My take on the ASMFC hearings on Addendum II

[JakeF]

I did a quick search and didn't see any feedback from anyone who personally attended these hearings, so I will post up my synopsis of the meetings for your review. There are 2 very important and separate issues in play here and if you are at all interested in the health of the striped bass fishery, I would urge you to read through this post carefully. I apologize in advance for the length of it, but there's a lot of information to be covered.

I will here attempt to summarize Monday night's hearing in Dedham, MA.

There were 33 people in attendance. It seemed all were recreational fishermen, except for maybe 1 or 2. The Mass Striped Bass Assn. made a strong showing and though most (if not all) members who showed were recs, they indicated that they represent a large number of comms in their organization. Also present were John Redman (Striped-Bass), someone from ReelTime, several members of Plum Island Surfcasters, several from Stripercoast Surfcasters Club, and several others who's affiliations I did not catch. Interestingly enough, I don't believe the MBBA and Stripers Forever were officially represented.

Paul Diodati (sp?), the MA appointee to the ASMFC was host.

Nichola Meserve gave a good presentation on the current draft of Addendum II to Amendment 6, fielded questions, and moderated the public comment portion of the meeting. She handled the meeting very well.

For those who have not read the Addendum, you can find it HERE. I had studied all of these details ahead of time, but wanted to hear the ASMFC presentation for myself just to make sure that I was, in fact, understanding everything correctly. I'm glad I did, as it did clarify a few things for me.

The Addendum is basically broken into 2 parts, or 2 separate issues.
Both issues were discussed separately in Ms. Meserve's presentation, and the public comment section was also split into 2 parts discussing each issue separately.

Issue #2, the less controversial issue was discussed first, so I will touch on that first for you all. This question under Issue 2 is basically whether or not to redefine the method for determining recruitment failure of the Juvenile Abundance Index (JAI). The JAI is essentially an estimate of the success of the spawn for any given year.

Currently under Section 3.1.1 of Amendment 6, the data used to determine recruitment (spawning) failure, includes ALL data known, including data from early years before the methods were standardized (and some years where data is actually missing i.e. VA JAI), as shown circled in RED below in the New Jersey JAI history:



Removing these years from the data set would result in the bar (black line above) being RAISED. This is a good thing in my opinion. Management action (i.e. reduction in comm harvest and/or rec harvest) is triggered if 3 consecutive years fall below the line. By raising the bar here, management action would be triggered more quickly, while the stock is still actually healthy enough to rebuild quickly.

Here is where the bar would be set on the NJ JAI chart if those early years were removed from the data set.



Also included in this option would be the recommendation to FIX the bar at this level, so that it is not a constantly moving target that changes every year as data is added. It is recommended by the Technical Committee that the current data set is ideal and a moving target is not in the best interest of the fishery in this regard. I agree with this assessment.This is huge, and I think misunderstood by most.

Here's the deal. Status Quo on this issue means that a bar that is already low, is also variable. The bar is set at 75% of the average of all years in the data set. Let's say for example that for the next 10 years we have consistently low JAI indices (slightly above, or right at the current bar, or just one year out of every 3 slightly above the line keeping the trigger from being tripped), because those new numbers for the 10 bad years become part of the average, the bar will gradually get lower and lower as the average JAI in the data set goes down.

By FIXING the bar at its current level, or recalculated higher level, 10 bad years won't cause the bar to drop, resulting in a what could be a sliding curve toward the bottom, never quite tripping the trigger. Without this being redefined, and fixing the bar at conservatively reasonable level, the fishery could be in real trouble before either the JAI or the SSB triggers are tripped.

Public comment on Issue #2 described above showed 100% of the meeting attendees in support of the Technical Committee's recommendation to redefine recruitment failure as outlined above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The floor was then opened for public comment on Issue #1 of Addendum II to Amendment 6, which is basically this. Under Issue #1, we have 2 options on the table.

Option 1 = Status Quo, under this option commercial quota would remain unchanged. However, the Committee requested comments the idea of simply reallocating some of the recreation catch (through min size increase, reduced bag limit, or closed season/area) to the commercial sector. So that the overall take would remain approx. the same, but with a larger portion of it allocated to the comm sector.

