July 03, 2022, 04:39:17 PM
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
 
 
 
Total time logged in: 0 minutes.
 
   Home   Help Login Register  

     
 

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Decreasing male-to-female blue crab ratio concerns scientists  (Read 21260 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mikie
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2358
Location: Kent Island, Md.




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2019, 08:47:17 AM »

Farms aren't the problem. There used to be WAY more farms then there are now and the Bay was fine.
Too many people is the problem. Close the borders and everybody go home and take a birth control pill!
Logged
Wallco99
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9251
Location: West Chester, PA





Ignore
« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2019, 09:15:37 AM »

Farms aren't the problem. There used to be WAY more farms then there are now and the Bay was fine.
Too many people is the problem. Close the borders and everybody go home and take a birth control pill!

Now we're talking!!!!
Logged
applestapler
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 28
Location: Hampton, Virginia





Ignore
« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2019, 01:03:03 PM »

Farms aren't the problem. There used to be WAY more farms then there are now and the Bay was fine.
There used to be way more Atlantic sturgeon than there are now. It took regulation to save them, and even now, you're going to die without having tasted one because watermen 100+ years ago weren't responsible enough to control the population themselves. Do you think anything has changed?
Logged
Mr. Ray III
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6102
Location: Elkton, MD





Ignore
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2019, 03:31:15 PM »

There used to be way more Atlantic sturgeon than there are now. It took regulation to save them, and even now, you're going to die without having tasted one because watermen 100+ years ago weren't responsible enough to control the population themselves. Do you think anything has changed?

What an idiotic statement.  Watermen 100 years ago should have studied the population and limited their catch?  Name one industry that has regulated themselves without having the government step in.  Hindsight is 20/20.  If you were a waterman 100 years ago, would you limit yourself on what you could catch and take a hit on your paycheck and hope everyone else did the same?  No, you wouldn't.  
Logged

Watermen and Seafood, Can't Have One Without The Other
evinrude 130
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3364
Location: pasadena, MD




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2019, 03:47:43 PM »

There used to be way more Atlantic sturgeon than there are now. It took regulation to save them, and even now, you're going to die without having tasted one because watermen 100+ years ago weren't responsible enough to control the population themselves. Do you think anything has changed?





 At first I thought you were off with the 100 years. But you were correct. On all points. The sturgeon took a beating .  Anything the Chesapeake Bay has that can be sold for a profit has taken a beating(Fact). Unfortunately only one group takes that responsibility for the sturgeon. Making a living during those times was precedent.  Only took till 1998 to impose a ban, LOL. 

So yea, since the peak years were in the 1890's, no one was concerned about the quantity of sturgeon left in the Chesapeake Bay . Took another 100 years before the ban.  Thankfully the AMFC made that move for the sturgeon on the East Coast.

 Hope that not what happen's with the bluecrabs.

"By the 1920s, the average annual harvest was reduced by more than 90 percent with total landings reported at only 22,000 pounds. In the Chesapeake Bay, sturgeon catch peaked in 1890s at a record level of more than 700,000 pounds. More recently in the Chesapeake Bay, sturgeon were being caught at levels probably less than 2,200 pounds"




Cause For Concern
Harvesting Atlantic sturgeon was an important industry from colonial times to the turn of the century. During the 17th century, sturgeon meat, eggs and oil were exported to Europe. The most valuable part of the fish was its eggs, or roe. Prepared as caviar, this delicacy was in high demand in Europe. The delicate meat, comparable to pork or swordfish, was smoked and eaten. Even sturgeon air bladders were valuable. They were used to make isinglass (a clear gelatin), jellies, clarifying agents for beverages, plasters, waterproofing agents, adhesives and lubricants. By 1850 sturgeon meat and roe became popular in this country as well. By the late 1800s, landings as high as 7 million pounds were reported for all the states, collectively.

Traditionally, Atlantic sturgeon fishermen worked the Hudson River in New York, the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, the Delaware River in Delaware, the Potomac and St. Mary’s rivers in Maryland, and the York and James rivers in Virginia. They used large drifting gill nets, some 1,500 feet long and 21 feet deep with a mesh of 13 inches.

By the 1920s, the average annual harvest was reduced by more than 90 percent with total landings reported at only 22,000 pounds. In the Chesapeake Bay, sturgeon catch peaked in 1890s at a record level of more than 700,000 pounds. More recently in the Chesapeake Bay, sturgeon were being caught at levels probably less than 2,200 pounds.

