[MakoMatt]

EC, in the past, you have made reference that certain species of fish, i.e., Sea Bass, are in more abundance in our inshore waters for longer periods of time, due to ocean warming. I was wondering if you could steer me in the direction where I might find some literature supporting this, or perhaps explain this in a little more detail. Without digging too deeply into this subject, information I have found suggests that ocean temperatures have risen approximately ½ degree F over the last 35-40 years. If this figure is correct, and I’m not sure that it is, I understand that it would be an average, and that certain geographic areas of the globe may experience a plus or minus of that. Since it is an average, I am also assuming that it takes in account water depth, also on a global scale.

For the purposes of my questions, I am assuming that the above figure of ½ a degree F is correct. This temperature rise hardly seems to me, to be enough to change the migratory habits of fish. In order to go along with what you say, I would have to assume that we are in an area where the temperature has risen more then ½ a degree. Question, I would think that the deeper the water, the more subtle the change, with the upper most layers of the ocean experiencing the most changes. Keeping that in mind, if correct, what have the changes in ocean temperature been in the depths where you would find Sea Bass? I understand they can be found in a broad spectrum of the depths, but is there an average you could say?

To my knowledge concerning what temperature of water a certain species can be found in, or tolerate, is that each species has a range, rather broad too, so I would have to assume that we have seen a BIG change in our water temperature in this area. I have not noticed this, and as an example, the Mako seems to appear in our waters just about the same time every year, and the surface water temperature at this same time appears to have remained a constant as well.

Here’s my own theory, I have nothing to support it other then my own twisted common sense, but is it possible given the delicate balance of nature, that the fisheries are changing more due to human impact on species depletion rather then temperature change? As one species is fished out, i.e., Cod, Whiting, the “void” is filled in by another?

Again, my knowledge on this subject is limited, it could fit into a thimble, but it just doesn’t seem like the water has warmed up any that you could notice.

Tight lines,
MakoMatt

 

[togmaster]

Trythis Matt

Try this link and look back some years
NOAA SETEMPS DATABASE

 

[619627]

MAKOMATT...this is one of things that many commercial fishermen are saying that is so obvious that you do not have to be a scientist to figure out. You do not remember maybe because you are not old enough, but years ago, i am going a little past my time when i started fishing, was that sea bass, were only seen in Montauk for a few months of the summer and that was it. Now we have seabass from May till January in our area! Even in the early ninties, are offshore seabass fishing here started in late August, with boats running out to spots in the Immaculata area. Now you can catch them on the beach till mid-late October. As i keep stating, the fall blackfish we see on the south reef off the Highlands, are the southern species of blackfish. They have a slightly different look, and their above average size has made the catching of a 13lb fish common. I have done the live blackfish trade for years, and can tell you, that we never really saw fish above 12lbs. One year i won the biggest blackfish in the Bay prize from Bernies Tackle, and my fish was about 13 1/2lbs. Now we have pinhookers catching fish upto 18 lbs on our local spots. Years ago the biggest blackfish brought into Sheepshead Bay was caught by a fellow named Cy who fished on the Pilot II. It was caught off of Long Branch during the mid sixties and held the record. It took till the late eighties and early 90s, when we saw our first 15lb fish caught by Louie Bonita, and that stood for awhile. Here we are with less blackfish suppossedly, yet the fish are getting bigger!

Another thing you mentioned is about fish filling a void. Yes i do agree with that because seabass are all over our traditional cod wrecks.

This is something to think about and i might elaborate more later.

EC NEWELL MAN*

 

[Scratcher]

MM: Its an interesting topic. I went to talk at Brookhaven National Laboratory last week on some of the effects of global warming. Most of the change right now is being seen in the arctic and antartic regions, but there is measurable change elsewhere too. Certainly the expansion of range of some species, and changes in habits, such as being in the northern parts of the range longer could be indicators. It is tricky to try and pull long-term trends in data out from the natural fluctuations that occur, but if you work on a large enough scale it can be done. In terms of one species replacing another because of human-caused factors - well a lot of people think that may have happened on the Georges Banks - dogfish replaced cod, and now the dogfish population is so high that it is making it difficult for the cod to rebuild even in the absence of fishing pressure. Thats just one example. Here is a little light reading for you on ocean warming trends. In terms of concluding that seabass are around longer because of sea temp rise -its a difficult question to answer because there are so many factors e.g. decline in predator species, increase in bait populations on offshore wrecks?, size/bag limits working, removal of competitors like groundfish etc etc.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx302.htm

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ClimateTrends.html

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/057.htm

 

[MakoMatt]

Tog, thanks for that site, but I am having a problem getting into their historical database, I think I am entering the LL information incorrectly. I’ll play around with it some more later, I would be interested in seeing what information NOAA has compiled over the years.

