Proposed Striped Bass Changes

Got this from a friend:

http://www.nccfff.org/committees/ssl.pdf

NCCFFF - Striped Bass Regulation Change Page 1 of 3
PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE STRIPED BASS REGULATIONS
Overview
The proposed change will eliminate harvest of striped bass exceeding 35 inches. The proposed
change will create a slot limit of 18-35 inches. The proposed change applies to the anadromous
striped bass of the San Francisco Bay estuary system (Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, San Pablo
Bay, San Francisco Bay, and nearby ocean waters). The regulation change is not intended to
apply to reservoirs, lakes, canals, etc. where natural reproduction does not occur.
The proposed change will:
• Decrease the human health risks associated with consumption of
chemically-tainted striped bass.
• Increase the overall abundance of striped bass through increased
natural reproduction.
• Increase the abundance of trophy (greater than 35 inch) striped bass.
• Enhance angler satisfaction via increased overall abundance and
increase abundance of large striped bass.
• Leverage the restoration efforts under CVPIA and CalFed.
Regulation Change
Section Existing Proposed
14 CCR 5.75 (a) There is currently a
minimum size of 18 inches,
with no maximum size.
Create a slot limit of 18-35 inches.
14 CCR 27.85 (c)
(1)
There is currently a
minimum size of 18 inches,
with no maximum size.
Create a slot limit of 18-35 inches.
Rationale for Proposed Change
Sampling and analysis of striped bass have established that fish longer than 35 inches contain
harmful chemicals at concentrations toxic to normal, healthy adults (children, pregnant women,
and the elderly are even more sensitive); the recommended consumption of fish over 35 inches is
zero. This multi-year sampling and analysis has been performed as part of the San Francisco
Estuary Regional Monitoring Program, a program for monitoring the health of surface water,
sediment, and aquatic species within San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.
The offending toxins include mercury, polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs), and pesticides. Due to
the affinity of these toxins to the naturally-occurring fat within the flesh of striped bass, the
concentration of toxins increases with time, and size (bioaccumulation). At a size of 35 inches
NCCFFF - Striped Bass Regulation Change Page 2 of 3
and greater, striped bass have bioaccumulated enough toxins so that consumption, in any
amount, is very unhealthy. In analogous terms, if striped bass were a commercial fish on the
West Coast, government regulations would prohibit the sale of fish greater than 35 inches in
length.
Because (essentially) all of the striped bass within the San Francisco estuary system are
migratory/nomadic, the health concerns exist no matter where the striped bass are harvested. It
is far too common a misconception that striped bass harvested from the ocean are nontoxic while
the chemically-tainted fish only come from the Delta. The proposed regulation change addresses
this misconception.
Wardens of the Department have observed that striped bass fishers with a goal to harvest fish
will typically ignore the health warnings. One of the unfortunate results of this is that
chemically-tainted striped bass are given by harvesters to unsuspecting family and friends
(people who are not fishers and not aware of the health implications). Accordingly, measures
stronger than the warnings (i.e. the regulation change) are needed to protect public health. This
will benefit the health of the striped bass fishers, as well as those exposed to "second-hand
stripers".
Striped bass 35 inches and greater are fecund females (males do not generally grow so large).
The naturally-spawned abundance of striped bass is limited by the abundance of females (as
opposed to males). Large females produce more eggs and larger eggs (which survive at a higher
rate) than their smaller counterparts. Basic biological reasoning dictates the protection of this
segment of the population.
Under the current regulations, the abundance of striped bass and the abundance of trophy fish
limit angler satisfaction. While there are some anglers that will continue to measure satisfaction
according to the ability to harvest a trophy fish, there are many other anglers that will appreciate
simply catching more fish, particularly trophy fish. The proposed regulation change recognizes
that hooking more striped bass and more trophy striped bass will translate into greater angler
satisfaction.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and CalFed will result in substantial
habitat improvements throughout the Bay/Delta. Although the habitat improvements are not
necessarily targeted for striped bass, benefits will accrue. The proposed regulation change better
positions the striped bass fishery to benefit from these changes via better natural reproduction.
Potential Arguments Against the Proposed Change
The proposed change to the sportfishing regulations will result in lower angler satisfaction This
is not true. It is an outdated notion that satisfaction is dependent on the harvest of trophy fish;
for a significant portion of the fishing community, the opposite is true and tremendous
satisfaction is derived from releasing a trophy fish. The proposed regulation change will result
in a greater angler catch rate (due to a greater abundance), overall and for trophy fish. Angler
NCCFFF - Striped Bass Regulation Change Page 3 of 3
satisfaction from increased catch will more than offset angler dissatisfaction from restricting the
harvest of trophy fish.
The proposed change will cause increased harvest pressure on 18-35 inch fish There will be an
increased harvest pressure on the 18-35 inch fish (which are more-or-less evenly divided
between males and females), along with a decreased harvest pressure on the larger size classes,
which are females. The net effect will be a greater abundance, overall and for trophy fish. It is
well established that slot limits increase abundance, overall and for trophy fish. The recovery of
the Bay/Delta sturgeon fishery is a testament to the effectiveness of slot limits.
The proposed change will cause increased predation on threatened/endangered species Striped
bass predation on these species is generally thought to be negligible to minor. Steelhead,
Chinook Salmon, Delta Smelt, Sacramento Splittail, and striped bass coexisted in abundance
since the early 1900’s (striped bass were introduced in the late 1800’s). Over the past decades,
all three species have seen similar, dramatic declines in abundance which are attributable to
human causes (water export, physical export of eggs and young fish at the water diversions,
pollution, degradation in spawning and rearing habitat, etc.). The dramatic declines in active
species are not attributable to predation, particularly by striped bass greater than 35 inches in
length. Furthermore, regulation changes that provide for a more self-sustaining striped bass
fishery can result in an increased abundance for threatened/endangered species - such an
outcome is likely if the striped bass stamp funds are targeted for habitat improvements instead of
stocking.
The proposed change will result in greater hooking mortality Hooking mortality is generally
considered minimal (less than 5%) for striped bass. Hooking mortality pales in comparison to
the current sportfishing harvest of the size classes that will be protected under the proposed
regulation change.