Then in June 1998, the Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission closed the entire coast to Atlantic sturgeon fishing for the next four decdes. Stock assessments indicated that only remnant populations of Atlantic sturgeon remain along much of the East Coast.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 04:00:26 PM by evinrude 130 » Logged

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

applestapler
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 28
Location: Hampton, Virginia





Ignore
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2019, 03:52:08 PM »

What an idiotic statement.  Watermen 100 years ago should have studied the population and limited their catch?  Name one industry that has regulated themselves without having the government step in.  Hindsight is 20/20.  If you were a waterman 100 years ago, would you limit yourself on what you could catch and take a hit on your paycheck and hope everyone else did the same?  No, you wouldn't.  
That's exactly my point. Absent of any regulation, everyone's always going to be looking out for #1 (themselves). Sure, government always doesn't get it right, but it's better than untethered overfishing destroying an industry. Or worse, a species.

At first I thought you were off with the 100 years. But you were correct. On all points. The sturgeon took a beating for their eggs.
Thanks. I was just using sturgeon as an example.
Logged
Mikie
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2358
Location: Kent Island, Md.




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2019, 05:28:17 PM »

There used to be way more Atlantic sturgeon than there are now. It took regulation to save them, and even now, you're going to die without having tasted one because watermen 100+ years ago weren't responsible enough to control the population themselves. Do you think anything has changed?
You're using my statement that farms aren't the problem with the crab situation to make a parallel with the overharvest of sturgeon 100 years ago? You do realize that farms had nothing to do with the drastic decrease in sturgeon, don't you? The sturgeon population was decimated because PEOPLE (the same people that I said were the problem) wanted caviar, which was harvested by cutting open the fish (and killing it) to remove the eggs. At the time no one realized the life cycle of the fish involved. One thing that HAS changed in 100 years, we now have the Internet, and websites like this one, which encourages every Tom, Dick and Harry to go catch every crab they can. If they can't figure out how or where to go, they beg for information and someone will be glad to tell them. There are 1,000's of people lurking on this website right now waiting for the first positive reports so they can jump in their cars and boats and head to that spot and catch those crabs! Don't worry, the Farms won't be there competing with you for a spot. Carry on with your blame game.
Logged
Wallco99
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9251
Location: West Chester, PA





Ignore
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2019, 06:18:56 PM »

What an idiotic statement.  Watermen 100 years ago should have studied the population and limited their catch?  Name one industry that has regulated themselves without having the government step in.  Hindsight is 20/20.  If you were a waterman 100 years ago, would you limit yourself on what you could catch and take a hit on your paycheck and hope everyone else did the same?  No, you wouldn't.  

I could not agree with you more. Especially the idiotic statement part.
Logged
Wallco99
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9251
Location: West Chester, PA





Ignore
« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2019, 06:21:06 PM »


 At first I thought you were off with the 100 years. But you were correct. On all points. The sturgeon took a beating .  Anything the Chesapeake Bay has that can be sold for a profit has taken a beating(Fact). Unfortunately only one group takes that responsibility for the sturgeon. Making a living during those times was precedent.  Only took till 1998 to impose a ban, LOL.  

So yea, since the peak years were in the 1890's, no one was concerned about the quantity of sturgeon left in the Chesapeake Bay . Took another 100 years before the ban.  Thankfully the AMFC made that move for the sturgeon on the East Coast.

 Hope that not what happen's with the bluecrabs.

Big surprise, you agree. Go figure.

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Logged
richie crabber
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 46
Location: Easton MD




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2019, 09:25:28 PM »

Agriculture runoff is major pollution for chesapeake bay just look at satellite image of bay every corner of chesapeake bay watershed is farmland and many sewage spill in bay makes dead zone in summer. It's too much sh*t coming  thru chesapeake bay and. It's too expensive to fix it. Chesapeake Bay is toilet for many states and its sad situation.
Logged

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

crabbymike17
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1265
Location: Maryland, Chesapeake Mid-bay


The Crab Reaper




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2019, 10:20:39 PM »

I agree with both Mr. Ray and richiecrabber.  Contaminants can kill entire species slowly or quickly, depends on the species crabbiness.  I personally experienced a significant decrease in crabs last year compared to others.  Although I'm I believer in data and statistics I don't take huge heed in the dredge report.  I mostly predict my year on rainfall and heat assuming the contaminents don't change much.  I can't control regulations or catch limits but I'm hopeful on a good harvest in 2019.  It's been fairly dry so far compared to last year. 
Logged
Crabbyd
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9490
Location: SoMD





Ignore
« Reply #71 on: April 17, 2019, 08:20:32 AM »

Yes, they were right.  LA, FL, SC, NC, and VA all have a 5'' minimum.  How come they don't have the same problem we have?

