I agree that the crabs and shrimp are definitely down. I am however a deep hole guy so I don’t bait. I have noticed a decrease in size versus time of year also. On that note, when it comes to fishing I am pretty much catch and release. There are only two of us here and my wife enjoys catching them more than cooking them. ( I am blessed to have a live in fishing partner) I have a friend who routinely over fishes, even comes home with over slot and over limit. I have spoken to him about it. It seems that some have a more for me, screw you attitude. DNR will catch him and the fines will be appropriate. We can only try and keep our side of the street clean. I spoke to 3 guys today. Two said screw that, I’m keeping what I catch, The third is on board with catch/release and or turning over to Waddell. I know the owners of Last Chance and will talk to them about putting up a couple fliers with Waddells number on it during peak season. All we can do is try. It only takes a spark to start a fire!
Key West 1900
Bazinga
And there you have it. Shut it down.
(And this is from a guy named “Redneckn”…you can’t make this stuff up).
let me comment on why raising the size limit is problematic. As you increase the size limit, the harvest skews toward a higher percentage of females taken. Because females grow faster and are larger than males, you wind up taking maybe 75% females at 38 inches instead of closer to 50% at 33 inches (the numbers are a guess and made only to illustrate the point).
Why is this a problem? Can you explain the biology?
Why isn’t allowing females 2-3 more years of spawning, and males 5-6 more years of spawning, before they’re taken out of the fishery a good thing?
I agree that the crabs and shrimp are definitely down. I am however a deep hole guy so I don’t bait. I have noticed a decrease in size versus time of year also. On that note, when it comes to fishing I am pretty much catch and release. There are only two of us here and my wife enjoys catching them more than cooking them. ( I am blessed to have a live in fishing partner) I have a friend who routinely over fishes, even comes home with over slot and over limit. I have spoken to him about it. It seems that some have a more for me, screw you attitude. DNR will catch him and the fines will be appropriate. We can only try and keep our side of the street clean. I spoke to 3 guys today. Two said screw that, I’m keeping what I catch, The third is on board with catch/release and or turning over to Waddell. I know the owners of Last Chance and will talk to them about putting up a couple fliers with Waddells number on it during peak season. All we can do is try. It only takes a spark to start a fire!
Key West 1900
Bazinga
And there you have it. Shut it down.
(And this is from a guy named “Redneckn”…you can’t make this stuff up).
The first rule of fight club is…
So let me get this straight.
Since there is less forage for cobia, as referenced on this thread repeatedly now, and since you see a parking lot on the river every Saturday in May, it makes sense to stop harvesting fish out of the river?
Do you understand biology? Do you understand population dynamics and concepts such as carrying ca
DNR used genetic tools to determine that the inshore population (St Helena/Port Royal) was different than the offshore population. Inshore fish only spawn with inshore fish. They wont be replaced by offshore fish. They are a separate population.
Inshore fish are coming into the estuary to spawn.
Genetics were also used to determine that the number of annual spawning adults inshore in the river has decreased to very low levels. Roughly 550 fish.
Genetics were used to estimate the contribution of Waddell fish to the wild population. It was 80% of one yearclass out of 10. It demonstrated that stocking can work.
Waddell has stocked experimentally roughly 60,000 fish to determine the “right” way to stock fish without hurting the wild population.
The stocked fish were also used to estimate the size of the population at 47,000 fish which is down from 117,000 fish just 3 years ago.
Reported fishing effort from recreational fishing and charterboat fishing has continued to increase on the inshore fish.
What was reported were potential options related to decreasing fishing pressure, which included all options for improving the fishery. Closures, limits, size limits, and stocking.
Stocking can fix the problem because it affects the genetics of the overall population if you stock too many.
The intent was to help increase the size/health of the population while minimizing the impact to the fishery or the individual.
The legislature decides with advice from DNR science. The people influence the representatives.
1966, thanks for a such a succinct report from the meeting. Assuming these are accurate facts, and having no reason to think they aren’t, it really seems like both sides of the equation need to be addressed and fast. Take action on the supply side to provide more hatchlings (natural and hatchery) and reduce the bag either by a tag system or a per boat maximum of one. An increase in length for those taken should help also.
DNR used genetic tools to determine that the inshore population (St Helena/Port Royal) was different than the offshore population. Inshore fish only spawn with inshore fish. They wont be replaced by offshore fish. They are a separate population.
Inshore fish are coming into the estuary to spawn.
Genetics were also used to determine that the number of annual spawning adults inshore in the river has decreased to very low levels. Roughly 550 fish.