Option 2 = Under this option the Management Board would select a specific percent increase (yet undefined!!!) to be applied to the coastal comm quota established in Amendment 6. Each jurisdiction (state) would be responsible for deciding whether or not to actually implement the increased quota level. In other words, any state could chose to NOT increase their commercial allowance in spite of a go-ahead from the ASMFC to do so.

Public comment was 100% in favor of Option 1, Status Quo, no commercial increase, this includes those representing the commercial sector in MA. No one spoke up in favor of a commercial quota increase. In addition many people strongly recommended not only no commercial increase, but also a reduction in recreational allowance to 1 fish per day with a slot limit.

Some of the arguments presented against commercial quota increase were as follows:

1. MANY people present reported an overwhelming absence of small fish over the last couple years. This goes along with the ASMFC's graphs in Addendum II which show a steady decline in JAI, especially in the Maryland/Chesapeake numbers.

2. Several people pointed out that while the ASMFC's female spawning stock biomass assessment is currently above the threshold they've set to determine whether or not the stock is being overfished, their chart also shows a fairly steady decline in the Total Abundance of striped bass since 2004. This is another indication that the lower JAI numbers need to be taken seriously, as small fish are not filling in to keep the overall abundance high. Once the current Female Spawning Stock Biomass is gone, there are few small fish coming along behind them to fill in the gap.
This is reflected in the below graph taken from Addendum II.



3. Juvenile Recruitment levels (age 1 fish) shown above showed steady decline from 2005-2007, with only a small recover in 2008. 2009 numbers not shown on the above graph also indicated decline.

4. Mark Pirani from Stripercoast Surfcasters Club spoke about the potential devastating effects of mycobacteriosis in the Chesapeake. When asked, Ms. Meserve stated that an estimated 75% of the entire coastal biomass comes from the Chesapeake. She also confirmed estimates that at least 70% of those fish are believed to be infected with Mycobacteriosis. She also said that the long term affects of the disease is yet unknown (i.e. whether or not it is always fatal, whether or not a fish can ever fully recover, the rate at which growth is slowed, etc... all unknown). Mark urged the board to look at this very conservatively, and consider the worst case scenario,,, which is this. The ASMFC's graph above shows the SSB to be just over 60 million fish. If 75% of those fish come from the Chesapeake, that's 45 million female spawners in the Chesapeake. If 70 percent of those fish are infected with Mycobacteriosis, that is 31.5 million female spawners that are possibly infected with myco in the Chessy alone,,, more that half of the entire SSB on the eastern seaboard. If this disease does turn out to be fatal, we will be loosing more than 50% of all the breeders in the next few years, which would crash the stock to WELL below the threshold set by ASMFC for urgent management action. Mark said that increasing any quota at this time would not be wise or in the best interest of the fishery. Several others echoed Marks comments.

5. Poaching. Ms. Meserve said that the ASMFC is in the process of developing more accurate models of estimating the amount of unreported poaching that is going on, but said those numbers are not yet available. Several people spoke of the KNOWN poaching that is going on and that the actual take, especially from the commercial sector, is far above what is indicated by the ASMFC's numbers. It was also mentioned by myself and 1 or two other people, that the commercial fishing industry, and the legal sale of striped bass in general, are fueling the rampant poaching that we all know is going on and it was recommended that the only way to truly stop large scale poaching operations, such as the ones recently discovered in Maryland and Virginia, is to stop the legal sale of striped bass coast wide. I personally have in my hand a stack of printed articles from unbiased news sources and the USDOJ showing that in the last year alone 111,553 lbs of illegally caught striped bass were confiscated. That's just the articles I found in about 30 minutes of searching, and is nearly equal to all of Maryland's annual quota! To increase the commercial quota at all, especially at a time when the ASMFC admits to not having a handle on even a remote estimate of the number of poached fish is unwise. If they can estimate how many fish I take home legally each year without even asking me, surely they can come up with at least a ballpark figure on poaching and factor that into their figures.

I think we got our point across loud and clear.

Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on the Draft Addendum, either by attending public hearings or providing written comments. The Draft Addendum can be obtained via the Commission's website at www.asmfc.org under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400. Public comment will be accepted until 5:00 PM (EST) on October 1, 2010 and should be forwarded to Nichola Meserve, FMP Coordinator, 1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 289-6051 (FAX) or at nmeserve@asmfc.org (Subject line: Striped Bass Addendum II). For more information, please contact Nichola Meserve, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator at (202) 289-6400 or nmeserve@asmfc.org.

[JakeF]

I also attended the hearing in Rhode Island on Tuesday evening, and it was about as well attended as the MA hearing, though I didn't get an actual count. The overall sentiment was identical to what I described above, with the exception of one gentleman who spoke up in favor of the commercial quota increase. He not only a commercial fisherman, but also the owner of a fish trap company, so his vote was not a surprise. I didn't catch his name...

The meeting was attended by members of RISAA, Narragansett Surfcasters Club, Stripercoast Surfcasters Club, and a number of others who's affiliation I either missed or was not stated.

One thing I noted, which surprised me, was the number of people at the meeting who did not speak up and voice their opinion. I know for a fact that for many there it was their first time attending a hearing such as this, but each and every person there should have spoken up during the public comment periods, and only a handful did. I strongly urge anyone who did attend the meeting and did not speak up to submit your comments on each question via snail mail, fax, or email (the details are at the bottom of my original post). Even if you were there, and spoke up, please submit your comments in writing as well, to ensure that they are received and recorded properly. If you are in favor of a healthy fishery, please do your part and don't let this slide through without your voice being heard. Thank you.

[JakeF]

Another thing that really jumps out at me is this. Take another look at this graph...



In 1988 the Recruitment (YoY) was at approx. 5 million fish. During that same year, the Female SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) was also right at 5 million fish. So in 1988 you have biomass of approx. 10 million pounds of spawning females, and end up with an additional 5 million YoY fish as a result.

In stark contrast is the year 2007. In 2007, we had an estimated 120 million pounds of Female SSB, yet we had a Recruitment level of only 5 million fish, same as 1988.

That's scary to me... and just another indication that something is seriously wrong in the spawning grounds....

During the Rhode Island meeting I asked Ms. Meserve and the RI appointees to the ASMFC about this specifically and asked if they could give us any information on why the recruitment level is SO low, given the current level of female Spawning Stock Biomass. They did not have an answer for me. Ms. Meserve DID speculate that it is most likely due to environmental issues in the spawning grounds and confirmed that the fishery is NOT being replenished at anywhere close the the same rate at which it is being depleted.

If anyone has any additional information on this, it is more than welcome and I will do my best to answer any questions you may have.

[jigfreak]

During the Rhode Island meeting I asked Ms. Meserve and the RI appointees to the ASMFC about this specifically and asked if they could give us any information on why the recruitment level is SO low, given the current level of female Spawning Stock Biomass. They did not have an answer for me. Ms. Meserve DID speculate that it is most likely due to environmental issues in the spawning grounds and confirmed that the fishery is NOT being replenished at anywhere close the the same rate at which it is being depleted.

If anyone has any additional information on this, it is more than welcome and I will do my best to answer any questions you may have.

The only thing that it seems like to me is that Nicola Meserve may just be giving lip service to fishermen. But thanks for your take on it, you went into a lot of detail. Good job.

[JakeF]

The only thing that it seems like to me is that Nichola Meserve may just be giving lip service to fishermen.

Perhaps, anything is possible. I'm curious to know from where you draw that conclusion though.

All I can say is that, after personally watching/hearing how she handled and responded to nearly 6 hours of debate in 2 different states, including MANY questions posed by yours truly, I did not come away with that feeling at all. In my opinion she presented the details of the Addendum II in a very professional and unbiased manner, and responded to questions based on the facts that she has, not emotion or bias. During the public comment periods, she not only recorded the audio, but also was furiously writing notes as people spoke and was very careful to make sure she got everyone's name correct and entered into the record. I feel she's doing a stand up job, and is genuinely interested in what we have to say. That is, of course, just my opinion, but it is one that was formed through personal experience.