Wouldn't want to feed one that big to the family anyway.

Striped bass is an introduced species.  The only (good) reason for an upper limit is health concerns.  Since the health concerns are not serious enough for the DFG to shutdown striper fishing all together (maybe they should), I don't believe an upper limit is justified.  The assertion that they co-exist just fine with indigenous species, and therefore are worthy of some sort of protection, is hooey.

"Striped bass predation on these [threatened/endangered] species [Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, Delta Smelt, Sacramento Splittail] is generally thought to be negligible to minor."

Who generally thinks this?  I see no scientific citations here.

You can't tell me that introducing a species is ever beneficial to any species other than Man.  They may be fun to catch but that's no justification for protection.

when are you leaving? you are falling into the trap of blaming the victim[the fish].  the real issues are water transport from the delta, which kills small fish of all species, increases the salinity of suisun bay rendering it less suitable as a nursery for baby fish and industrial pollution which poisons our water with tons of outflow.  i wrote a paper on this topic about 10 years ago"ARE WE FOULING OUR OWN NEST", i can back up these statements with scientific research, and i have 2 degrees from ucberkeley, one of them relavant to this topic.

  in addition, slot limits have worked very well to increase angler satisfaction(my own included) up and down the eastern seaboard. east coast anglers had a very bad time in the 70's, their fishery almost collapsed behond repair.  slot limits are one of the factors that enabled the recovery of the fishery.

 i when i started fishing striper in the 80's the fishing here was miserable, until they started the pen rearing program. the next logical step is will be to allow the fish to maintain a healthy sustainable population. i would support these proposed conservation measures.

Leaving?

The issue raised is not pollution, rather protection of an introduced species.  It is clear that pollution effects every species.  Stripers were imported from the East Coast, where they are indigenous, and deserve protection there.  All the species that have been effected by pollution must struggle to recover and the presence of introduced species (any introduced species) hinders that recovery.  Stripers are not responsible for the significant decline of our fishery but they are competing with the real victims - the indigenous species.

In this article:

http://sgnis.org/publicat/cc1.htm

"Nearly 30 species of introduced marine, brackish and freshwater fish are now important carnivores throughout the Bay and Delta. Eastern and central American fish -- carp, mosquitofish, catfish, green sunfish, bluegills, inland silverside, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and striped bass -- are among the most significant predators, competitors, and habitat disturbers throughout the brackish and freshwater reaches of the Delta, with often concomitant impacts on native fish communities. The introduced crayfish Procambarus and Pacifastacus may play an important role, when dense, in regulating their prey plant and animal populations."

I kind of agree with john, in this regard DFG does have it's priorities kind of screwed up.  They say that striped bass predation of salmon, ect, is neglidgible, then claim if the northern pike ever escape lake davis they will practically make salmon extinct...  

Still, the local species in the bay/delta are either seasonal, or poor quality gamefish.  The stripers fill an important niche since they're generally accessible year-round and a good gamefish with good edibility.