Genetics were used to estimate the contribution of Waddell fish to the wild population. It was 80% of one yearclass out of 10. It demonstrated that stocking can work.
Waddell has stocked experimentally roughly 60,000 fish to determine the “right” way to stock fish without hurting the wild population.
The stocked fish were also used to estimate the size of the population at 47,000 fish which is down from 117,000 fish just 3 years ago.
Reported fishing effort from recreational fishing and charterboat fishing has continued to increase on the inshore fish.
What was reported were potential options related to decreasing fishing pressure, which included all options for improving the fishery. Closures, limits, size limits, and stocking.
Stocking can fix the problem because it affects the genetics of the overall population if you stock too many.
The intent was to help increase the size/health of the population while minimizing the impact to the fishery or the individual.
The legislature decides with advice from DNR science. The people influence the representatives.
This indicates a much gloomier situation than I had imagined.
"Why is this a problem? Can you explain the biology?
Why isn’t allowing females 2-3 more years of spawning, and males 5-6 more years of spawning, before they’re taken out of the fishery a good thing?"
The answer is that the older females are more fecund, they produce more eggs with better quality than smaller, 3 year old females. So the older females are more valuable, and as a consequence of changing the size limit, you would shift the greatest harvest mortality directly onto the females which are most productive. And skew the sex ratio of the harvest.
Males are less valuable to the fishery. Their contribution is dependent upon females and will not change over the course of their lifetime. There is no difference to the population between a 3 year old male and a 6 year old male.
Intuitively, we can understand that a population with 25 males and 1 female will take longer to rebuild than a population with 25 females and 1 male.
“Stocking can fix the problem because it affects the genetics of the overall population if you stock too many.”
I believe this should be “can’t fix the problem”. Unfortunately, a large hatchery contribution to a small natural population is a bad thing. This is because the number of broodstock used to create the hatchery fish is usually very small (3-4 females). Thus you create problems with genetic diversity and inbreeding if you keep stocking large numbers of fish from a limited number of broodstock, even when you catch new broodstock each year. This is a case where slow and steady wins the race. Stock enhancement can be used to augment and support the wild population but it is not an immediate fix for the Broad River.
Three years ago there were 117,000fish. Now population estimated at 47,000 fish. There would have to be 23,300 fish being harvested or dying every year and NO reproduction at all for those three years to get to 47,000. 7,750 fish would have to be caught a month for 3 main months April, May, June in the broad for FISHERMEN to be hurting the population. The past there years the fishing has been reported to be the worst years in history… 7,750 fish caught a month during those main spawning months? Seems pretty crazy to me. I’m not scientist but maybe the problem isn’t fishing. I did not catch a Cobia in the river last year and Lord knows I tried. I could sit anywhere in the broad next to 30 boats and maybe see 1 fish boated in 8 hours of fishing. I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem somewhere but I don’t believe it’s the average joes doing the damage.
Three years ago there were 117,000fish. Now population estimated at 47,000 fish. There would have to be 23,300 fish being harvested or dying every year and NO reproduction at all for those three years to get to 47,000. 7,750 fish would have to be caught a month for 3 main months April, May, June in the broad for FISHERMEN to be hurting the population. The past there years the fishing has been reported to be the worst years in history… 7,750 fish caught a month during those main spawning months? Seems pretty crazy to me. I’m not scientist but maybe the problem isn’t fishing. I did not catch a Cobia in the river last year and Lord knows I tried. I could sit anywhere in the broad next to 30 boats and maybe see 1 fish boated in 8 hours of fishing. I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem somewhere but I don’t believe it’s the average joes doing the damage.
07 Scout Winyah Bay 221 Yamaha F150
This is an interesting observation.
Karl B, what do you think is causing the cobia population to be close to collapse?
The answer is that the older females are more fecund, they produce more eggs with better quality than smaller, 3 year old females. So the older females are more valuable, and as a consequence of changing the size limit, you would shift the greatest harvest mortality directly onto the females which are most productive. And skew the sex ratio of the harvest.
I understand that older fish produce more offspring, and that we want more of them.
Peak fecundity has to occur as some age- let’s say age 8 for the sake of argument. I think we know for sure it’s way older the female fish’s age at the current minimum size of 33 inches. We want more 8 year old fish, yes?
The females reproduce at ages 3-10. Don’t we want more of all those ages?
