AFSMC Striper Meeting

[Roccus7]

Suffice it to say you are wrong on almost all of your assertions.

I still want to see your references that say ALL striped bass during the summer above the GWB that are 18" and longer are males. You said it, so I have to assume you read it in some peer-reviewed journal. I would very much like to read that, along with the similar one for the Chesapeake Bay.

While your at it, how about ICAT proceedings that show they considered mako sex selection? I'd feel much better if this got serious consideration.

 

[george]

Not for the C&R guys.

Agreed. That why I pointed out caught one and went home. The fact is the best thing for the fish is for no one to catch them, and I don't think that's what we're trying to achieve. Now if you instituted a slot, with no c&r after landing your limit, you'd probably be fine. But that is not what most bass anglers are trying to do.

 

[george]

Remember guys, the Hudson fish are nowhere in these models.

 

[MakoMike]

Agreed. That why I pointed out caught one and went home. The fact is the best thing for the fish is for no one to catch them, and I don't think that's what we're trying to achieve. Now if you instituted a slot, with no c&r after landing your limit, you'd probably be fine. But that is not what most bass anglers are trying to do.

True enough, but the single most effective way to curtail mortality would be a season with no C&R permitted out of season, which is the way most fisheries work right now.

 

[MakoMike]

I still want to see your references that say ALL striped bass during the summer above the GWB that are 18" and longer are males. You said it, so I have to assume you read it in some peer-reviewed journal. I would very much like to read that, along with the similar one for the Chesapeake Bay.

While your at it, how about ICAT proceedings that show they considered mako sex selection? I'd feel much better if this got serious consideration.

You need to read closer, I did not say (or at least I didn't mean to say) that "ALL striped bass during the summer above the GWB that are 18" and longer are males." I did say that there are males present above the GWB during the spawning season and that's probably the reason fo the smaller size limit in the freshwater section of the river. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers as well as common sense to back that up, you can't have a single sex spawning event.

I haven't read the ICATT papers on makos, but I do know that it is mandatory under federal law for NOAA/NMFS to comply with any directives from international fishery management bodies in which the U.S. is a member. So regardless of whether ICATT was right, wrong or indifferent, NOAA/NMFS had to comply with the ICATT directive.

 

[MakoMike]

I have to disagree here. ALL of the big striped bass caught in the river are north of the GW. They reduce the size limit so people don't have to eat high-pcb fish. And the Chesapeake has been feeding us that BS for years. They now have a spring trophy fishery that I believe has impacted the breeders. The only reason MD gets more fish is that they pay for much of the research on striped bass. Those are the hidden truths.

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would disagree with that. As I recall there are plenty of big fish caught south of the GWB in NY harbor. I will admit that I assumed the reason for the smaller size limit was because of the presence of male fish. Plus, since there is no maximum size limit I don't see how a smaller minimum size would prevent people from eating the bigger, high PCB, fish.

I don't understand your assertions that "the Chesapeake has been feeding us that BS for years." What BS are we talking about?

I would disagree with your statement that "The only reason MD gets more fish is that they pay for much of the research on striped bass." IMHO the reason they get more is that they are entitled to them, the fish breed in their waters and if they really wanted to they could kill them all before they ever left the bay.

 

[Roccus7]

FYI the reason for the reduced size limit above the George Washington bridge is because there are male stripers up there, which typically never get any bigger than around 24 inches. Same thing in the Chesapeake, where ALL of the fish during the summer months are males which never get to be 28 inches.

You need to read closer, I did not say (or at least I didn't mean to say) that "ALL striped bass during the summer above the GWB that are 18" and longer are males." I did say that there are males present above the GWB during the spawning season and that's probably the reason fo the smaller size limit in the freshwater section of the river. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers as well as common sense to back that up, you can't have a single sex spawning event.

I haven't read the ICATT papers on makos, but I do know that it is mandatory under federal law for NOAA/NMFS to comply with any directives from international fishery management bodies in which the U.S. is a member. So regardless of whether ICATT was right, wrong or indifferent, NOAA/NMFS had to comply with the ICATT directive.