Scratcher, thanks for those websites, I was only able to get into the 1st. and 3rd. one. You think that 3rd. one is easy reading???? Yikes!!!!

EC, information I got off that 3rd. site Scratcher recommended, basically goes along with what I have read elsewhere, which is that we are experiencing global rising ocean temperatures, and have been for the last approximately 50 years. According to what I read there, it has temperatures rising about 0.1C per decade since 1950. It is interesting to note that early in the century we went through a warming trend as well, followed by a cold trend, and we now seem to be in the warming trend again. Most importantly here I think is the degree to which the oceans have warmed, or cooled as an average.

A degree in water temperature can have some effect on climate, and a few degrees can have a dramatic effect on climate worldwide. Can 1 degree F increase in water temperature have an effect on our fisheries like we have seen?? I don’t think so. I’m sure it has some effect, but I think there are other forces at work here which have been much more dramatic.

You had mentioned that the commercial fisherman have been telling us for some time about the warming of the waters. I think there are a lot of good answers you could get from them on many questions, fishing, boating, etc., but I don’t think rising ocean temperatures is their expertise. My guess is that like most of us, if we were asked about our winters, we would answer that they have been milder lately. Combine that with their unusual catches of Sea Bass and other species at times of the year when they never caught them before, and I can see it would be easy for someone to make that leap, “Oh, the oceans must be warming”. Yes, they are warming, but how much, enough to trigger what we have seen?

For whatever this is worth, I have been fishing offshore, shark, tuna, etc., since age 10, my 1st. trip was in 1964. Over those 38 years, I have learned that you can predict within a week, give or take one, when these fish will show up and leave our waters, all based on water temperature, I have seen no change, other then the lack of fish.

Question, if water temperatures have rose enough to allow the Sea Bass to proliferate the way they have, would it not then make sense that the Codfish would have pushed North to colder waters, or, would you agree that the demise of the Cod fishery in our area is the result of over fishing? Is the Sea Bass more sensitive to temperature change then the Cod? These questions are rhetorical and just food for thought. On a side note, a good friend of mine was Sea Bass fishing on a little known piece in the area of the 20 Fathom curve in early November and caught a 33-½ lb Codfish. Nice fish!!

Perhaps the “Southern Blackfish” is here because they have found new grazing areas that we created by becoming so efficient at fishing for Cod, Pollack, Whiting, etc. The oceans are very delicate ecosystems and for every action, there will be a reaction. All this is not meant to say you are wrong, I don’t know, I do know that the worldwide scientific community is not clear on this issue, and there are problems associated with believing a problem exists, when it fact in might not exist.

Tight lines,
MakoMatt

 

[Striper77]

Nature hates a vacuum ! One species moves out ( or is thinned out ) and another moves in to take the space and food. I would bet that any slight shift in the Gulf Stream is likely to have more effect on what fish are here and when than the overall change of just half a degree.

 

[613098]

Guys,
One thing to keep in mind is that the long-range climate fluctuates in natural cycles which have nothing to do with human activity. Theses cycles vary greatly in length. An example can be seen in the significantly warmer weather 1,000 - 1,200 years ago. During the Viking era, Greenland, as well as continental Europe, was a good deal warmer than it is today. This has been supported by various archeological evidence as well as written stories from that era. By the Middle Ages, Europe was gripped by a long-term cold period.
Certainly these changes took place before human activity had the ability to affect things. Right now, I think that most of those who cry and moan about "Global Warming" are motivated more by politics than science. I'm certainly no great expert, but my degree is in Environmental Science, and I've studied Meteorology and Oceanography. I know junk science when I see it. What does the future hold? We really don't know, and many theiries contradict each other. Just remember that during the first Earth Day, all the activists were warning of "Global Cooling" and a new Ice Age.
Denmark

 

[MakoMatt]

Denmark, there were 2 reasons I started this post, and you hit the nail on the head with one of them. The 2nd. reason is that by believing that changes in the fisheries are the result of rising ocean temperatures, you are effectively putting the blame for this on others, when in fact, we, "the fishing community" are really to blame.

