Last Tuesday, Rhode Island announced that it would permit
its salt water anglers to retain one striped bass, at least 28 inches long,
each day, regardless of whether such anglers were fishing from shore, from a
private boat or from a for-hire vessel.
There was quite a bit of doubt that Rhode Island would come
to that decision; the state’s for-hire fleet pushed very hard to convince
regulators to make their customers exceptions to the general rule, and allow
them to retain two bass per day, each at least 32 inches long.
In rejecting the for-hires’ demands, and adopting the
single-fish bag, Rhode Island assured that throughout the northeast, from New
York to Maine, the same bag limit will prevail.
Those states may share the same size limit, too, although Maine could
instead adopt a very narrow, 24 to 26-inch slot, and require its anglers to
release any striped bass above or below that size.
Over all, it was a remarkable showing of unity, made even
more impressive by the fact that to our south, anglers fishing the coastal
waters of Virginia and North Carolina will also be allowed to retain just one
bass no less than 28 inches long.
Maryland has made no official announcement, but is expected to go the
same way.
Pennsylvania will also adopt 1 @ 28” in the Delaware River
and, for most of the season, in its small section of Delaware Bay, although
during the summer months a special season intended to target resident males
will replace 1 @ 28” with a 2-fish bag and a 21 to 25-inch slot.
Of all the major striped bass states, only perpetually
recalcitrant and hungry New Jersey will allow its anglers to kill more than one
bass, including one fish between 28 and <42 inches long, and the other 43 inches or larger—and
that’s before the state’s “bonus fish” program ever comes into play. Delaware, which harvests relatively few
stripers, also seems intent on letting its anglers kill a couple of bass each day, although the size limits have not yet been established.
Still, with the exception of a couple of unfortunate outliers,
it’s pretty clear that fisheries managers in most of the states have rallied
around a one-fish bag and 28-inch minimum size.
In doing so, member states of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission have come nearly full circle, and acknowledged that regulations
work best when they’re adopted by all.
It was that concept that gave ASMFC its original legitimacy as
a true fisheries management body, rather than merely a research and debating
society. For back when the striped bass
stock crashed forty or so years ago, there was no unity between the states at
all. ASMFC had adopted its first striped
bass management plan, and had some ideas about what to do next, but the states
competed and bickered among themselves, and not too much got done.
That didn’t change until 1984, when Congress intervened by
passing the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act. That
law gave ASMFC the ability to enforce the terms of its striped bass management
plan; any state that ASMFC determined was out of compliance with the plan's provisions could be referred to the United States Commerce Department.
Commerce, in turn, was authorized to confirm
ASMFC’s finding of non-compliance and, as a result, shut down the entire
striped bass fishery in the waters of the offending state until such state brought its own
regulations in line with the plan.
That ability to shut down a state’s entire fishery was the
hammer that ASMFC needed to keep state regulators in line, and prevent them
from taking any actions that would hurt other states and the striped bass’
recovery. The approach proved so
successful that, in 1993, Congress passed the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, which extended ASMFC’s
ability to close state fisheries to all of the species that it managed.
But then, a funny thing happened.
ASMFC began to abandon the very mechanism that made its striped
bass recovery efforts effective. Instead, it relied more and more on the concept
of “conservation equivalency,” which allowed states to deviate from the provisions
of a management plan, so long as the regulations adopted by such state were
deemed to yield the same conservation benefit as did the Commission’s plan.
The most extreme example of such approach occurred in the summer flounder fishery, where each state was assigned its own share of the harvest
and required to adopt regulations that governed only that state’s fishery. Regulations varied widely between neighboring
states, with boats fishing a few hundred feet apart, but on different sides of
an interstate boundary, governed by wildly different rules.
Anglers grew discontent, fisheries managers
grew frustrated and, given how often states overfished their allocations, the
effort probably didn’t do the summer flounder an awful lot of good, either.
The situation staggered along for more than a decade.
However, in other fisheries, managers were beginning to see
the advantages of a unified management plan.
Scup were the vehicle for the first breakthrough.
Although scup are caught along much of the southern New
England and mid-Atlantic coast, in most years well over 90 percent of the
recreational harvest is landed by just four states—New York, Connecticut, Rhode
Island and Massachusetts. The percentage
of the catch landed by those states as a group remaine pretty constant from year to year, although each
state’s contribution to the overall landings can change quite a bit.
As a result, under the “conservation equivalency” approach,
states were constantly changing their regulations in response to the previous
year’s landings; however, because they were constantly looking backwards, at
what the previous years landings were, and not into the future, at what
landings were likely to be, the effort wasn’t very successful.
A little over ten years
ago, the issue came to a head.
Estimates of angling harvest said that Connecticut had
grossly overfished its allocation; at the same time, New
York had significantly underfished its share of scup. Under the conservation equivalency approach,
Connecticut faced severe harvest restrictions, while New York would be able to
significantly liberalize its rules. The
only problem was that when the next season came, it was as likely as not that
the situation would reverse, and New York would be under the gun to reduce its
scup landings.