So where's the reference for ALL the fish in the Chesapeake which is what you said???? BTW, the Hudson is tidal way past the GWB; the river is brackish all the way to the dam in Troy, 153 miles upriver. And would love to see a reference that even a majority of the bass above the GWB are male? According to the literature you've researched, what's the largest male bass get to? I've seen 24 used, as POUNDS, not inches. Most references will cite it's unusual for males to exceed 24-28 lbs.

And a quick search provided these nuggets vis a vis the November 14-17 2017 ICCAT Meeting regarding the commercial fishing for makos. The United States presented PA4-808/17 on North Atlantic shortfin mako. The United States proposed a two-phase program to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. In phase 1, the United States proposed a prohibition on retention of all shortfin mako sharks and a requirement that live sharks be promptly released to maximize survival. The proposal would allow retention of shortfin mako sharks (1) if they were dead when brought to the vessels as verified by an observer or electronic monitoring system, or (2) if the shark was over a minimum size of at least 180 cm fork length for males and 210 cm fork length for females, or (3) when a CPC’s domestic regulations require landing of all fish and no profit is drawn from those fish. The United States proposed a TAC of 500 t in 2018 and 2019 but no allocation arrangement. This proposal would have required additional information be included in annual r eports and would prohibit CPCs that don’t submit their data from retaining sharks. In phase 2, the United States proposed additional information to be provided by the SCRS in 2019 to support establishment of a rebuilding program at the 2019 ICCAT annual meeting. So the US proposal did consider sex for commercial.

This is what ICCAT adopted: A compromise measure was adopted by ICCAT that prohibits retention of live North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks and requires vessels to release them in a manner that causes the least harm; allows retention of dead sharks if there is an observer or electronic monitoring system on board, if the shark is over a certain size, or in some other limited cases; and creates reporting and biological sampling requirements to improve the available scientific information. No TAC was established for North Atlantic shortfin mako, but the measure is expected to stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock. The effectiveness of the measure in meeting these goals will be evaluated by the SCRS in 2019, along with new scientific information, at which time the Commission will establish a formal rebuilding program for this stock. The Commission will also conduct an initial evaluation of the measure in 2018 based on preliminary catch data provided for the first six months of 2018. Although several parties expressed disappointment that the measure did not establish a hard TAC, it was adopted by consensus. The EU also proposed a TAC for South Atlantic shortfin mako, but it was not adopted. So there was nothing about sex, recreational fishing rules, no ICCAT assigned size limits and no establishment of a TAC assigned by ICCAT!!

This is how the "new US reg" was announced: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) announced an emergency interim final rule to adopt internationally recommended management measures in the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries. The emergency rule implemented management measures to address overfishing of North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks including a recreational minimum size limit of 83 inches fork length (FL). These measures were based on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) benchmark stock assessment for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, which found the stock to be overfished with overfishing occurring. Therefore the NMFS ruling was formulated totally on their own to address the ICCAT warning about mako overfishing. Furthermore, the US proposal to ICAAT did consider different sizes for male and females, BUT they decided to implement the original female size of 83 inches when it came to domestic North Atlantic makos, as opposed to a 71" size for males. Interesting that they took a harder line on recs than they did in their ICCAT proposal for commercial fishing.

 

[MakoMike]

And a quick search provided these nuggets vis a vis the November 14-17 2017 ICCAT Meeting regarding the commercial fishing for makos. The United States presented PA4-808/17 on North Atlantic shortfin mako. The United States proposed a two-phase program to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. In phase 1, the United States proposed a prohibition on retention of all shortfin mako sharks and a requirement that live sharks be promptly released to maximize survival. The proposal would allow retention of shortfin mako sharks (1) if they were dead when brought to the vessels as verified by an observer or electronic monitoring system, or (2) if the shark was over a minimum size of at least 180 cm fork length for males and 210 cm fork length for females, or (3) when a CPC’s domestic regulations require landing of all fish and no profit is drawn from those fish. The United States proposed a TAC of 500 t in 2018 and 2019 but no allocation arrangement. This proposal would have required additional information be included in annual r eports and would prohibit CPCs that don’t submit their data from retaining sharks. In phase 2, the United States proposed additional information to be provided by the SCRS in 2019 to support establishment of a rebuilding program at the 2019 ICCAT annual meeting. So the US proposal did consider sex for commercial.

