NEXT STEPS FOR STRIPED BASS

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is preparing to put together a new benchmark stock assessment for striped bass.

That’s not unexpected, and it’s not a bad thing.  

Back in 2013, when the last benchmark stock assessment was completed, managers had already announced their intention to do a benchmark assessment of fishery at the end of the 2017 season.  Such regular assessments are the only way for fishery managers to learn whether the stock is doing well, or whether it’s having problems and management needs to change in order to put it back on the right track.

That’s what happened after the last assessment, which informed managers that they had to substantially lower the fishing mortality reference points—the target and the overfishing threshold—to keep the stock from becoming overfished and allow it to rebuild.

The reference points used to manage a fishery can be based on a number of factors.  Most often, they are based on the productivity of the stock. 

In federal fishery management plans, the fishing mortality threshold (F_threshold) is normally the upper limit of sustainable harvest; that is, the level of fishing mortality that produces maximum sustainable yield.  Fishing at any rate above F_threshold would be unsustainable, and would eventually cause abundance to decline; when fishing mortality exceeds F_threshold, overfishing is said to occur.  The fishing mortality target (F_target) is typically set below F_threshold; that can be done for many reasons, including to create a buffer that accounts for scientific and/or management uncertainty, to produce a greater abundance of fish and/or larger fish than would be available at F_threshold, to allow more older fish to remain in the spawning stock, etc.

The biomass target (B_target) generally represents the minimum number of fish needed to produce maximum sustainable yield; because it is a measure of productivity, and only mature fish can reproduce and perpetuate the stock, it is often expressed as a spawning stock biomass target (SSB_target).  Fish populations fluctuate naturally, and seldom remain at or very near B_target (or SSB_target) for long; they are usually somewhat above or below that mark.  However, there are times that, usually because of fishing activity, populations fall to unusually low levels, and are deemed to be “overfished.”  The level at which that occurs is the biomass or spawning stock biomass threshold (B_threshold or SSB_threshold, respectively).

In the case of striped bass, things work a little bit differently.  They are managed by the states through ASMFC, and not by federal fishery managers pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  Thus, there is no legal provision that protects the striped bass from overfishing—that is, a harvest level that exceeds maximum sustainable yield—or, should the stock again become overfished, requires that it be rebuilt.  That being the case, there is no requirement tying F_threshold or B_target to maximum sustainable yield, or B_threshold to an overfished stock.

Instead, the fishery managers at ASMFC have set SSB_threshold for striped bass at the level of the estimated SSB in 1995, when the once-collapsed stock was formally declared to be rebuilt; SSB_target was arbitrarily set at 125% of SSB_threshold.  F_target was the fishing mortality rate calculated to maintain SSB_target; F_threshold was the rate calculated to keep the population at or above SSB_threshold.

Such set of reference points was in accord with the goal of Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, which is

“To perpetuate, through cooperative interstate fishery management, migratory stocks of striped bass; to allow commercial and recreational fisheries consistent with the long-term maintenance of a broad age structure, a self-sustaining spawning stock; and also to provide for the restoration and maintenance of their essential habitat.”

Thus, it was a bit perplexing when, at the October 2017 meeting of ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board, Ms. Nicole Lengyei, while presenting the report of the Striped Bass Technical Committee, said

“…The current F target and threshold are those that will maintain the populations at the SSB target and threshold.

“Again, you can see…that F is well below both the target and threshold, as of the 2016 assessment.  There is a tradeoff between preserving spawning stock biomass and allowing fishing.  As we just heard, the Board has raised concern that the current biological reference points may be too conservative; for various biological, ecological, and socioeconomic reasons, and may be restricting fishing unnecessarily.  The current management objectives and acceptable risk levels were laid out in Amendment 6 to the striped bass FMP back in 2003.  The [Technical Committee] and [Stock Assessment Subcommittee] posed to the Board several questions.  Is the Board satisfied with the current management objectives, and acceptable risk levels, as laid out in Amendment 6?  Does the Board want to manage the stock to maximize yield, maximize catch rates, maximize the availability of trophy fish, and what is the acceptable level of risk when it comes to preventing stock collapse?”

Ms. Lengyei, speaking for the Technical Committee, suggested that the Management Board

“Develop and issue a survey for the Board to seek preferred direction for management, and preferred balance between spawning stock biomass and F…”

The results of such survey could then be used to provide guidance to those preparing the stock assessment, who might retain the current reference points, should that be the guidance, or instead develop less conservative reference points, should the guidance be to place greater emphasis on current harvest, and less on maintaining the long-term health of the stock.

There is no question that the Management Board has the power to change the goals and objectives of the striped bass management plan.  But one can easily question whether it is currently following the appropriate path to do so.

As noted by Capt. John McMurray, the legislative proxy from New York, in an objection raised at the meeting,

“…[I]f we do decide to revise the goals and objectives that were established in Amendment6, and put an emphasis on yield at the expense of opportunity, I’m pretty sure that needs to be at least an addendum, possibly an amendment…

“My concern here is that the public get a chance to weigh in on this; because I could tell you with some certainty that the New York recreational fishing public is not going to be okay with taking on more risk.  We really do need to consider the public when we do nd

However, McMurray’s concerns were given little consideration, they were essentially brushed off with the comment that

“The meetings will be open to the public, so as you go through this process they will have input through the process for that.”

But that’s not really true. 

There’s a big difference between traveling perhaps hundreds of miles to sit in the audience at a Management Board meeting (most are held in Alexandria, Virginia), where you will be given a very limited opportunity to provide any comment at all, and being given a full opportunity to provide written and oral comments at a site reasonably close to home, as would be the case if an addendum or amendment was proposed. 

If the Management Board is considering an action that may very well alter the core philosophy of the fishery management plan, and abandon management principles that have been in place—after long debate and deliberation—for fifteen years, the public should be allowed every possible opportunity to weigh in.

That’s particularly important now, because it seems that the Management Board itself doesn’t know what it wants to do.  The survey contemplated last October was in fact prepared and sent out but, as ASMFC reports,

“the survey was unable to identify an overwhelming majority regarding overall satisfaction with management of striped bass under Amendment 6 (including the management triggers), or with the current reference points.”

However,

“Across all respondents, ‘managing F to maintain an age structure that provides adequate spawning potential to sustain long term abundance of striped bass populations’ stood out as the most important management objective.  ‘Broad age structure with high abundance of larger, older fish’ and ‘high abundance of market size fish’ were among the top three factors of a quality and viable fishery across all respondents.”

Of those three preferred factors, only the last is arguably inconsistent with the current goal of Amendment 6 as well as the current reference points.  Even in the case of the third factor, “high abundance of market sized fish,” it could easily be argued that the current reference points are most likely to assure continued abundance of such “market sized fish,” even if those reference points would prevent the harvest of such fish from increasing substantially.

The lack of clear majority support for any management objective inconstant with the current goal and reference points, the general agreement on the need to maintain a resilient and well-stratified spawning stock and the Management Board’s clear moral, if not legal, obligation to allow full public participation in any decision to alter Amendment 6’s current goal, militates against any change in the current reference points absent a public mandate.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that ASMFC will agree.

Thus, anglers are well-advised to stay on top of the issue, and inform their ASMFC representatives of their preferences and concerns before the Management Board meets on May 1.