tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post5595160326375451462..comments2024-03-15T08:52:03.058-04:00Comments on ONE ANGLER'S VOYAGE: A DANGEROUS TRENDCharles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-90687546468102784992014-12-22T19:28:49.593-05:002014-12-22T19:28:49.593-05:00I think that it's a terrible idea, for a coupl...I think that it's a terrible idea, for a couple of reasons.<br /><br />First, I don't believe that immature fish should be killed; it is sound practice to allow fish to spawn at least once before they're killed. Thus, regardless of platform, I don't believe that any striped bass should be killed when smaller than 28 inches, when at least half of the females are mature, and would prefer a larger minimum size--32 or even 34 inches--to increase the spawning stock biomass.<br /><br />Second, it is very difficult to get good data when you break harvest down not only into state, but into mode as well. For example, using 2013 figures, because it is the last full year that we have, the Percent Standard Error in harvest estimates for shore anglers in Connecticut is 58.1%, when anything over 50% is considered pretty much worthless. By comparison, if we look at the harvest estimates for all Connecticut anglers, we get a much smaller 17.3%, which is useful, and for the entire coast, 7.9%, which is very good.<br /><br />So yes, I think that the 16" minimum for shore anglers in Connecticut should never have been adopted.Charles Witekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-41481233673932374592014-12-21T20:40:37.976-05:002014-12-21T20:40:37.976-05:00So what is your stance on CT allowing 16" bas...So what is your stance on CT allowing 16" bass from shore????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com