MakoMatt

 

[Hunt n' Fish]

For whatever it is worth, I also believe that warmer temperatures are effecting the fish around here. I have no scientic data to back it up just observations. I can remember walking out on the frozen bays as kid, even ice fishing on Lake Ronkonkoma through nine inches of ice. A discussion was recently started on "Pack Ice in the Sound". It hasn't been cold enough to freeze the bay or Sound in a long time, let alone thick enought to walk on.

It seems that many more species besides seabass are being affected. Scientists at Stony Brook are looking into the warmer temperatures in the Sound as one of the causes of the recent lobster die-offs. Also, where are the cod? While there aren't many left due to overfishing, the remaining fish are mainily up North (But I am sure there are a few stubborn ones out there ). My father used to be able to catch cod in the surf here.

It could be one or any combination of factors.

 

[MakoMike]

EC,
I've been fishing Montauk since the 60s and with my own boat since the 80s. Sea bass used to regularly show up to the northeast, around the cape and Matha's in May and then work their way down to Montauk by Late June/July. Best time for fishing both sea bass and porgies has always been in October. In fact most of the local pinhookers wouldn't even target sea bass until october. So I don't think the season has gotten longer. As for the deepwater wrecks, who knows/ It wasn't until a few years ago the draggers fogured out that fluke winter out near the edge. Maybe its the same thing with sea bass, that they were always there but we just didn't know it?

 

[619627]

MakoMatt...i was fishing up in Woods Hole/Buzzards Bay area in the late seventies and fished through all the seasons. If i had to put my money on the best time of the year to catch a scup in that area, it would of course be when the big spawners came in during May and June off of Hyannis, before the fish setup in Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound. No hunting for bottom, just look for the fish readings! Yes we saw some seabass, but the best rod and reel seabassing was during late August/September in that area. Off of Montauk, the Block Island fishing in October was second to none with both scup and sea bass being red hot. Do you remember the Viking 'Oven Stuffer' trips in the fall? Well they were much better then the summer Nomans trips!

Getting back to the offshore wrecks in this area, all i can tell you, is that the 40 fathom and deeper wrecks were pollock havens with few sea bass, some cod and some hake. Now we go off to these spots, many of these same wrecks in water depths of upto 60 fathoms, and are loaded with seabass with a few pollock around. The only problem is that many of these spots are 'tidal', and have to be fished around slack periods, especially the ones around the Hudson Canyon area...they require spiderwire, and sinker weights of two lbs or more. And with spider wire and lightweight standup rods, you can go off and fish these areas comfortably, thus extending your season.

Years ago, when i fished with a number of commercial sea bass fishermen in Virginia, in the winter we would run off and fish the old 44 fathom wreck, aka the Washington, which was south of Norfork Canyon. This spot would give up 10-20 boxes of fish as you drifted parts of this sunken aircraft carrier. I believe the old world record seabass was caught off this wreck. One drop fishing for the day. Now their was a large wreck north of Norfork Canyon called the Ocean Venture. Big, and it read beautifully on the bottom machine. Yet you did not catch much off of it many times, and no one really bothered fishing it in the winter. It was basically ignored, a stinker in fact. Many of the commercial fishermen figured that the warm water that was brought up from down south, stopped at the southern edge of Norfolk canyon, and was the reason why the sea bass perfered wrecks south of this point. This was back in the late eighties, and we are talking about waters off Virginia. Now i hear fishermen going off to this spot and catching some fish on it. So what changed?

I do not have to be a scientist, or need to read bottom temp charts, to know that things have changed here. Just based on observations you can see, that we now have loads of seabass on our traditional cod wrecks. This sounds like a broken record, but what are we going to do? Things run in cycles, and now it is definitly a seabass cycle. Will we see some codfish in our area. Of course! But ontill those stocks rebound, and we return to cooler winters, what we are seeing now on the offshore wrecks, will continue.