Such constant changes caused equally constant aggravation
for anyone involved in the fishery.
So instead of going forward in the usual way, the states broke out of the
mold, with New York offering to share its fish with Connecticut. That way, no one needed to make any changes in its rules,
and some stability could be restored to the fishery. That effort evolved a bit more, and
eventually the four major scup states agreed to manage their fish as a unit,
with the same size limits, bag limits and season length.
It worked out very well. The wild annual swings in each
state’s regulations disappeared as overages in one state were nullified by
underages in another. Bag limits grew
and size limits shrunk for everyone as years of good management rebuilt the
stock to some of the highest levels of abundance that anyone can recall.
In 2014, after years of disjointed conservation equivalency
efforts, some level of rationality returned to summer flounder management as
well, as ASMFC organized the states into “regions.” Each state in a region was required to have
the same size limit, bag limit and season length as all of the others. Here in New York, the effort was wonderfully
successful.
New York was grouped in a region with Connecticut and New
Jersey, which allowed New York to reduce its size limit and increase its bag,
at the expense of a somewhat shortened season.
New Jersey anglers didn’t like the idea, as they had to endure greater
restrictions. Ironicallly, the arrangement ended up helping New Jersey most, after that state—even with its more restrictive regulations—ended up exceeding what
would have been its single-state allocation, while New York with its less
restrictive rules underfished by a substantial amount (as did Connecticut).
In the end, as with scup, overages and underages cancelled
themselves out, and we’re all going to have the same summer flounder
regulations for two years in a row, a modest sign of stability that we last
experienced over a decade ago.
Hanging together really does work.
Thus, it’s slightly amusing to see states in other regions,
which are considering adopting a state-driven, ASMFC-like model for the first
time, ignoring ASMFC’s well-publicized mistakes and setting out to make the very same mistakes for themselves.
The best example of that recently surfaced In the Gulf of
Mexico, where the states are hoping to band together in something that’s being
called the “Gulf
States Red Snapper Management Authority,” which would take over
responsibility for red snapper management from the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
The folks proposing such an “Authority” are bright enough to
realize that the states won’t always get along, and that one state may well
take action that will be detrimental to the interests of the other states’
anglers. Thus, they tried to create a federal backstop that could intercede in
interstate problems, providing that
“The [Authority] could request additional accountability
actions through the Secretary of Commerce if a Gulf state or a group of Gulf
states adopted management measures that or regulations significantly
inconsistent from the red snapper management framework identified in the Plan
when such inconsistent measures could negatively impact the interests of other
Gulf states with regard to red snapper management
“The procedures established as part of the Striped Bass Act
[sic] Section 5153—Monitoring of Implementation and Enforcement by Coastal
States would serve as a model for developing procedures for action through the
Secretary of Commerce specific to the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of
Mexico…”
The only problem was that the same folks decided that
"Federal action to provide accountability and ensure
consistency would be limited to the federal waters adjacent to the state(s}
that adopted inconsistent management measures or actions. Under no circumstances would federal
authority or action supersede that of an individual state within state waters.”
And thus they prove that they missed the whole point.
The only reason that ASMFC’s striped bass recovery efforts
worked was because ASMFC could shut down a non-compliant state’s entire fishery by invoking federal sanctions. If states had been allowed to manage striped
bass as they chose within state waters, the entire process would have failed.
Granted, striped bass are inshore gamefish, and a much
larger proportion of red snapper landings are harvested offshore. Yet even in that fishery, landings from state
waters are creating a significant problem and leading to much of the current
disruption of the management process.
Allowing the states to do as they please in their own waters, immune
from the federal hammer, is purest folly.
Without a federal backstop to enforce compliance with a
management plan, do we really believe that Texas will give up its 365-day
season, 4-fish bag and 15-inch minimum size, if fisheries managers in Florida,
Alabama and Mississippi think that they should in order to help out the stock?
Up here in the north, we know how it works in the real
world. We have to deal with New Jersey…
So yes, striped bass anglers throughout the northeast, and
along the rest of the striper coast, should be pleased that most
of our fisheries managers have decided that unity does, in fact, produce
strength.
And we can hopefully rest
assured that if New Jersey’s excesses don’t achieve the desired reduction, the
rest of ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board can require that state to do
better, and then seek federal intervention in every New Jersey creek, bay and
river if they refuse.
A long time ago, Benjamin Franklin reputedly said
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we
shall all hang separately.”
But in the arena of fisheries management, that’s not really
true.
Sometimes, as in the case of New York’s winter flounder,
there’s a compelling biological reason to go it alone. But that’s an exceptional situation. Almost all of the time, the states have a
very clear choice.
They can hang together, and provide better fishing for all.
Or they can each try to maneuver to best suit themselves, in
which case some will surely hang separately, while others gleefully pull on the other
end of the rope.
It’s a lesson that Atlantic coast anglers learned through
experience, and that’s one experience that anglers elsewhere should not try to
repeat.
No comments:
Post a Comment