[jigfreak]

JakeF, I never met Nicola Meserve personally, I did read a thread somewhere where they said she doesn't really represent the fishermen. Since you met her, I'll take your word for it.
Great job on the reporting and the detail, let's hope they actually listen to the feedback when it's time to make policy decisions.

[JakeF]

Thanks.

Let me clarify something though. I wouldn't go so far as to say that she 'represents' the fishermen. She represents the ASMFC in her position as the Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator. As such, I feel that at the meetings I attended she was a good listener and was very careful to explain the document and relay the facts as she has been given them by the ASMFC Technical Committee and not try to sway opinion toward either side of the debate. She seemed to take careful notes and several times asked particular attendees to repeat/rephrase something that she felt she did not understand or hear correctly. I don't think she would do that if she was just going through the motions. It's not in her best interest as a fisheries manager if she recommends something is detrimental to the fishery, and I do think she is taking the public comment seriously.

I also don't know her history on other issues. Just speaking of what I heard and saw at the meetings this week.

[DarkSkies]

By FIXING the bar at its current level, or recalculated higher level, 10 bad years won't cause the bar to drop, resulting in a what could be a sliding curve toward the bottom, never quite tripping the trigger. Without this being redefined, and fixing the bar at conservatively reasonable level, the fishery could be in real trouble before either the JAI or the SSB triggers are tripped.

Public comment on Issue #2 described above showed 100% of the meeting attendees in support of the Technical Committee's recommendation to redefine recruitment failure as outlined above.

I think that's pretty reasonable, Jake. The NOAA and ASMFC claim to have been concerned with accuracy of data for some time now. They have publically admitted they are trying to standardize some methods for more comprehensive and reresentative data collection and analysis.

I agree that if there is a decline in recruitment, we should be able to act more quickly. The YOY stats have shown a decline, and a lot of people in web site discussions seem to dismiss this as unimportant.

We need more accurate data and analysis methods.

The end result of this is that there may be restrictions sooner than people thought, if the YOY and recruitment trend down on any level.

The thing that worries me is I feel that there are a lot of people in the industry that will fight any reduction in recreational quota because big dollars (Boats, accessories, marina fees, tackle, etc) are connected. We all need to be on the same page. A meeting like this is a great forum. However, after all is said and done, you have special interest groups lobbying their Congressmen behind the scenes. There are a lot of forces that play into this mix that are not apparent at the meetings. I found that out when I attended the MA gamefish hearings.

The floor was then opened for public comment on Issue #1 of Addendum II to Amendment 6, which is basically this. Under Issue #1, we have 2 options on the table.

Option 1 = Status Quo, under this option commercial quota would remain unchanged. However, the Committee requested comments the idea of simply reallocating some of the recreation catch (through min size increase, reduced bag limit, or closed season/area) to the commercial sector. So that the overall take would remain approx. the same, but with a larger portion of it allocated to the comm sector.

Option 2 = Under this option the Management Board would select a specific percent increase (yet undefined!!!) to be applied to the coastal comm quota established in Amendment 6. Each jurisdiction (state) would be responsible for deciding whether or not to actually implement the increased quota level. In other words, any state could chose to NOT increase their commercial allowance in spite of a go-ahead from the ASMFC to do so.

Public comment was 100% in favor of Option 1, Status Quo, no commercial increase, this includes those representing the commercial sector in MA. No one spoke up in favor of a commercial quota increase. In addition many people strongly recommended not only no commercial increase, but also a reduction in recreational allowance to 1 fish per day with a slot limit.

Jake, any feedback if the NY meetings had a similar tone? The NY and NJ Comms have been pushing hard for an increase. The NY Comms were just granted a slight increase. (Or at least that was on the table the last time I checked.) Do you have any further thoughts on that?

.

Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on the Draft Addendum, either by attending public hearings or providing written comments. The Draft Addendum can be obtained via the Commission's website at www.asmfc.org under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400. Public comment will be accepted until 5:00 PM (EST) on October 1, 2010 and should be forwarded to Nichola Meserve, FMP Coordinator, 1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 289-6051 (FAX) or at nmeserve@asmfc.org (Subject line: Striped Bass Addendum II). For more information, please contact Nichola Meserve, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator at (202) 289-6400 or nmeserve@asmfc.org.

