The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Striped
Bass Management Board met today, and to no one’s surprise, approved “conservation
equivalency” measures that are likely to frustrate the goals of the management plan
and assure that the stock becomes overfished at some time this year—if it isn’t
already.
Members of the Management Board recognized the flaws in
conservation equivalency throughout the discussion, but approved the measures anyway. That included smug representatives of the
State of New Jersey, a so-called “gamefish” state that outlawed its commercial
fishery but kept its commercial quota, and could
use it to increase the “commercial” portion of New Jersey’s striped bass harvest
by over 200,000 pounds this year—when we’re supposed to cut back.
To hear the “gamefish” advocates tell it, outlawing
commercial harvest and sale is a sound conservation measure, that would assure
the health of the resource well into the future.
But when commercial fishermen tell the same tale, they
condemn “gamefish” status as nothing more than a “fish grab,” a naked effort to
reallocate all of the striped bass resource to the recreational sector, garbed in a cloak of tattered virtue that anglers
call “conservation.”
So who is right?
As an angler, I’m inclined to favor the former argument, but
as someone who spends a lot of time working for effective fisheries
management—and who tries to tell the truth in these columns I write—I have to
admit that both sides go a little too far.
Start with just two basic truths.
ONE: The easiest way
to rebuild an overfished stock is to kill fewer fish.
TWO: A fish doesn’t
care who kills it; a striped bass (or anything else) is just as dead when
killed by an angler as it is when killed by a commercial fisherman.
So shutting down commercial fisheries could lead to fewer
fish being killed. So could shutting
down recreational fisheries—or letting both recreational and commercial fisheries
continue, while placing greater constraints on both of their harvests.
“Gamefish” has
proven effective offshore, by ending the commercial harvest of Atlantic-coast
sailfish and marlin, and it’s difficult to argue that it didn’t play a big role
in the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico’s red drum population.
On the other hand, when it comes to striped bass, “gamefish”
has a notably checkered record.
In some states, such as Maine and New Hampshire, it
works. When those states closed their
commercial striped bass fisheries, they didn’t reallocate their commercial
quota to anglers, but instead allowed the fish “saved” from harvest to remain a
part of the spawning stock biomass. That
truly promotes conservation.
On the other hand, in Connecticut and New Jersey, “gamefish”
doesn’t look like conservation at all.
New Jersey started the ball rolling many years ago when it
initiated it’s “bonus fish” program shortly after ending the state’s commercial
fishery. That program reallocated the
state’s commercial quota to the recreational sector, provided that anglers
participating in the program buy the requisite “bonus tag.”
The supposed logic behind the program was the sort of warped
thinking that you often hear coming out of the Garden State’s fisheries managers—they
had to create a mechanism that allowed local anglers to kill “New Jersey’s” striped bass—which represent the state’s commercial bass
quota—from being transferred to and killed by commercial fishermen in other
jurisdictions.
For those old enough to remember the Vietnam War, it was
akin to the argument that “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
And the Jersey boys will tell you that it’s good
conservation.
Of course, they won’t tell you that ASMFC’s striped bass
management plan assigns each state a commercial quota based on its historical
landings, and does not permit the transfer of quota between states. That would ruin the narrative, and anyway,
scare tactics work better...
If they stuck just to the facts, folks might believe that
the real motivation behind New Jersey’s “gamefish” law wasn’t conservation at
all, and that it was merely a ploy to let New Jersey anglers kill some more
stripers. And that wouldn’t look good in
the papers at all…
Connecticut, on the other hand, eased into its misuse of
“gamefish” far more slowly.
I think that it may have been the first “gamefish” state on
the coast, adopting the measure back in the ‘50s. I know that I grew up in that state, and
never recall at time when selling striped bass was legal.
Of course, that didn’t stop the “regulars” from selling
their fish. There was a big
seafood restaurant in the middle of Cos Cob where they showed up each morning,
lining up at the kitchen door to sell the night’s catch before heading off to
their day jobs; the place was notorious for buying poached fish, but in all of
the time that I lived there, the law never once came around.
And there were plenty of country clubs, markets and such
would gladly fence your illegal bass.
There was at least one marina in Stamford that, for a few dollars, would
actually ship your illegal bass to the Fulton Fish Market for you. Fulton was a “family” business back then,
that paid folks in cash and didn’t keep perfect records, which pleased everyone
at the time.
In those days, there was a 16-inch size limit and no bag limit
at all, so an awful lot of “gamefish” were sold. By comparison, Connecticut’s current rules,
which convert the state’s commercial quota into a
“voucher” program that let anglers keep a total of 3,018 bass, with a size
limit of just 22 inches, probably look pretty benign.
But at least in years past, the state tried to conserve a few
fish. Today, its regulations encourage
anglers to kill the entire commercial quota, making Connecticut’s “gamefish”
law a sham effort at conservation.
“Gamefish” for billfish works because regulations governing
anglers catch are actually far more restrictive today than they were when the
sale of Atlantic-coast sailfish and marlin was outlawed.
“Gamefish” for Gulf red drum is also effective, because no
one—including recreational fishermen—can kill the big spawners when they school
up in the EEZ, where they spend most of their time.
But when we talk about “gamefish” being the striped bass’
salvation, we must keep Connecticut and New Jersey in mind. There’s not much salvation to be found in
their waters…
Close to a decade ago, Pat Murray, then the Vice President
(and currently the President) of the Coastal Conservation Association summed it
all up in an elegant and eloquent little essay that he called “The
Last Fish,” where he wrote
“It has often been said that commercial fishermen want to
catch the last fish. But are we
recreational fishermen trying to stop them simply because we want to catch the
last fish?”
That really gets to the heart of the “gamefish” debate.
Ending the commercial harvest of striped bass would help the
stock, IF—and only IF—the fish saved from commercial
exploitation are “reinvested” into the stock, to reduce fishing mortality and
allow more older and larger—and more fecund—striped bass to remain a part of
the spawning stock biomass.
If we merely turn the bass “saved” from commercial harvest
into “trophy fish,” “bonus fish,” “voucher” fish or anything else that can be
legally killed, then “gamefish” status has no conservation value at all, and becomes just a con used to justify snatching
fish from the commercials and giving them to the anglers to kill.
So let’s try to be honest.
There might be economic and policy arguments that justify reallocating
the kill.
But if the kill’s only reallocated, and not materially reduced, it’s
not, in any way, conservation.
Good information, but I would like to have this paragraph as your opening and not very close to the end: "Ending the commercial harvest of striped bass would help the stock, IF—and only IF—the fish saved from commercial exploitation are “reinvested” into the stock, to reduce fishing mortality and allow more older and larger—and more fecund—striped bass to remain a part of the spawning stock biomass.". Maybe mor rec. folks would continue to read the entire post.
ReplyDelete