Coastal Catch Quota
 

An open letter (inquiry) to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, and Maryland's Department of Natural Resources.

On Monday July 19, 2010 I attended a meeting allowing public comment on increasing the coastal commercial quota of striped bass. I must confess that the handout appears to be well prepared and professionally documented with much scientific data and charts.
However, most of the facts presented appear to be figures that are “extrapolated” from science. It's comforting to see some of the charts accurately labeled “Estimates of the average F on ages 8-11 striped bass from 2004-2008 using six different catch-at-age (CAA) matrices.” or “Estimates of female spawning stock biomass (mt) from 2004-2008 using six different catch-at-age (CAA) matrices.” Why aren't other charts similarly labeled? Shouldn't Table 3 “Coastal commercial harvest compared to total commercial, total recreational, and total (commercial plus recreational) landings” also contain the word “Estimated”? It's impossible to know these numbers. Aren't some of these numbers based on log book entries, periodic surveys, and random phone calls to anglers. While these numbers are certainly useful to finalize some projection, they are not definitive.
I was also disappointed to hear the answer to my question, “Is the striped bass disease, Mycobacteriosis, factored into the natural mortality figure?” The answer, which was repeated several times through subsequent questions, was that it was not factored into the natural mortality figure. With an estimated 40 – 70 percent of the Chesapeake Bay stock infected with a potentially deadly disease, I was perplexed why this was the case.
As chance would have it, in today's (July 21, 2010) Maryland Gazette there appeared an article on Mycobacteriosis. In the article, it referenced the scientific paper “Mycobacteriosis- Associated Mortality In Wild Bass (Morone saxatilis) from Chesapeake Bay, USA.” This paper found in “Ecological Applications, volume 18, issue 7 (Oct. 2008) pp. 1718-1727 was at least in part produced by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science <www.esajournals.org>.
In the abstract of the paper it states, “To our knowledge this is the first demonstration of cryptic mortality associated with a chronic infectious disease in a wild finfish. This finding has direct implications for management and stock assessment of striped bass, as it demonstrates population-level negative impacts of a chronic disease. Additionally, this research provides a framework by which disease-associated mortality may be specifically addressed within fisheries models for resource management.”
If this information has been available since 2008, why wasn't this framework or model for resource management used in considering stock status?
Inquiries such as this lead me to question DNR's ability to present non-biased information to commissioners, board members, and the public. It is difficult for me to rationalize Maryland's DNR restrictions on Catch and Release of the spring spawning stock only months ago, to supporting an increased harvesting of this same stock along the coast through netting.
I support the Option 1: Status Quo proposal until all factors, including the mortality affects of Mycobacteriosis, can be assessed for impact on “stock status.”
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important decision.
Martin Carter

I don't know if there ever has been any more data published about the Mycobacteriosis thing in the bay fish, but the one I remember reading involved very few samples, taken from a polluted river in Virginia and then extrapolated over the entire bay.

Oh well, I guess the loud and obvious report gets the attention.

I found the answer on the Mycobacteriosis in the Bay.
VIMS website has numerous updated studies on the disease.

http://web.vims.edu/myco/Publications.html

Appears the newspapers like the sensationalism more then being realistic.

That's journalism at it's finest!.........Gary

Reds; thanks for taking the time to respond. When I checked your "hot link" all those studies were performed from 1998-2006. There has been a lot of work on Myco and Rockfish. I don't think any of the studies are good news for rock infected with Myco.
The whole premise for my letter is that if there is "a framework by which disease-associated mortality may be specifically addressed within fisheries models for resource management", then it needs to be included in the DNR report released to the ASMFC and the general public.
DNR appears to have put together a nice packet of information, my only question is why was information related to Myco and rockfish omitted. If Maryland is a principle nusery for rockfish, and 40-70 percent are infected by a chronic disease which has a negative impact on the population; then it needs to be addressed when contemplating increasing the take of large rockfish from the migrating stock off the coast.
5th (Marty)

Here is Candy's take on the meeting monday night: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/spor...s_for_you.html

The link I posted was not what I intended. Here is the right one.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j.../118493967/toc

Journal of Fish Diseases is where you can find the latest info. As of 2009 the studies claim they don't know much about the disease. That's why any info was omitted from ASMFC data presented.

I don't see what this has to do with allocation. To me it's just grasping at straws. Whether a million pounds is eaten by the people that catch them or sold to someone to be eaten. It's the same fish.

We have diseases in most protein that we eat. That why aliens introduced us to fire. To kill disease.:D