I separated this out so people would see it. Anyone who has an interest in this, please help us out by sending some comments in. It's easy, all you have to to is send them an e-mail. All of your comments are important. If you have any concerns, you should be heard.

Jake, thanks for taking the time to present this. I think you did an exceptional job at trying to convey the various points.

[DarkSkies]

5. Poaching. Ms. Meserve said that the ASMFC is in the process of developing more accurate models of estimating the amount of unreported poaching that is going on, but said those numbers are not yet available. Several people spoke of the KNOWN poaching that is going on and that the actual take, especially from the commercial sector, is far above what is indicated by the ASMFC's numbers. It was also mentioned by myself and 1 or two other people, that the commercial fishing industry, and the legal sale of striped bass in general, are fueling the rampant poaching that we all know is going on and it was recommended that the only way to truly stop large scale poaching operations, such as the ones recently discovered in Maryland and Virginia, is to stop the legal sale of striped bass coast wide. I personally have in my hand a stack of printed articles from unbiased news sources and the USDOJ showing that in the last year alone 111,553 lbs of illegally caught striped bass were confiscated. That's just the articles I found in about 30 minutes of searching, and is nearly equal to all of Maryland's annual quota! To increase the commercial quota at all, especially at a time when the ASMFC admits to not having a handle on even a remote estimate of the number of poached fish is unwise. If they can estimate how many fish I take home legally each year without even asking me, surely they can come up with at least a ballpark figure on poaching and factor that into their figures.

I agree with this Jake, I have no tolerance for poaching.

When many people think of poachers, they think of guys on the jetty or bulkheads taking more than their limit, or taking fish out of season. That number represents only a small amount of the actual poaching.

There is the highly publicized commercial poaching, like the Maryland example you mentioned. There is also a significant amount of poaching in the recreational sector, from guys who have special compartments outfitted on their boats, to guys who fish a lot and regularly sell their catches illegally to fish markets and restaurants. Gunny can provide many first-hand examples of that in your area. Anyone who doubts that should sit down and talk to him for a few minutes.

Finchaser can provide many examples of that in our area. Anyone who wants to learn more should contact him, and hear some eye-opening stories.

Meanwhile, I think the issue of possibly banning the coast wide sale of striped bass might never be resolved, simply because of the extreme pressure the inland states (Ohio, PA, Illinois, etc) place on being able to buy fresh caught wild striped bass from the ocean. These and other states put tremendous pressure (their legislators do) on any process designed to think rationally about conservation, and the damage poaching is doing to the actual biomass numbers.

I don't think there are any easy solutions here, although I agree with you in principle.

Nonetheless, I feel if we're to gain any headway, we need more accurate data, and a mechanism for reaching out and educating all the people who fish, eat fish, and are involved with fishing in any way.

Great job laying it all out there, thanks!

[DarkSkies]

Another thing that really jumps out at me is this. Take another look at this graph...



In 1988 the Recruitment (YoY) was at approx. 5 million fish. During that same year, the Female SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) was also right at 5 million fish. So in 1988 you have biomass of approx. 10 million pounds of spawning females, and end up with an additional 5 million YoY fish as a result.

In stark contrast is the year 2007. In 2007, we had an estimated 120 million pounds of Female SSB, yet we had a Recruitment level of only 5 million fish, same as 1988.

That's scary to me... and just another indication that something is seriously wrong in the spawning grounds....

This worries me as well, Jake.

A person proficient in statistical analysis would tell you that that is highly unlikely that the recruitment level would be the same with such a large (alleged) difference in spawing females SSB.

A reasonable inference to draw from this is there is no way the current SSB figures can be accurate, and that they would have to be way less than claimed. Even with a wide standard deviation based on environmental factors, it is unlikely the recruitment level of such a high (alleged) population could only be 5 million fish.

Hence, drawing a conclusion that the actual claimed biomass of 120 million lbs of SSB is much less than that number, would be a reasonable conclusion.

[JakeF]

Thanks Rich, and great points as well.

I should also point out something about the numbers I posted regarding the Mycobacteriosis problem in the Chesapeake.