This is what ICCAT adopted: A compromise measure was adopted by ICCAT that prohibits retention of live North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks and requires vessels to release them in a manner that causes the least harm; allows retention of dead sharks if there is an observer or electronic monitoring system on board, if the shark is over a certain size, or in some other limited cases; and creates reporting and biological sampling requirements to improve the available scientific information. No TAC was established for North Atlantic shortfin mako, but the measure is expected to stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock. The effectiveness of the measure in meeting these goals will be evaluated by the SCRS in 2019, along with new scientific information, at which time the Commission will establish a formal rebuilding program for this stock. The Commission will also conduct an initial evaluation of the measure in 2018 based on preliminary catch data provided for the first six months of 2018. Although several parties expressed disappointment that the measure did not establish a hard TAC, it was adopted by consensus. The EU also proposed a TAC for South Atlantic shortfin mako, but it was not adopted. So there was nothing about sex, nor recreational nor TAC assigned by ICCAT!!

This is how the "new US reg" was announced: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) announced an emergency interim final rule to adopt internationally recommended management measures in the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries. The emergency rule implemented management measures to address overfishing of North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks including a recreational minimum size limit of 83 inches fork length (FL). These measures were based on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) benchmark stock assessment for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, which found the stock to be overfished with overfishing occurring. Therefore the NMFS ruling was formulated totally on their own to address the ICCAT warning about mako overfishing. Furthermore, the US proposal to ICAAT did consider different sizes for male and females, BUT they decided to implement the original female size of 83 inches when it came to domestic North Atlantic makos, as opposed to a 71" size for males. Interesting that they took a harder line on recs than they did in their ICCAT proposal for commercial fishing.

And this has what to do with the ASMFC's striped bass board meeting?

 

[MakoMike]

So where's the reference for ALL the fish in the Chesapeake which is what you said???? BTW, the Hudson is tidal way past the GWB; the river is brackish all the way to the dam in Troy, 153 miles upriver. And would love to see a reference that even a majority of the bass above the GWB are male? According to the literature you've researched, what's the largest male bass get to? I've seen 24 used, as POUNDS, not inches. Most references will cite it's unusual for males to exceed 24-28 lbs.

O.K.maybe I misspoke, I should have said almost all. Yes there are some smaller female striped bass that spend their summer in the Chesapeake bay. But NONE of the Chesapeake stock of male striped bass ever leave the bay, so the majority of the fish present in the bay during the summer months are male fish which rarely every get any larger than 24 inches. There are numerous sources for the proposition that male striped bass rarely exceed 24 inches. I would suggest that you are reading your sources wrong a 24-28 pound male striped bass would be unheard of.

 

[Roccus7]

Well since you can only provide conjecture, here's a graph from the US Fish and Wildlife from the Chesapeake that shows both male and female growth for up to 11 years.

If I'm reading the graph correctly, the males are 850 mm at 11 years, which is 33 inches, which would be a 13 - 18 lb fish. Too bad they only followed the fish for 11 years. Have you any published data that refutes this?

 

[george]

I
I don't understand your assertions that "the Chesapeake has been feeding us that BS for years." What BS are we talking about?

Chesapeake anglers have always claimed they only get small fish and they should be allowed more of them. That is total BS. They catch plenty of big fish. They even call it their Trophy Season. It doesn’t matter that you disagree it’s just a fact. They pay the most for research and they get the most fish. Remember all of those votes are political and money and politics go together well.

 

[buddha162]

IMHO the reason they get more is that they are entitled to them, the fish breed in their waters and if they really wanted to they could kill them all before they ever left the bay.

I feel like I'm interrupting here, but that...is why there must be ironclad regulations at the federal level for striped bass. F their sense of entitlement! These fish migrate up and down the coast ffs!

 

[Bassman909]

We’ve been thru all this before
What worked last time will work again.
Start with 1 fish at 36”s, you wanna add no treble hooks, fine

Give it 5 years, if they don’t come back it’s moratorium time

 

[MakoMike]

I feel like I'm interrupting here, but that...is why there must be ironclad regulations at the federal level for striped bass. F their sense of entitlement! These fish migrate up and down the coast ffs!

