A NEW HIGH, AND A DEEP NEW LOW, IN THE STRIPED BASS DEBATE

This year’s debate over striped bass management is in the home stretch. 

Last May, the process was kicked off after a rigorously peer-reviewedbenchmark stock assessment found that the striped bass stock was bothoverfished and subject to overfishing.  

Now, Draft Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, which is intended to end overfishing and lower fishing mortality to sustainable levels, has been released for public comment.

The first public meeting on the draft addendum was held yesterday in Pennsylvania, and additional meetings will be held all along the striper coast, with the last one held in Massachusetts on October 3. 

Finally, sometime during the last week of October, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will make the ultimate decision on whether  overfishing will end.

Thus, the striped bass debate is reaching its crescendo.  The good news is that most striped bass fishermen seem to understand the problems that the species is facing, and want to see managers do the right thing.  When I was at the Management Board meeting held on August 8, more than one of the commissioners assembled at the table mentioned the large volume of mail that they received in favor of bass conservation.

Various states are recognizing the need for conservation, too.  Just this week, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted emergency regulations that placed meaningful new restrictions on striped bass harvest, replacing its former recreational bag limit of 2 fish (only one of which could be more than 28 inches long) and 20 inch minimum size with a one-fish bag and 36-inch maximum size.  The 20-inch minimum was retained.

On the commercial side, Virginia has, for the first time, imposed a maximum 9-inch mesh size for gill nets fished in the ocean, and maximum 7-inch mesh size for gill nets set in Chesapeake Bay.

All of Virginia’s actions were intended to preserve the large, more fecund female striped bass that remain in the spawning stock, fish that would otherwise be targeted by recreational, and sometimes by commercial, fishermen.

Virginia Marine Resources Commissioner Steven G. Bowman explained the need for such regulations, saying

“Virginia took the first action on striped bass in the spring [when it cancelled its spring “trophy” season] and today’s steps continue our commitment to restore this fishery to healthy levels.  The recent stock assessment shows that immediate action is needed to slow the decline and restore this fishery to healthy levels…Restoring this fishery to its full potential will require further actions for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the coming months.”

Virginia’s Secretary of Natural Resources, Matthew Strickler, enlarged on Mr. Bowman’s comments.  He recognized the connection between fish abundance and a healthy fishing industry, saying

“Poor management of striped bass over the past decade has caused significant economic harm to Virginians who depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods and has reduced opportunities for recreational anglers…We need other states to follow our example and help rebuild the striped bass population starting immediately.  Delay is unacceptable and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission must take decisive action that will ensure restoration of this fishery up and down the coast.”

Such action was a welcome demonstration of leadership in a fishery where states are all-too-often unwilling to take any measures that might disadvantage their residents compared to those of neighboring states.  However, as might be expected, not everyone was happy with Virginia’s actions.

Some charter boat captains and tournament operators were particularly upset.

The Virginian-Pilot reported that Mike Standing, who ran the Mid-Atlantic Rockfish Shootout, a striped bass tournament held in December out of Virginia Beach, lamented that

“It kills it.  It kills it all…

He suggested that if Virginia was going to take any action, it should have done

“Something at least so that it doesn’t kill the tournaments or hurt the captains and businesses that support the fishery.  Something so that it doesn’t hit people in the wallet.”

Neil Lessard, a charter boat captain based in Cape Charles, also lamented that

“Well, that pretty much shuts it down.  We knew it was a matter of time, we were killing so many.

“But my customers come here to trophy fish and they’re not going to drive all that way to catch one fish of that size.  [emphasis added]”

Another charter boat captain, Ken Neill, who is also Deputy Commissioner of the Marine Resources Commission, recognized reality, noting

“This is a bitter pill to swallow.  What would be worse for captains would be no rockfish.  [emphasis added]”

Although not happy with the new regulations, at least Capt. Lessard and Capt. Neill recognized, in their comments, that the bass are in trouble and that more restrictive measures are, in truth, needed (Mr. Standing had also noted that “we’ve been telling them for 10 years that there has been a problem with the population”).

So Virginia’s latest action, and the recognition of its necessity, should be viewed as a recent high point in the fight for striped bass conservation.

But there was a recent low, as well.  It should come as no surprise that it took the form of comments made in a release issued on August 28 by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, an organization that seems to view every fisheries conservation issue through their own paranoid lens, believing that

“Anti-fishing groups and radical environmentalists are pushing an agenda on marine fisheries issues affecting America’s saltwater anglers.  At the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), we’re pushing back to protect your right to fish!”

Since every management measure is apparently an infringement of that “right to fish,” and RFA reliably opposes most, if not all, proposed reductions in recreational landings, no matter how badly needed, it was probably predictable that the RFA would be the first, and so far the only, organization with national pretentions that has come out against striped bass conservation.

They start out by telling us not to worry, that there really isn’t a problem.  The heading of the original release, although not the linked article listed above, just called the current overfished state “a bump in the road” and called it a

“Management Problem versus Conservation Problem,”

as if management and conservation could properly be separated.  It goes on to try to reassure us that

“the current state of the striped bass stock is far from dire and it is helpful to understand the historic context of this fishery…the striped bass stock remains in far better condition than it was in the 1980’s when rebuilding was first initiated.”