Want to know what the biggest difference is?  

Mikie has hit a big point right on the head.  Now a days, there is a boat in every driveway.  There is much more access to the bay and crabbing now a days and yes, the internet is helping to decimate the crabs.  How many times has someone posted on here that "we got so many crabs we shared them with all of our neighbors"? 

Each year the number of crabbers goes up. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 08:31:14 AM by Crabbyd » Logged

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, a crab in one hand, a beer in the other, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW--What a Ride!"
Crabbyd
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9490
Location: SoMD





Ignore
« Reply #72 on: April 17, 2019, 08:31:45 AM »

*

LOL

I answered it for you Wink
Logged

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, a crab in one hand, a beer in the other, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW--What a Ride!"
evinrude 130
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3364
Location: pasadena, MD




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: April 17, 2019, 09:21:25 AM »

That's exactly my point. Absent of any regulation, everyone's always going to be looking out for #1 (themselves). Sure, government always doesn't get it right, but it's better than untethered overfishing destroying an industry. Or worse, a species.
Thanks. I was just using sturgeon as an example.




 Like the oyster population, can't blame that on recs, LOL. Taking and taking, finally ORP came along.

 To always blame the lack of resources on water or weather is having tunnel vision. Without the DNR or other government involvement, The resources could have been depleted to much  lower levels, IMHO.  Some folks just can't help themselves. It was time to start taking care of the Chesapeake Bay and it's resources a long time  ago. I'm glad it's been happening these last several years.  Definitely a good sign that maybe we'll see improvement in the Bay resources.

www.bayjournal.com/article/md_oyster_population_down_by_half_since_1999_study_finds
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 09:34:23 AM by evinrude 130 » Logged
Crabbyd
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9490
Location: SoMD





Ignore
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2019, 12:13:36 PM »




 Like the oyster population, can't blame that on recs, LOL. Taking and taking, finally ORP came along.

To always blame the lack of resources on water or weather is having tunnel vision. Without the DNR or other government involvement, The resources could have been depleted to much  lower levels, IMHO.  Some folks just can't help themselves. It was time to start taking care of the Chesapeake Bay and it's resources a long time  ago. I'm glad it's been happening these last several years.  Definitely a good sign that maybe we'll see improvement in the Bay resources.

www.bayjournal.com/article/md_oyster_population_down_by_half_since_1999_study_finds

Ever hear of Dermo? 
Logged

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, a crab in one hand, a beer in the other, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW--What a Ride!"

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Mikie
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2358
Location: Kent Island, Md.




Ignore
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2019, 02:38:58 PM »

Ever hear of Dermo? 

I don't think the bay journal ever talks about anything that can't be attributed to something commercial, so they probably haven't heard of those problems.
Logged
evinrude 130
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3364
Location: pasadena, MD




Ignore
« Reply #76 on: April 17, 2019, 02:50:09 PM »

I don't think the bay journal ever talks about anything that can't be attributed to something commercial, so they probably haven't heard of those problems.


LMAO, wrong again. If you say it, it doesn't mean it's true. That's the problem with posters like you. Accept all the facts, comm tunnel vision is strong with you and the others.  Just once I would like to hear the comms acknowledge they were and are part of the problem with resources being at lower levels. Not all of the problem , but part of it.

 

 From the article

"The study estimated that Marylandís oyster population plummeted from about 600 million in 1999 to around 200 million by 2002, a period that saw the Bayís bivalves ravaged by an outbreak of the oyster diseases MSX and Dermo. The harvest hit an all-time low of 19,000 bushels in 2004."
Logged
Summertop
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1487


Now the search begins!!




Ignore
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2019, 02:50:23 PM »




 Like the oyster population, can't blame that on recs, LOL. Taking and taking, finally ORP came along.

 To always blame the lack of resources on water or weather is having tunnel vision. Without the DNR or other government involvement, The resources could have been depleted to much  lower levels, IMHO.  Some folks just can't help themselves. It was time to start taking care of the Chesapeake Bay and it's resources a long time  ago. I'm glad it's been happening these last several years.  Definitely a good sign that maybe we'll see improvement in the Bay resources.

www.bayjournal.com/article/md_oyster_population_down_by_half_since_1999_study_finds


The same DNR that introduced the blue catfish into the Bay ecosystem...  yeah they do wonders.  