Don't feel like your interrupting, anyone is welcome to join the discussion. It's a well established principle of U.S. law that every state is free to do whatever it wants with wildlife within its borders. So if MD wanted to kill all the stripers before they migrated out of the bay, thy could. That's the whole reason we have the ASMFC in the first place, e.g. because the feds can't tell the states what to do with the fish in state waters.

 

[MakoMike]

Chesapeake anglers have always claimed they only get small fish and they should be allowed more of them. That is total BS. They catch plenty of big fish. They even call it their Trophy Season. It doesn’t matter that you disagree it’s just a fact. They pay the most for research and they get the most fish. Remember all of those votes are political and money and politics go together well.

IIRC the MD "trophy season" is very short period of time between when the fish are done spawning and before they leave the bay. During the warmer months, when most people are fishing there are only juvenile females and males in the bay.

 

[MakoMike]

Well since you can only provide conjecture, here's a graph from the US Fish and Wildlife from the Chesapeake that shows both male and female growth for up to 11 years.


View attachment 2032

If I'm reading the graph correctly, the males are 850 mm at 11 years, which is 33 inches, which would be a 13 - 18 lb fish. Too bad they only followed the fish for 11 years. Have you any published data that refutes this?

View attachment 2033

That sounds roughly right to me and it kind of makes my point. How many fish live to 11 years old? If we were to raise the minimum size to 38 inches, almost none of the adult males would be keepers.

 

[MakoMike]

Remember guys, the Hudson fish are nowhere in these models.

George,
I was just looking at the 2013 stock assessment which clearly includes both Delaware river and Hudson river fish. Where did you get the idea that the Hudson fish are not included?

 

[Roccus7]

O.K.maybe I misspoke, I should have said almost all. Yes there are some smaller female striped bass that spend their summer in the Chesapeake bay. But NONE of the Chesapeake stock of male striped bass ever leave the bay, so the majority of the fish present in the bay during the summer months are male fish which rarely every get any larger than 24 inches. There are numerous sources for the proposition that male striped bass rarely exceed 24 inches. I would suggest that you are reading your sources wrong a 24-28 pound male striped bass would be unheard of.

That sounds roughly right to me and it kind of makes my point. How many fish live to 11 years old? If we were to raise the minimum size to 38 inches, almost none of the adult males would be keepers.

Graph was presented as to show that your claim that male stripers don't typically exceed 24" is flimsy at best. Would you care to cite one of the "numerous sources" you refer to? I couldn't find one. AAMOF this was the only well-executed study that documented side by side male vs. female size. I could provide links at different websites where folks are holding high 20 lb and even 30s bass that they said were "definitely" males based on what they found inside when they were cleaned. However the scientist in me won't do that because the veracity of said pics or the necropsy results could be questioned.

I never questioned the fact that most large bass are females and once you're over 25 lbs the odds of finding a male are extremely low, but at 25" you do have a decent chance of finding males.

 

[MakoMike]

If you want to read through it, there is some data in the 2013 stock assessment which you can find here. But I do think we are arguing over how many angles can fit on the head of a pin. My point is and was that there aren't very many striped bass in the Chesapeake during the summer that can even meet the current 28 inch size and if the ASMFC is going to raise the size limit (which I do support) there should be some sort of an accommodation for the guys fishing the the bay.

 

[george]

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would disagree with that. As I recall there are plenty of big fish caught south of the GWB in NY harbor. I will admit that I assumed the reason for the smaller size limit was because of the presence of male fish. Plus, since there is no maximum size limit I don't see how a smaller minimum size would prevent people from eating the bigger, high PCB, fish.

I don't understand your assertions that "the Chesapeake has been feeding us that BS for years." What BS are we talking about?

I would disagree with your statement that "The only reason MD gets more fish is that they pay for much of the research on striped bass." IMHO the reason they get more is that they are entitled to them, the fish breed in their waters and if they really wanted to they could kill them all before they ever left the bay.

True enough, but the single most effective way to curtail mortality would be a season with no C&R permitted out of season, which is the way most fisheries work right now.

I can't speak for other states but that would have a zippo effect on C&R in NY. We're open from April 15 - to Dec 15. There aren't many anglers targeting them before or after. I guess you could limit the number of fish you're allowed to catch and release? I know it's unenforceable but so are many fisheries regs.