STRIPED BASS: RHIODE iSLAND GETS IT

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting ended last February 4, the striped bass, and striped bass anglers, were facing a very mixed bag. 

The situation at the end of the meeting wasn’t as bad as it was at the start.  Although various states had presented forty-nine different conservation equivalency proposals for Management Board approval, in the end only a few states, including Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland, were walking out with permission to adopt regulations that would diverge substantially from those adopted by the Management Board (although a couple of other states, such as Delaware and Virginia, also had permission to adopt measures that were somewhat different from those that the Management Board adopted).

The Management Board had adopted a coastwide 28 to 35-inch slot limit; that measure was contrary to the expressed wishes of most striped bass anglers, who supported a 35-inch minimum size, but it was calculated to achieve the needed 18 percent reduction in fishing mortality, and had the advantage of protecting the largest and most important females in the spawning stock.

While many striped bass anglers were displeased with that outcome, once the decision was made, most seemed to get behind the idea of a single, 28 to 35-inch size limit that applied in every state between Maine and North Carolina, with the exception of Chesapeake Bay.  For if the purpose of a slot limit was to protect the small fish until they were old enough to spawn at least once, and to protect the largest, most prolific spawners, then such limit would be most effective if every state adopted the same rules, so that the large females wouldn’t be protected in one state, and then be vulnerable to harvest as soon as they swam into another state’s waters.

While that might have been what anglers wanted, by the end of the meeting, they knew that it wasn’t what they were going to get.  New Jersey had no more intention of conforming t the coastwide slot as it had of conforming to Management Board-preferred regulations in any other year.  When it was given the ability to craft its own regulations, which only had to reduce the state’s fishing mortality by at least 18 percent and would allow New Jersey anglers a bigger striped bass kill, everyone knew that it was going to do so, coastwide consistency be damned.

The same was true in Maryland, where fishery mangers made it clear that the proposed 1 fish bag and 18-inch minimum size in Chesapeake Bay was dead on arrival.  Maryland, which arguably hosts the single most important set of spawning rivers anywhere on the coast, was intent on letting its anglers kill some of the big, fecund females, off limits everywhere else, that will be needed to rebuild the currently overfished stock.  Maryland was also intent on letting its charter boat fleet kill two bass per person, even though every other Maryland angler would be limited to just one.

And that left Rhode Island.

The Management Board left the door open for Rhode Island to adopt a 32 to 40-inch bag limit, perhaps coupled with a 30 to 40-inch bag limit for its for-hire fleet.  On paper, those limits would achieve a 19 percent fishing mortality reduction for Rhode Island, as opposed to a 14 percent Rhode Island reduction for the Management Board’s preferred slot.  

However, when the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee reviewed and approved such measures, it only had to determine whether they would achieve an 18 percent reduction in Rhode Island’s waters.  They did not have to calculate the impact of killing 35 to 40-inch fish on coastwide fishing mortality, nor on the spawning stock itself.

A similar situation existed five years ago, after the Management Board adopted Addendum IV to Amendment 6 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, which adopted a 1-fish bag limit and a 28-inch minimum size in coastal fisheries.  

Back then, there was a strong push by the for-hire fleet, particularly in Rhode Island, to carve out special regulations that would favor anglers on for-hire vessels.  However, other northeastern states (including, I’m proud to say, my own state of New York) engaged in some very effective interstate diplomacy, which resulted in a single, consistent set of recreational striped bass regulations in every state between New York and Maine.

So this year, the question was whether history would repeat itself, and see Rhode Island make common cause with its neighboring states, or whether Rhode Island would strike out on its own and, perhaps, put the success of the new ASMFC action at risk.

I was reasonably optimistic.  Rhode Island had done the right thing before, despite significant pressure from some of the for-hires, and I fully expected it to do the right thing again.  There might be a few bumps along the way, but in the end, I expected Rhode Island managers to recognize the advantages of maintaining consistent regulations throughout the northeast, and do the right thing for the bass.

But then, on March 2, the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council met, and recommended that the state adopt the sector-specific slot options, which would allow Rhode Island anglers to target bass larger than those landed on most of the coast.  It looked as if we would not have regulatory consistency throughout the northeast this time around.

Yet people didn’t give up.  The Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association, which supported the Management Board’s preferred slot and has long opposed sector-specific regulations, remained in the fight, as did Rhode Island members of the American Saltwater Guides Association who, although they own and operate for-hire vessels themselves, don’t elevate their own interests above those of the bass.

Massachusetts publicly urged Rhode Island to adopt the same slot as the rest of the northeastern states, and it's a pretty good bet that fisheries in other northeastern states were doing something similar, if not in as public a way.

Another person who put the interests of the striped bass first was the only person who, in the end, really mattered:  Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Director Janet Coit.  In a memorandum that overrode the decision of the Marine Resources Council, she wrote

“The perspectives of stakeholders and advisors are given due consideration in the decision-making process.  Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the opinions of the RI recreational fishing community are split between the three management options offered at the hearing.  However, given that the striped bass stock is overfished and experiencing overfishing, the factor that emerges as the most important, and upon which my final decision rests, is risk to the resource.  Minimizing such risk is essential to maximizing the efficacy of our management response.  Of the three options, I find the coastwide measure to be the most risk-averse and best suited to quickly and effectively reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the striped bass stock.  Other key factors I considered in making my decision included resource conservation, compliance and enforcement, and equity.  [emphasis added]”

I’ve been involved with fisheries management issues in general, and striped bass management issues in particular, for a very long time.  I can date that involvement back more than 40 years, to the mid-1970s, when I first met Bob Pond and heard him warn of the coming collapse of the stock.  Yet in all of those years, there were very few times when I witnessed a state fisheries manager so clearly and accurately articulate the key issue:  “that the striped bass is overfished and experiencing overfishing, [and so] the factor that emerges as most important…is risk to the resource,” and then lend unambiguous support to a management measure because it is “the most risk-averse and best suited to quickly and effectively reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the striped bass stock.”

To say that those words provided a breath of fresh air was an understatement, particularly given some of the arguments being made in Rhode Island this year.  To provide some idea of what went on, writer Todd Corayer quoted some comments made at the Marine Fisheries Council meeting, described an exchange between a charter boat captain and a local surfcaster, and then observed

“The exchange confirmed that all were not there to support the fish.  Words like ‘us” were used, as opposed to a word like “those” [referring to fish caught by a different sector].  It seems rebuilding a fishery begins with separating amounts of fish for ‘us’ as opposed to ensuring ‘those’ fish are protected.  Some supported taking smaller fish while others were trying to rebuild before a collapse.  It was also disappointing to hear a well-known local captain support [sector-specific slots].”

But Director Coit managed to dig through all of the comments and controversy, and come up with the right answer, realizing that in the end, the most important thing isn’t taking care of a few people’s wants.  

When managing fisheries, managers’ primary concern is and should always be taking care of the needs of the fish, because without a healthy fish population, all of the stakeholders will, in the long term, be out of luck.

In singling Director Coit out for praise, I don’t want to suggest that fisheries managers in other states—those in all of New England, as well as those in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina and even the District of Columbia—weren’t doing their jobs.  All have played an important role in the effort to conserve striped bass.

But Director Coit’s language demonstrates, better than anything else released to the public so far, how fisheries decisions ought to be made, particularly when an overfished stock is involved:  First and foremost, you look to the health of the fish stock itself. 

For doing just, Director Coit deserves thanks.