Here's a post by Jigfreak, also in that thread, that pertains to this as well:



Quote Originally Posted by jigfreak View Post
This is absolute BS. To say with all the evidence they were presented with that striped bass are not even in a slight decline, it almost seems like some special interest gtoup paid off these guys.
Here is something I found from an ASMFC site- reading it to me seems he is blaming it on natural striped bass mortality -- W T F is thatm about?




SHEPHERD: We can get more specific. As pointed out by the recent public comments there, the catches have varied by state, but generally there has been a decrease in the last couple of years...Maine has seen a decrease; New Hampshire, likewise, a very steep decline in catch. Massachusetts, the discard numbers have decreased steadily, although the landings have remained relatively stable after the initial decline. Rhode Island has decrease... Overall the recreational landings and discards have decreased in the last few years with the exception of those states in the New York Bight, which is outside of the Hudson River Area.


We’ve done some projections of the estimate of eight-plus abundance in the spawning stock biomass. Because of the incoming year class strength, the projection of abundance would suggest that it should remain relatively stable for the next two years and increase a little bit as we get particularly that 2003 year class start moving into the system, but then a decline over several years of those weak year classes that were evident in the recruitment pass through the system...


We also did some projections of harvest. If the status quo fishing mortality of 0.2 were to continue, we would expect to see a declining trend in harvest, which is landings and bycatch, for the next several years; a slight uptick three years out with the incoming stronger year classes; then a continuation of declines through that.



The conclusion from the assessment update is that it is currently not overfished or subject to overfishing according to the definitions... Specifically for the Chesapeake Bay – well, when we look at the model with the two period – this is total coast – actually, the F is a little bit higher but M is much greater than the 0.15 that we’ve been using in the catch-at-age model. It’s anywhere from 0.28 to 0.43 in 2008. So these additional tagging models would suggest that has been an increase in natural mortality, and that’s something that we intend to look further at in the next go-around for use in the physical catch-atage model as well as to look at the effective variable and an increasing M. It’s thought to be primarily from the outbreak of myco in the Chesapeake

* the lower spawning numbers in the Chesapeake
* the growth of the myco disease in the Chesapeake
* the increased mortality rate from stripers as a result of myco
* the fact that this increased mortality rate has not ben factored into the Tech Committee's model's


http://www.asmfc.org/meetings/winter...ementBoard.pdf).