I fail to see how protecting the fish from harvest during years 0-6, for instance, instead of only during years 0-3 doesn’t help the fish’s chances of reaching age 8, and possibly reproducing EVERY year between ages 3 and 10.
quote:Originally posted by Karl B
Intuitively, we can understand that a population with 25 males and 1 female will take longer to rebuild than a population with 25 females and 1 male.
</font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>
Again, how is it not a major boost to the population when you protect females ages 0-6 instead of only 0-3? You don’t just continue on with the same number of 3-6 year old individuals as before. There will be many more, correct? So this shifting thing has a little more to it. If you want to protect the biggest females, then a slot limit is easy to enforce.
“Three years ago there were 117,000fish. Now population estimated at 47,000 fish. There would have to be 23,300 fish being harvested or dying every year and NO reproduction at all for those three years to get to 47,000.”
The age structure of the population can play a big role in the rate of decline. Let’s assume that we have a mortality rate of about 40% per year (60% of the fish survive which is what we’ve seen from our catch curve analysis). This includes both fishing and natural mortality. If we start with 100,000 fish, we’ll have 60,000 survive year 1, 36,000 fish in year 2, and end up with 21,600 fish in year 3.
Remember that cobia generally live about 10 years. A single strong year class can keep numbers elevated as that year class moves across time. But when that strong year class finally dies out, it can create a big hole if the subsequent year classes have been small. The last really big year class was in 2004. From 2005-2010 this single year class made up 50% of the total catch. Many of you will recall that we saw great numbers in 2007, when these fish first recruited to the fishery, but they have been declining as a percentage of the catch every year and are now about gone. We have not had another good year class to replace these fish. Maybe we are due for another good year class or maybe something has fundamentally changed in the estuary that is preventing recruitment. We don’t know.
“I fail to see how protecting the fish from harvest during years 0-6, for instance, instead of only during years 0-3 doesn’t help the fish’s chances of reaching age 8,”
In your example, we’ve shifted the size limit so the harvest is going to be something like 90% females and 10% males. We’ve also set our harvest target on 7 year old fish (0-6 being protected). Thus, the effort of the entire fishery is now directed toward the harvest of 7 year old females. This would not help them reach age 8.
“I fail to see how protecting the fish from harvest during years 0-6, for instance, instead of only during years 0-3 doesn’t help the fish’s chances of reaching age 8,”
In your example, we’ve shifted the size limit so the harvest is going to be something like 90% females and 10% males. We’ve also set our harvest target on 7 year old fish (0-6 being protected). Thus, the effort of the entire fishery is now directed toward the harvest of 7 year old females. This would not help them reach age 8.
Life is better outdoors.
The effort is not directed entirely at the 7 year olds. The effort is directed at all fish in the river, which will naturally become greater and greater proportion-wise 0-6 year old fish.
By your logic, nearly the entire effort of the fishery is on sexual mature females at this time. While not totally ideal (ideal would be no fishing at all, right?) why isn’t it much better to take some of the effort of the fishery off the sexually mature females ages 3-6?
What are your thoughts on a slot?
Would you have a problem with “shifting the entire effort of the fishery” onto only a few age classes of females (and almost no males)?
Your estimates are 47,000 fish and only 550 of them reproducing?
Doesn’t this support an argument for increased min. size limits so that more fish are allowed to reproduce before getting harvested?
“I suggested an upper slot at the meeting. There wasn’t much said in support of it or against it.”
Certainly this is one possible change to the regulations. I think the problem with this suggestion is that people tend to gaff big fish to get them into the boat. At that point, it’s too late to throw them back if they are over the slot. I think this presents a larger problem at the top end than at the bottom end, as smaller fish are easier to handle.
All of these are good suggestions and I don’t mean to exclude them as possibilities. I’m just trying to relate the various obstacles to each choice.
“I suggested an upper slot at the meeting. There wasn’t much said in support of it or against it.”
Certainly this is one possible change to the regulations. I think the problem with this suggestion is that people tend to gaff big fish to get them into the boat. At that point, it’s too late to throw them back if they are over the slot. I think this presents a larger problem at the top end than at the bottom end, as smaller fish are easier to handle.
All of these are good suggestions and I don’t mean to exclude them as possibilities. I’m just trying to relate the various obstacles to each choice.
Life is better outdoors.
You may not have been around in the earlier years of this forum when somebody posting a pic of a bull spot tail (over slot) being held up for a picture the wrong way would get them run out of here at the tips of pitch forks.
When a community knows there is a need for regulations for conservation purposes, and you have buy in from everyone that future generations will surely benefit from what is enacted, you’d be amazed at how the culture on the water and in the fishing community changes (for the better).