Finally they have known about the fluke off our canyons for years. Since the late 70s, as the American commercial fleet started to build bigger draggers, they knew about fluke, sea bass and scup, living on the edges of our canyons. A famous dragger captain i knew, Tony Pinellas who owned the old eastern rigged ANTHONY ANN, which burnt years later, used to roller gear a area off the canyon edge off Virginia called the Promised land years ago, where he would load up with tons of seabass. To keep a continuous flow of certain species of fish to the market, dragger boats like the Anthony Ann had to go off into the deep. This is not unknown territory as you might think. If you want unknown territory, a good friend of mine was experimenting towing in waters as deep as 150 fathoms. You want to see some strange things come up, tow at this depth and you will see red colored sea robbins, red crabs and other strange looking fish.

EC NEWELL MAN*

 

[LkyLindy]

Trends

Unfortunately we individuals don't have enough life span to truly know what the warming situation is. Everything needs to be in an historical perspective.In recent years we have been seeing more of the El Nino~effect-Tropical fish off the east and west coasts-not unusual.A long or permanent trend?-Who knowsMany complicated factors go into predicting the state of individual species and the fishery as a whole

 

[togmaster]

Old Pictures

Some old time equipment

 

[togmaster]

old pics

The Anthony ANN

 

[togmaster]

World Record Capt.

Ec and Joe . Joe had the world record seabass for many years and has taken us out to fish many times. We have had tog up to 20.lbs with him and sea bass close to 9lbs.

 

[619627]

CODKILLER...take a look at that scanner. The finest ever made, a KRUPP-ATLAS. Imagine what wrecks you can find with that thing!

Bottom pic was me with Joe Mizelle in the winter. I wish i had pics of the Bandits (aka bandit reels) we have rigged with 10 hooks for seabass. And usually every hook had a nice big seabass on it.

EC NEWELL MAN*

 

[624424]

Warmer Oceans

MakoMatt,
Anyone that thinks a rise of 1 degree will alter the world is an environmental kook. These are the same people that say the polar ice is going to melt and flood us all out. How can this happen when the average temp. in the Artic is -40 degrees and rises all the way up to -39? Give me a break!

 

[paulh]

IMO - i don't think the temps have effected anything to a great extent. take each fish case by case.

striped bass, sea bass - long season, extended range due to great numbers of these fish available presently.

bluefish - highly cyclical, down in population, possibly due to the amount of bass present.

weaks - highly cyclical, doing somewhat better due to lack of bluefish, higher part of cycle.

blacks - doing well do to conservation, extended season due to large numbers of fish present. creation of reefs of LI / NJ seems to have had a very positive effect.

whiting / ling - overfished, smaller biomass staying further offshore ?

cod - overfished, LI was always the southern tip of there range. the fish simply have no reason to come down here right now. water temp ? maybe a little. herring, macks, squid have been abundant, there's plenty of bait. I agree the seabass may have some effect on the cod down here.

flounder - overfished

fluke - holding up OK despite the pressure, length has increased due to the number of fish available.

porgies - somewhat cyclical, doing well do to conservation, etc.

sharks/tuna - overfished, lets hope the small makos are a good sign for the future. where were the blue sharks, especially to the west.

mahi - this one is interesting. i don't remember so many of these fish of of LI years ago. water temp ? maybe, how about the lack of tuna, especially bonito, skippies, false albacore, school bluefin ??

I too am not sold on temps having an effect.

Also, someone explain this to me. It is a fact of physics that a container of water and ice will not change it's level when the ice melts. try it at home. how could global warming increase the level of the sea. the amount of water displaced by the ice is equal in weight to the ice itself. when the ice melts, its volume is equal to the amount of water displaced.

anyway, good topic

 

[MakoMatt]

paulh, the reason they say the sea level would rise, is because the ice they are talking about that would melt, is above sea level, it would add additional water to our oceans.

MakoMatt

 

[paulh]

matt, it doesn't work that way. when ice forms it expands. It's volume increases and its density decreases. the ratio of volume increase determines how "high" it now floats out of the water. the weight of the water displaced by a floating object is precisely equal to the weight of the floating object. when ice melts it contracts in volume, but its weight doesn't change. therefore it must contract back to the exact volume of water it displaced while floating.

i'm going to look into this further, these scientists can't be that dumb, perhaps there are other factors at work.








the level that things float at is determined by the amount of water displaced. the weight of the ice must equal the amount of water displaced. therefore when the ice melts, it precisely fills the displaced area in the water. it goes against intuition.

since this is a basic law of physics i'm sure it hasn't been overlooked by everyone by all the so called scientists. global warming may raise the water level but it shouldn't be because of melting ice caps, possibly the amount of water in the atmosphere vs in the oceans