Just reporting what Nichola Meserve of the ASMFC said at the hearing. I asked her twice to confirm that those numbers were accurate and both times she said that yes, those are the numbers that were provided to her by the surveys and the ASMFC Technical Committee. I certainly hope it's not that bad, but that's what the 'science' says. Whether or not the 'science' behind the numbers the ASMFC is working with is accurate is questioned by some.

I aint no scientist, just reporting what was stated at the hearing

[JakeF]

Jake, any feedback if the NY meetings had a similar tone? The NY and NJ Comms have been pushing hard for an increase. The NY Comms were just granted a slight increase. (Or at least that was on the table the last time I checked.) Do you have any further thoughts on that?

Rich, I was not at the NY or NJ hearings personally, but there were 3 Stripercoast Surfcasting Club members present at the NY hearing and here is their report:

The meeting started out with Pat Augustine, the governors appointee to the ASMFC board, basically pushing blame off of himself for introducing this addendum. He stated that it was not his idea but he gets his ideas from the resident anglers of the State and this is what was proposed to him. He forwards it to the technical committee and then, if it passes, he introduces it to the board. In speaking to Tom Farrell ,NYCRF VP, I learned that he did not have to introduce this in the first place. Augustine then went on to say how hard a job he really has in having to answer to the people of the state and also to the board on issues regarding all 17 of the fisheries that the ASMFC has a say in. He said that if anyone else wanted his job, you would have a lot of accountability on all the issues.

The fact that he pushes the agendas for commercial fishermen should be a red flag. After the meeting I did not see him speak to one recreational fisherman. He was actually sitting down with a few of the commercial guys for quite some time.

It was noted that the regulations are not set in place to achieve quotas. This is due to paybacks in future years. If a fisheries quota has an overage then, in subsequent years, this is reflected with lowered quotas for that fishery in the next year or years. Some commercial arguments during the meeting reflected this. Some also commented on the decline of bass numbers saying that they got their bass tags on July 1 and by the 15th they were all filled. Basically saying there was no decline. This is in stark contrast to last years rollover addendum. The comments during that public comment period were all about how they couldn't fill all their tags. There were only a couple of commercial fishermen there that commented on that after Tom Farrell brought it up. They said all of their tags were filled already so what he was talking about wasn't true. In fact it was. I tried to find the public comments on that addendum but was unsuccessful. These three comms were not at last years meetings on the rollover, they were not easy to forget so I would have recognized them.

There was one commercial fisherman who agreed with keeping the quotas Status Quo. He did not explain why.

All in all the recreational fishermen who submitted a public comment outnumbered the commercials by about 3 to 1. At last years rollover meeting this was not the case. There were more comms there than recs. I would have to attribute this to Willy Young on getting this meeting known quite heavily across the more local NY message boards.

There were a few standouts in the crowd though. One in particular was Charles Witek. He is on the CCA board and also sits on the MRAC board for the NY DEC. Tom Farrell was another and there was also a Mr Schwab who used to sit on the ASMFC board. He went on for about 10 + minutes when they finally asked him to summarize what he was talking about.

Many of the recreational arguments were centered around the same subjects. These were Mycobacteriosis, decline in the JAI (Juvenile abundance Index), decline in recent years of the SSB (spawning stock biomass), poaching and lack of enforcement, the same trends now as to what happened before the last crash and subsequent moratorium, and the socio-economic factors of recreational fishing versus commercial fishing.

The commercial arguments centered around the availability of the bass, the projected numbers that the Technical Committee mocked up to estimate what the impact of increased quotas would do to the stock (which is not much of an argument) and the science that states that the bass are well below the threshold for overfishing.

This, all in all, was a great turnout for the recreational fishermen. In NY though there are less commercial fishermen than other states so there will certainly be more of an opposition to come.

[DarkSkies]

Thanks for the additional comments Jake. Tom Farrell and Willy Young do a tremendous job for the NYCRF. It's my opinion that the NYCRF wouldn't have made the inroads and garnered the support it has without these 2 outspoken individuals, and all the unsung members behind them who have done their part, even when the opposition seems tough.

I'm also surprised at the grief that Willy Young and Tom Farrell get on other boards about the issues they're involved in. Particularly Willy, who seems to be a lightning rod for internet trolls and guys who get involved only on the internet, get their research from internet chat rooms or rumors, and never really do much to support various groups.