And yes, that’s true, the stock hasn’t collapsed—yet—and the whole point of conservation measures is to keep that from happening, and more, to increase abundance so that, as the Virginia Commissioner put it so well, fishermen can enjoy the striped bass stock’s “full potential,” and don’t have to try to make do with the remaining scraps. 

But anyway, the RFA tells us, the problem isn’t fishing, because

“The decline in spawning stock biomass in the present is primarily the result of below average recruitment which can be seen in the period of 2005 through 2010…With striped bass, recruitment is largely driven by weather, environmental and water quality conditions and not fishing mortality.”

Again, not untrue, but also misleading.  It’s akin to saying, “The decline in my bank account isn’t due to me spending too much, but just to me losing my job and having no income,” and concluding “So I don’t need to cut back my spending, because I’ll be able to make more deposits if and when the economy gets better and I get hired again.”

Sometimes, that strategy might work, but many times it won’t.  And if it doesn't, the fish can't work out their problems in bankruptcy court.  Instead, if excessive fishing pressure removes most of the large females from the spawning stock at a time when few young females are recruiting in to replace them, by the time that “weather, environmental and water quality conditions” are again favorable, the spawning stock biomass may have declined too far to take full advantage of the newly favorable conditions. 

It was such a combination of poor recruitment and overfishing that set the stage for the collapse of the late 1970s.  Keeping fishing mortality at a low enough rate to preserve the older, larger females is the best way to keep history from repeating itself.

Which takes us to the RFA’s next attempt at misdirection, it’s statement that

“in the entire history of striped bass management, the stock size has never exceeded the spawning stock biomass target.”

Again, that’s true.

But again, it's misleading, because what the RFA doesn’t say is that, “in the entire history of striped bass management,” fishing mortality has never been reduced to the target level, and that so long as fishing mortality remains above target, biomass will never reach its full potential and increase to its target.  

On the other hand, Max Appelman, ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass, told the Management Board on August 8 that if fishing mortality is reduced to target, as Addendum VI proposes to do, female spawning stock biomass could be expected to rebuild to its target level in about 13 years.

But that doesn’t fit into the RFA’s agenda, because it is trying to convince everyone that

“While the current status of striped bass does warrant some management adjustments, drastic measures are not needed at this time nor is a formal rebuilding plan needed for this stock.  Modest adjustments to fishing mortality and efforts to minimize recreational discard mortality now may not result in sufficient improvements to spawning stock biomass in the near future if other management problems, primarily dead discards, are not addressed.  [emphasis added]”

Now there are a couple of interesting statements.  

“[D]rastic measures are not needed,” but “[m]odest adjustments to fishing mortality...may not result in sufficient improvements”?  

“[E]fforts to minimize recreational discard mortality now may not result in sufficient improvements…if other management problems, primarily dead discards, are not addressed”?

Did anyone tell these folks that the entire point of “efforts to minimize recreational discard mortality” is to address the dead discard issue?

But then, we are talking about the RFA…

And the RFA always has its own agenda.  Long ago, it declared that managing fish stocks for greater abundance, rather than for higher landings levels, constituted an

“Abundance of Crap.”

and made the spurious claim that

“’fish first’ conservationists are talking a good game and leading some folks to believe that oceans of abundance will punish greedy business owners while leaving more fish in the oceans to catch, but it’s really a ploy to build support for reduced fishing participation through shortened seasons and bag limits.”

And, of course, who did the RFA blame for encouraging anglers to seek abundant fish stocks?  Why, the

“well-heeled light tackle and fly guy,”

of course.

That was written in 2014, but for the RFA, it seems that time has stood still.

Thus, if you read a little more of the release, you’ll discover that, according to the RFA, the folks who are killing and keeping striped bass aren’t the problem.  The problems in the striped bass fishery are caused by conservation-minded anglers who release their fish.  In particular,

“States should consider advising anglers against using inappropriate-sized gear such as light-tackle outfits designed for smaller species of fish and fly tackle when targeting striped bass due to its increased mortality on released fish.”

 Instead of supporting conservationists, the RFA comes out strongly in favor of both the fill-the-cooler crowd and the for-hire industry, saying

“The issue of release mortality cannot be taken lightly and it is critical to understand where it comes from.  According to NOAA Fisheries, the total number of striped bass released alive by recreational fishermen amounted to 41,716,648 fish in 2017.  Broke [sic] down by mode, 67% of those fish are attributed to anglers fishing on private boats, 29% to anglers fishing from shore or piers, and just 2% attributed to party and charter boats…

“There has been a growing culture within the recreational striped bass fishery that catch and release demonstrates one’s commitment to this species [sic] long-term sustainability.  This culture also tends to cast shame on anglers that opt to land a legal sized fish to eat.  This is consistent with the trend to push the striped bass fishery more toward a sport fishery and away from a consumptive fishery.  As outlined above, catch and release does not come without consequences when discard mortality values are applied.”

