking a close look at the population structure to determine if any population level effects are evident.

Some commercial fishermen have been saying for several years that there are just too many striped bass around, and nature is taking a hand in management. The scientific community will be looking even more closely at this possibility, if things do not get better.

[ 03-22-2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: sunnydaze ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
2005
"Some likely causes for low recruitment in no specific order are:

Low spawning stock biomass, however, this is unlikely given data from tagging studies (i.e. no apparent relationship between resident fish in Chesapeake Bay and the following years recruitment)"
http://www.jcaa.org/JCNL0503/0503fmlr.htm
I think they were talking about menhaden in this one?and not bass. That quote can not be directly related to bass recruitment or local populations.

It was my understanding that residents do in fact contribute back to the local population. That?s why there were stocking programs in many places during the moratorium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Sunnydaze,

Could you just be specific - in what area(s) do you want to see more striped bass harvested and by which sector - commercial or recreational or both?

The Chesapeake Bay already has its own separate quota set each year for harvest of resident stripers - split between commercial and recrational harvest - I believe it's a pretty hefty 10 mil pounds - are you saying you think it should be higher?

Recently the ASMFC removed the Delaware and the Hudson from being a striped bass producer area to the dismay of many NJ recreational folks including myself. So until such time as that were to change - any area outside of the Chesapeake Bay is moot.

I don't believe everything I read: i.e. the Menhaden Tech Review finding and your stated lack of connection to commercial harvesting - whether it be stripers or menhaden.

Sorry but that's how it looks.

[ 03-22-2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: observer ]
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top