It's a shame that a few people would rather create drama than actively seek a solution. Maybe it's because some don't see there being any problem with striped bass numbers, beyond their personal catches for the last 3 years...
"Yeah we've been slamming the cows for the past 3 years, you can't tell me the numbers are down! "
When you have people like that, the only suggestion I can give is for them to do their own research (extending beyond 3 years ).



To bring a better understanding of this to all fishermen, I try to highlight people like Willy Young, Vito Orlando, Joe Melillo, Finchaser,Gunny, and some of the more recognized, or less well-known people who have tried to bring these issues to the forefront for decades.

It's refreshing that a lot of well-known charter captains and outdoor writers are continuing to speak out. There still remain a core group of haters, who don't do much to help any cause, but take every chance to stir the confusion.

To anyone who reads this, I always encourage you to do your own research. As we mentioned, the current figures may not be completely accurate.

However, anyone versed in stats and science will know that numerical trends, up or down, are a good indicator of the general health of the biomass. (post 7)

And please, as Jake mentioned, contact the people listed in the e-mail (posts 1 and 8) and let them know what you think. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

If you have a frame of reference of a decade or more of fishing experience, you owe it to yourself and the future of your childrens' fishing experiences to put your opinion out there. Thanks to anyone who can help do that.

[DarkSkies]

I realized it's sometimes hard to digest these long-winded posts. There are some who see these long paragraphs and pass on reading them.

Those of us who attend the meetings and do the reporting try to document it carefully. Maybe we might lose the attention of others who only have a slight interest.

Here's a quick summary:
1. Meetings were held.

2. There is a general agreement that some of the indices used to measure the size of the East Coast striped bass biomass and birth rate give cause for concern.

3. Some agree, some don't. For those who don't agree and feel striped bass are healthy, there's another issue ...a coastwide push to allow more commercial limits, or allow comms to catch where they previously weren't allowed.

4. Which ever side you feel is correct.... if you don't at least voice your opinion, should rulings be made that don't reflect your interests, you have no one to blame but yourself.

As always, thanks for reading.

[clamchucker]

Good job, guys. Keep up the good work.

[basshunter]

Jake, Work is getting the best of me lately. There are not enough hours in a day anymore.

I like to stay up on all the lastest hearings. Thanks so much for that post. I know it was time consuming for you to put up. Thanks for keeping us all informed.

[BassBuddah]

A reasonable inference to draw from this is there is no way the current SSB figures can be accurate, and that they would have to be way less than claimed. Even with a wide standard deviation based on environmental factors, it is unlikely the recruitment level of such a high (alleged) population could only be 5 million fish.

Hence, drawing a conclusion that the actual claimed biomass of 120 million lbs of SSB is much less than that number, would be a reasonable conclusion.

I have always thought those estimated biomass numbers weren't accurate. This just confirms my suspicions. Thanks for the updates Jake.

[JakeF]

Here's an update on this... All public comment is in and has been tallied. I have a PDF fresh off the presses from the ASMFC which is a breakdown state-by-state of all public comment received. It is attached to the bottom of this post for your review

The Management Board at the ASMFC will be voting on this Addendum at their annual meeting in South Carolina on November 9th.

I also have a PDF containing the contact information of every person on that board, and have emailed every one of them. That is also attached below, in case you might want to do the same.

Fight the good fight...

[JakeF]

I have word that the ASMFC Management Board has voted in today's meeting AGAINST increasing the coastal Commercial Striped Bass Quota. I have not yet heard the results of a vote on Issue 2 - Redefining Recruitment Failure... I will post as soon as I hear.

Thank you all for helping us be heard on this issue and encouraging the ASMFC to avoid taking a step in the wrong direction!

[JakeF]

This just in... Board voted unanimously on Issue 2 - to Redefine Recruitment Failure as recommended by the Technical Committee. This is HUGE and something we pushed for strongly over the last year! I don't think a lot of people really understood it's ramifications, so it didn't get the attention that Issue 1 - Commercial Quota Increase got, but it's just as big of a win for our beloved fish!!