Empowered by the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act, which was largely responsible for
rebuilding the collapsed striped bass stock after it collapsed in the late 1970s,
the National Marine Fisheries Service adopted regulations prohibiting all
striped bass fishing in federal waters.
Since then, there have been sporadic efforts to reopen the
fishery in what is formally known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, or “EEZ”,
that lies between 3 and 200 miles off the East Coast.
The first try, in the late 1990s, was largely spurred by
fishermen in Massachusetts who wanted to fish productive rips off southern Cape
Cod, which lay in federal waters. It
never got real legs, and failed without reaching the rulemaking stage.
A more serious effort occurred around 2005, after the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Amendment
6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass suggested
that NMFS consider reopening the federal fishery. That proposal went to formal rulemaking, with
hearings held up and down the coast, before overwhelming opposition from
recreational fishermen convinced the agency to take no action.
More recently, there has been a steady effort, led by the
Montauk Boatmen’s and Captains’ Association, which represents the operators of
for-hire vessels, to obtain a legislative solution. Representatives from New York’s 1st
Congressional District have repeatedly proposed legislation that would permit
anglers to fish for striped bass in the federal waters that lie between Montauk
Point and Block Island, RI. The most
recent example of such legislation is H.R.
3070, a very poorly
drafted bill introduced by Rep. Lee Zeldin.
Traditional recreational opposition to opening the EEZ to
striped bass fishing often centered on the damage such legislation could do to
the so-called “gamefish” laws that prohibit commercial striped bass fishing in
a number of states. Should an EEZ
fishery be created, the argument goes, vessels legally harvesting striped bass
in the EEZ would be allowed to land such fish even in “gamefish” states,
creating an opportunity for poachers who fished illegally within state waters,
but claimed to have caught their striped bass in the EEZ.
That argument was pretty much put to bed in 2007, when
then-President George
H. W. Bush issued an executive order that prohibited commercial striped bass
fishing in federal waters, but left the door open, should NMFS agree,
to recreational harvest.
There has also been generalized recreational concern about
the higher overall landings that would result should the EEZ be opened. Much of that concern focused on the
recreational fishery off Virginia and North Carolina; opening the EEZ would
allow anglers to target the large, female striped bass that spend most of the
winter in federal waters off those two states before moving into Chesapeake Bay
to spawn.
But what anglers have largely been unable to articulate is
why it would do any more harm to catch such big fish in the EEZ off Virginia,
rather than, say, when they were sucking down bunker inside state waters as
they migrated along the coast.
The answer lies in how striped bass are managed.
Unlike federal
fisheries managers, who are required to establish an annual catch limit for all
managed species, ASMFC does not impose hard poundage quotas on the
recreational sector, but only on commercial fishermen. Instead, the recreational fishery is
constrained only on a “soft” cap, expressed as a fishing mortality rate. Such an approach makes it extremely difficult
to regulate landings and prevent overfishing.
Under the federal management system, biologists begin by
establishing an Overfishing Limit, generally based on maximum sustainable
yield, which sets an absolute poundage cap on landings. The Science and Statistics Committee of the
relevant regional fishery management council then revises the Overfishing Limit
downward, to allow for inevitable scientific uncertainty, to arrive at the
Acceptable Biological Catch.
The ABC then goes to the council itself, which often reduces
it a bit more—usually by 20 or 25 percent—to account for management uncertainty
(read the court
decision in Guindon v. Pritzger to learn what can happen when such a
reduction does not take place), to ultimately establish an Annual Catch Limit,
denoted in pounds.
At that point, regulations are crafted to constrain harvest
to the Annual Catch Limit; if landings exceed such Annual Catch Limit in any
year, regulations are revised to prevent such overfishing from occurring; if
the Overfishing Limit is breached, Accountability Measures will be imposed to
avoid further damage to the stock.
A new Annual Catch Limit is usually calculated each year to
respond to changes in the size of the fish population.
ASMFC works very differently. The target fishing mortality rate, and the
regulations calculated to achieve it, are hard-wired into Addendum
IV to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management
Plan.
