Article by Capt. Mark Sampson
A few years ago I read a report claiming that bluefish were the East Coast’s number one saltwater game fish. Now I’m well aware that many fishermen have their own personal favorite fish and equally aware that there’s a lot of anglers who just flat-out don’t like bluefish. So before anyone gets all fired-up and takes exception to these fish being ranked higher than their own favorite flounder, tuna, billfish, redfish, sea bass or what-ever fish, let me point out that this finding was simply based upon the fact that, at that period of time, more bluefish were caught by recreational anglers than any other saltwater species.
That old report came to mind while I was doing a little bay fishing with a friend. Over a couple hours we managed to land a mixed bag of rockfish and bluefish, which prompted a discussion about the fighting, eating, and just plain “fun” qualities of the two species. Eventually we broadened our scope to include all saltwater fish and tried to decide - taking all the qualities recreational anglers deem important, what species should really be considered the number one East Coast game fish.
Rather than just using “numbers of fish taken” as the determining factor, we decided to use more than one variable that might sway an angler’s likes or dislikes toward a particular fish. Such qualities as availability to anglers, how well they fight, diversity of methods to catch them, edibility, ranges in size, how long in the season they are available to catch, and restrictive regulations were all used to weed through and sometimes eliminate potential fish from consideration.
Accessibility: Since not all fishermen have access to a boat, we figured that the top fish would have to be one that can be readily caught with or without the use of any kind of vessel. This, of course, eliminates most of the big game offshore species such as billfish, tuna, dolphin, wahoo and any other fish that doesn’t spend much of their time within casting distance of the coastline.
Fighting abilities: Some anglers are very content to catch fish that don’t put up too much of a tussle, but most of us appreciate the opportunity to go one-on-one with an adversary that’ll get a little ornery at times. Running and pulling drag is good, so is a little jumping action, quick changes in direction, head shaking and any other frantic behavior a fish can muster up is always a plus. This pretty much eliminates most small pan-size fish such as perch, sea bass, porgies, and while flounder are certainly very popular both to fish for and to eat, the fight of even a big doormat is rarely more than a series of headshakes backed up by a lot of dead-weight, so I’m afraid they don’t make the cut here either.
Diversity: From casting lures, to bottom fishing with bait, chumming, chunking, trolling, fly-fishing, surf-fishing, jigging, using light tackle or heavy tackle, there’s as many ways to catch fish as there are fish in the sea, and most anglers have strong preferences. So in order to be crowned “top game fish” I’d say a fish would have to be able to be caught using most if not all of the different techniques. This would likely knock out some species like tautog, sheepshead, or spadefish that don’t respond to certain techniques such as trolling, or surface casting.
Edibility: Sport fishermen just like to fish, so whether or not they can eat their catch, or must go strictly catch-and-release, doesn’t carry the same importance as it does with folks who are trying to feed themselves and their families. Even so, most recreational anglers will agree that it sure is nice to have the option of bringing home some fresh fish for dinner now and again. For this reason I think that edibility is somewhat important in what most would consider to be a top fish. False albacore, bonito, and many members of the jack family are examples of fish that are great fun to catch but have almost zero food value and, therefore, cannot make it to the top of the list.
Size: Catching little fish can be a lot of fun, but most anglers like to at least know that there’s always an outside chance of hooking a “whopper,” which doesn’t have to be a 15-foot shark or a 500-pound tuna, but at least something that’s a bit of a handful to hold for a photograph. In order to pass this test I’d say that a top fish should be able to be caught in small “kid-friendly” sizes of less than three pounds but must also have the potential of growing to 36-inches in length and over 10-pounds.
Long Season: If a particular fish is only available to catch for a week or two each season it can hardly be considered readily available to many fishermen. Whether it’s because the species pushes quickly through coastal regions once or twice a year on it’s annual migrations, or because fishery regulations only allow anglers to target them on a limited basis, fish that are very limited to anglers simply cannot make it to the top of the list.
Taking all these parameters into consideration, my friend and I concluded that during our little bay fishing adventure we had captured about the only two species (rockfish and bluefish) that could meet all of our criteria that would allow them to be crowned “number one” game fish. Of course, now we’re trying to decide which of the two should take the number one spot; bluefish fight better but stripers taste better, bluefish are more abundant but stripers get bigger, stripers are more regulated but given a chance a bluefish will bite your finger off. Too much to consider, too close to call. What’s the top fish? We narrowed it down to two - I guess you’ll have to decide for yourself! §