On a side not before you go blowing more of Brenda's horn .. have a sit down with her.  I asked plenty of questions when they were taking latent licenses from people.  One of which was why do you winter dredge for the survey  in spots that are 10' deep in the dead of winter.  Do you really expect that they will hold crabs?  Uhh.. ..   I will look into that...   Second you can give me somewhat of a  number of recreational crabbing licenses sold, this can be skewed by boat licenses I know but how are you calculating a sector of the take that doesn't turn in catch?  Uhh...  I will look into that.  The same  Brenda Davis who said cutting females a decade ago would cure the population.. laugh  Yet we have magical surveys in the recent years that have shown a 40% increase in mature females and juveniles being down 20-25% for that year ( the watermen sure didn't keep them).  Is it the magic 8 ball dredge survey, or just plain stupidity...


I will reserve jumping on the RAH RAH MD DNR team, but you have at it.  Maybe instead of blowing the DNR, go out and kill some bluecats and save a piss load of crabs and help your buddies at the MD DNR out.
Logged

Now the search begins...
evinrude 130
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3364
Location: pasadena, MD




Ignore
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2019, 03:08:11 PM »


The same DNR that introduced the blue catfish into the Bay ecosystem...  yeah they do wonders.  

On a side not before you go blowing more of Brenda's horn .. have a sit down with her.  I asked plenty of questions when they were taking latent licenses from people.  One of which was why do you winter dredge for the survey  in spots that are 10' deep in the dead of winter.  Do you really expect that they will hold crabs?  Uhh.. ..   I will look into that...   Second you can give me somewhat of a  number of recreational crabbing licenses sold, this can be skewed by boat licenses I know but how are you calculating a sector of the take that doesn't turn in catch?  Uhh...  I will look into that.  The same  Brenda Davis who said cutting females a decade ago would cure the population.. laugh  Yet we have magical surveys in the recent years that have shown a 40% increase in mature females and juveniles being down 20-25% for that year ( the watermen sure didn't keep them).  Is it the magic 8 ball dredge survey, or just plain stupidity...


I will reserve jumping on the RAH RAH MD DNR team, but you have at it.  Maybe instead of blowing the DNR, go out and kill some bluecats and save a piss load of crabs and help your buddies at the MD DNR out.



 When you post [curd] like you just did, it's obvious that you have plenty of unproved reasons to place blame some where else. Getting personal is a sign of frustration on your part or immaturity.  Davis has been gone for a while, and wasn't replaced. Why that is, who knows.  The "old no recs stats" isn't something to worry about, it just a way of not accepting that the DNR stats that only show comm catches that are reported.  Again, catches that are reported.

 Boat licenses equate to crabbing or fishing, maybe. Do the boats automatically have to be folks who crab or fish all the time?  Or just once a week. Does it mean a bushel or max out on every trip?  Cause I had plenty of trips catching a dozen or two once a week. As for rockfishing, many go, get skunked, or only catch undersized fish. Perching has been my go to for the last several years. Catch 10-12 keeper  size is good enough for a meal or two.   

 Unfortunately the dredge report is a scientific way of reporting or we could just accept what the commercial leaders say, LOL.  Blue cats, just like snakeheads, who knew. With the rockfish availability decreasing, those 2 fish could be subjected to heavier fishing pressure then ever. Start selling them at the markets, a new target for the commercial industry.

 The DNR is all the citizens of MD have with regards to rules and regulations. Without them, chaos would surely rein on the Chesapeake Bay.  From your post , you seem to hate them, well, guess you'll continue to hate them until they are replaced by more influential people who only care about a certain group. It's been tried before .


 Just what I know and my opinion. No need for posters to get upset. It's a forum. Now I have some on ignore, they are not worth my time responding to for one reason or another, LOL.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 03:21:39 PM by evinrude 130 » Logged
Seaweed
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6239
Location: Maryland


Beware of the guy in orange




Ignore
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2019, 03:12:07 PM »



. Without the DNR or other government involvement, The resources could have been depleted to much  lower levels, IMHO.  

Are you crazy?  Everything the DNR has tried to "manage" has been driven to, or close to, extinction.  Not only do they do nothing to actually manage resources, they don't know their own rules, and on top of that, they have almost no resources to enforce the rules!
Logged

Git 'r dun!

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
 
Home
 
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder


Google visited last this page April 03, 2022, 09:46:40 AM
wordpress