Regulations don’t automatically change to keep pace with
changes in harvest levels or the size of the stock. They persist until the fishery management
plan itself is changed, a process that can take years.
For example, after a 2011
stock assessment update warned that striped bass stock might become
overfished in the not-too-distant future, ASMFC’s
Striped Bass Management Board decided wait until a new benchmark stock
assessment was completed before taking action. That benchmark
assessment ultimately revealed that the stock had been subject to
overfishing for six out of the previous ten years, and that harvest reductions
were needed. Even so, such reductions
weren’t adopted until late 2014, after a year of rancorous debate and fully
three years after the Management Board was aware of the stock’s decline.
Had the stock assessment not taken place, ASMFC may never
have reduced harvest at all.
That’s the biggest problem with “soft” harvest caps. They are difficult to monitor and easy to
ignore.
Part of the reason is that managers can’t really know what
the fishing mortality rate is, and thus whether the target was exceeded, unless
they perform a stock assessment of some sort, and that’s not done every year.
If the EEZ were opened to striped bass harvest, striped bass
would be targeted on their summer feeding grounds in federal waters off Massachusetts. Charter, party and private boats would catch
them in the EEZ off Montauk and Block Island.
And all throughout the winter, the big female bass that stage off
Virginia and North Carolina ahead of the spring spawning run would be hammered
by anglers.
Landings could only increase substantially.
Around February 15, managers receive an estimate of
recreational landings for the previous year but, unless ASMFC chose to update
its stock assessment, it would be impossible for mangers to use that
information to figure out whether the fishing mortality cap had been exceeded.
ASMFC only conducts benchmark striped bass assessments every
five years, although a couple of updates are normally performed in between. And unlike harvest estimates, which are
available less than two months after the close of the year, assessment updates
take far longer to compile, and are normally not available until October or
November. Full benchmark assessments
take even longer.
Opening the EEZ to striped bass harvest would probably
subject the stock to at least three years of overfishing (if the fish were
overfished in Year 1, the assessment update wouldn’t be completed until the end
of Year 2, and it would take the Management Board until the end of Year 3 to
finalize any change to the regulations).
Of course, that assumes that ASMFC performed an assessment
update in the year after the EEZ was opened.
If no such update occurred, the overfishing could drag out for a couple
more years.
Thus, the biggest obstacle to opening the EEZ to striped
bass harvest is ASMFC’s unwieldy and unresponsive management system, which is
slow to detect overfishing and even slower to end it—which, in fact, isn’t
legally bound to do at all.
So long as that system is in place, it would be extremely
foolish to allow striped bass fishing in federal waters, for doing so would
open a Pandora’s Box full of problems that ASMFC might not choose to resolve.
That would be a bad thing, because as Pandora herself would explain,
opening a box is easy.
But keeping the various evils contained is a hard thing to
do.
Not to mention excluding current Ct. commercial fisherman from a Federal Area they currently fish. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteDo you need a Loan?
ReplyDeleteAre you looking for Finance?
Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
I think you have come to the right place.
We offer Loans atlow interest rate.
Interested people should please contact us on
For immediate response to your application, Kindly
reply to this emails below only:Email
osmanloanserves@gmail.com
Please, do provide us with the Following information if interested.
LOAN APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
First name:
Middle name:
Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd):
Gender:
Marital status:
Total Amount Needed:
Time Duration:
Address:
City:
State/province:
Zip/postal code:
Country:
Phone:
Mobile/cellular:
Monthly Income:
Occupation:
Which sites did you know about us…..
osmanloanserves@gmail.com
Hello Everybody,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS
1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
10.age/sex…………………
11.Monthly Income…………..
12.Email……………..
Regards.
Managements
Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteI've been reluctant in purchasing this blank ATM card i heard about online because everything seems too good to be true, but i was convinced & shocked when my friend at my place of work got the card from guarantee atm blank card & we both confirmed it really works, without delay i gave it a go. Ever since then I've been withdrawing $5000 daily from the card & the money has been in my own account. So glad i gave it a try at last & this card has really changed my life financially without getting caught, its real & truly works though its illegal but made me rich!! If you need this card from guarantee atm blank card then here is their EMAIL : blankatm156@gmail.com