When the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Striped Bass Management Board meets next Tuesday, will it act responsibly, and
follow the guidance of the latest stock assessment? Or will it equivocate, propose half-measures and
fail to adopt the best available science?
If the Management Board does the right thing on Tuesday,
will it approve meaningful harvest reductions later this year? Or will it allow commissioners to delay and
eventually derail such reductions, and adopt measures that protect the fishing
industry instead of the fish?
This year’s striped bass debate will test ASMFC’s legitimacy. If ASMFC can rise to the occasion and adopt new,
science-based management measures that avoid overfishing and promptly rebuild
the striped bass stock, it will have passed the test.
But if ASMFC fails to do so, it will have demonstrated that it
is a fatally flawed management body that, as presently constituted, cannot be
trusted to conserve and rebuild coastal fish populations.
Right now, there is reason to be
optimistic. Last October, the Management
Board, in a 15 to 0 vote, instructed Commission staff to prepare a new draft
Addendum IV. On Tuesday, it will decide
whether to send out such draft (http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/Winter2014/AtlStripedBassBoard_Supplemental.pdf)
for public comment, amend it and then send it out, or not send it out at all.
The current draft addresses fishing
mortality reference points for both the coastal migratory stock and for the
Chesapeake producer area. The coastal
reference points are the ones that directly affect most of us, and the draft
presents only two options: maintaining
the current reference points of Fthreshold=0.41 and Ftarget=0.30
or adopting those recommended in the stock assessment, Fthreshold=0.219
and Ftarget=0.180.
The lower reference point would
cap annual harvest at about 16% of the stock, significantly lower than
the roughly 26% annual removal rate permitted by the current plan.
If striped bass were a federally
managed species, subject to the requirements of the Magnuson Act, the lower
fishing mortality reference points would have to be adopted, as they represent
the best available science. However,
ASMFC is not bound by Magnuson, so there is always a risk that some
commissioners will successfully attempt to add a third option that reduces
harvest a little, but not as much as the science demands.
If you read the minutes from last
October’s Management Board meeting (http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/Winter2014/AtlanticStripedBassManagementBoard.pdf),
you know that not all commissioners support harvest cuts. Thomas Fote, governor’s appointee from New
Jersey, raised a number of objections.
“…This is a real change in how we manage striped bass
recreationally along the whole coast. This
is not a minor change. It affects a lot
of people’s livelihoods; it affects a lot of people the way they do
business. It is going to have a huge
impact on the recreational fishing industry up and down the coast. I think this is too big to just do an
addendum.
“I think this is really an amendment process because
we have changed what we basically passed.
When we opened the fishery, it was two fish at 18 inches and two fish at
28 inches along the coast. That is a
major change that has been in place. You
know, major regulations have been in place for 20 years and we shouldn’t jump
to conclusions to change that regulation...”
Fote also made comments that
provide insight into how some commissioners view public comment, particularly
when they call for heightened conservation measures.
“In my
estimation, we’ve been here when the sky is falling and a whole bunch of people
are yammering…
“…People have been pushing for closing this or doing
something. The people who basically send
the e-mails are the people who want to do that.
The people that are out fishing a lot times, which is a majority of the
fishermen I go around and talk to, they’re not ready to jump through this type
of hoop. I really think we have some
real concerns here.”
Note that, in Fote's comments, people who care about
declining bass stocks apparently think “the sky is falling” and engage in “yammering.” They are the “people who basically send the
e-mails,” while “people that are out fishing a lot times,” which are “a
majority of the fishermen” that Fote knows, support the status quo.
Comments like that gets a little
scary, when you care about conservation.
But they're pretty common at ASMFC.
For Fote isn’t the only
commissioner who feels that way; he is merely one of the most outspoken. Once Amendment IV goes out to public comment,
and similar sentiments are echoed by members of the commercial fishing,
for-hire and fishing tackle industries, other commissioners opposed to harvest
reductions will almost certainly emerge to champion their cause.
Even so, the odds favor Addendum
IV being adopted at ASMFC’s May meeting, with the lowered coastal reference
points intact.
Unfortunately, getting that far is
only half of the battle.
To implement the new, lower
reference points, ASMFC will also have to adopt a second addendum. That one will spell out the restrictions
needed to reduce the kill.
Such addendum will prove to be the
real test of ASMFC’s worth.
For some commissioners will probably
try to delay harvest cuts with endless debate on the myriad possible options. They will want to discuss elimination of the
commercial fishery and examine recreational bag and size limits, including “slots”
(just going over the many possible slot limit options could consume endless
hours). They will argue over anglers on
party and charter boats being able to retain more or smaller fish than those
fishing from shore or from private vessels.
They might pore over commercial issues, such as limited entry,
bycatch-prone gear and differing state size limits with a fine-toothed comb,
dragging out each and every argument until it is too late to adopt new rules
for the 2015 season.
Or, nature might throw the
anti-conservation folks a bone.
This has been a cold and snowy
winter, and such winters often lead to very successful spawns in Chesapeake
Bay. If a strong 2014 year class is
confirmed before new management measures are adopted, some commissioners will
undoubtedly argue that the striped bass stock is fixing itself, and try to convince the
Management Board to defer any further action for a year or two, in order to
first see how the 2011 (and maybe 2014) year class impacts the population.
Such efforts couldn’t succeed if striped
bass management was governed by the Magnuson Act, which makes conservation and timely rebuilding a priority. Federal fisheries
managers, operating pursuant to Magnuson, have proved their legitimacy, ending
overfishing for many stocks and fully rebuilding many others within a
relatively short time.
But that’s not the case with
ASMFC. Two decades ago, it brought the
striped bass back from collapse to abundance, but since that time, it has seen a number of state-managed stocks go from abundance to, or past, the brink of
collapse. And these days, even the
striped bass isn’t faring too well.
ASMFC’s legitimacy as an effective
management agency is very much in question.
Will ASMFC pass the striped bass
test? I hope so.
For if it fails to follow the
dictates of science in the case of striped bass—the most-researched and most
important species that it manages—there is no reason to believe that it is
capable of managing anything else at all.
Well stated. I too have fought this battle for years and find it most frustrating. Anglers are difficult to rally.
ReplyDeleteI think New England anglers understand the problems better than most. They've lost most of the groundfishery, and can't afford to have their bass placed at risk. It's no accident that the impetus for restoring bass is coming from the northernmost states.
DeleteDoug--- as a fellow Angler/Guide I need to say thanks for all your hard work over the years!!!
ReplyDelete