Parts of that argument might seem superficially attractive, but they don't give enough consideration to the fact that while the over-all release rate on striped bass is 9%, that rate is not directly attributable to all catch-and-release fisheries.  Instead, catching a striped bass on bait in warm or low-salinity water may result in a much higher release mortality rate, while hooking a fish in the mouth with a single-hooked lure in cool ocean waters, as is typical of many fly and light tackle fisheries, would result in a lower rate.

In addition, the argument quickly skips over the fact that while the release mortality rate for striped bass is assumed to be 9%, meaning that out of every eleven fish caught and released, ten survive the experience, the mortality rate for striped bass that are caught and tossed in a cooler is believed to be quite a bit higher, almost certainly in the range of 100%, meaning that the two approaches to fishing aren’t directly comparable.  

Thus, to say that

“any management option that simply moves mortality from harvest to discard mortality is a waste of a natural resource and unnecessarily excludes traditional uses of the striped bass fishery”

misrepresents the choice facing both anglers and fishery managers.  Raising the minimum size will result in an increase in release mortality.  But it does so by preserving the life of ten out of every eleven fish released, which might otherwise be retained and killed. 

Thus, a higher minimum size doesn’t merely shift mortality from harvest to discard mortality, but potentially reduces the chance that a formerly legal-sized fish will experience any fishing mortality by approximately 91%.

Still, the question remains : Why does the RFA take such an out-of-the-mainstream approach to the conservation and catch-and-release of striped bass?  

After all, the fishery, contrary to some of the suggestions in the RFA’s release, has already moved “towards a sport fishery and away from a consumptive fishery.”  That movement began during the collapse years, and has only grown stronger since; by the RFA’s own admission,

“over 90% of all striped bass caught by recreational anglers are released.”

The days of striped bass as a primarily “consumptive fishery” ended long ago.

But there are still a few corners of the recreational fishing industry that still place their emphasis on dead fish, and the RFA seems to find much of its support in those places.

For although the RFA claims to be a membership organization supported by recreational anglers, facts don’t back up that assertion.  According to the IRS Form 990 that it filed for 2017 (the most recent such form available), the RFA’s membership revenues that year were just $61,130; divide that number by the basic membership fee of $35 per year, and you come out with around 1,750 members. 

That probably understates the RFA’s individual membership by a bit, because it leaves out life and a portion of the three-year memberships that won’t show up as annual renewals, but even so, it’s clear that the $61,000 in membership revenues don’t come anywhere close to covering the $722,684 in expenses that the RFA incurred in 2017.

So where does the other money come from?

Fishing tournaments are a major component of the organization’s revenues, accounting for $354,850, or nearly 46%, of the RFA’s $779,695 gross receipts in 2017.  

But tournaments generally depend on dead fish and, as evidenced by the comments of the Virginia tournament director, quoted at the beginning of this piece, conservation measures needed to rebuild the striped bass population probably will depress tournament entries.

So yes, we can understand why the RFA might possibly have a problem with that.

Most of the rest of the RFA’s 2017 revenues, $355,996, came in the form of “contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts” not otherwise classified on the IRS form.  It’s probably a safe bet that such contributions came from people sympathetic to the RFA’s anti-regulatory, “anglers’ rights” stand, which again makes the RFA’s opposition to needed striped bass conservation measures understandable.

Along the same lines, it makes it clear why the RFA singles out the light tackle and fly fishermen as particular problems.  Such anglers are not likely to support an anglers' rights agenda.  They tend to be among the most conservation-oriented anglers, a fact that is reflected in the fly fishing industry; in fact, the American Fly Fishing Trades Association came out today with a statement supporting Virginia’s new conservation measures.  That makes them, and their customers, an obvious target for the consumption-oriented RFA.

But the force of history seems pretty clear, and it’s clear that the striped bass are in trouble, even if the RFA still makes the claim, contrary to the best available science, that

“striped bass have been responding to warming shelf water by moving into deeper, more northern and eastern waters.  These are areas that may not have been traditionally sampled for striped bass.  Furthermore, there is no directed fishery for striped bass in federal waters and thereby our understanding of this distribution shift to cooler water is limited.  This lack of information also results in a presumed underestimation of older female striped bass in the assessment.  Surveys need to be adjusted to account for more fish being in the deeper, cooler waters of the [Exclusive Economic Zone]…”

Of course, the only ones presuming that older female striped bass are being underestimated because they’re out in the EEZ is the RFA and its fellow travelers, but I suppose they’re hoping that if they repeat it enough…

The rest of us, who fish for striped bass and, in some cases, have fished for them before and through the last—and hopefully final—collapse, understand that the fish are in trouble.  We can read the stock assessment, that reflects what we see when out on the water, and we want to see the spawning stock biomass restored.

Like the fly fishing folks, we see Virginia’s new action as another, solid step forward, and will work hard to convince regulators to stay the course and rebuild the stock, despite the smoke blown by a handful of people who cling desperately to the past, to old paradigms, and to a management status quo that can only hurt the future of the striped bass, and those who seek and respect them.