STAKEHOLDER COMMENT AFFECTS STRIPED BASS BOARD ACTIONS; THANKS ARE IN ORDER

 It has been a long time since I’ve been able to write an upbeat, optimistic blog on any fisheries issue, much less striped bass.  Today, I feel free to do so.

On March 5^th, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board took a series of actions that evidenced a clear intention to properly conserve, rebuild, and manage the overfished striped bass stock.  Management Board members made it clear that stakeholder comments, which overwhelmingly supported conservative striped bass management, helped make those actions happen.

Patrick Kelliher, the Maine saltwater fisheries manager who also serves as the current Chair of the ASMFC, set the tone of the meeting early on.  He noted that striped bass were the ASMFC’s “flagship species,” but that the Commission’s striped bass management program had only yielded “mixed results.” 

Recognizing the importance of striped bass to stakeholders who were growing increasingly unhappy with the way that the ASMFC has been managing the stock, he noted that there was

“a lot at stake not only for the striped bass but for the ASMFC as well…things are changing…the downward trend in the stock is evident in the assessment…Today, I ask this Board to consider what is best for the striped bass, but also for the future of the Commission.”

Such comment recognized the fact that many stakeholders, angered by a management system that allowed striped bass to become overfished once again, have started to question whether the ASMFC still served a useful purpose.  Those questions were reflected in the comments of one New York angler, who noted that

“People are wondering whether the ASMFC has run its course,”

due to its seeming inability, or perhaps its unwillingness, to maintain the striped bass stock at sustainable levels.

Now, the Management Board’s actions have given stakeholders some reason for hope.  It is clear that most—but, unfortunately, not all—of the commissioners not only heard the stakeholders’ comments, but actually listened to them. 

Dennis Abbott, the Legislative Proxy from New Hampshire, said that after listening to nearly all of the states’ webinar/hearings, and reading all 1,000+ pages of comments,

“I don’t think in all my years I have ever saw [sic] comments presented so thoroughly and so well thought out.”

Other members of the Management Board also cited the comments presented by stakeholders, which overwhelmingly favored striped bass conservation.  Still, there remained a handful who, probably realizing that the sentiment of the Board had turned against them, tried to cast aspersions on such comments and undermine their legitimacy.

Marty Gary, of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, claimed that “There are some unrepresented sectors” in the comments made, and “certainly folks that struggled” with the technology needed to access the webinar/hearings. 

Tom Fote, the Governor’s Appointee from New Jersey, attempted a similar gambit, arguing that because the hearing was not held in person, people with “other” feelings might not have been willing to speak.  He noted that most of the people who commented were from a “younger crowd”—a fact that might have been troubling to someone who seems to live in the past—and suggested that older, less technically savvy people might hold different opinions.

Yet while it’s possible that some people who wanted to comment were unable to join in the webinar/hearings, the ASMFC was also taking written comments submitted by old-fashioned snail-mail.  Hopefully, neither Gary nor Fote would try to argue that their constituents were so technically inept that pencils, paper, and postage stamps exceeded their expertise…

Maryland’s fishery manager, Michael Luisi, tried a somewhat different tack. 

The Public Information Document For Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass clearly stated that

“This is your opportunity to inform the Commission about changes observed in the fishery, actions you feel should or should not be taken in terms of management, regulation, enforcement, and research, and any other concerns you have about the resource or fishery, as well as the reasons for your concerns…

“…Following this initial phase of information gathering and public comment, the Board will select the range of issues to be addressed through this Amendment…”

So it was reasonable to expect that, at the May 5^th meeting, the Management Board would consider the public comment, and then make a decision on which issues should, and should not, be included in the draft Amendment 7.

Toni Kerns, Director of the ASMFC’s Interstate Fishery Management Program, even advised the Management Board to set priorities, only include the most important issues in the draft Amendment, and leave the others for later management actions.

It all made sense.  But Luisi argued against taking such action.  Instead, he said that before any issue was removed

“I would prefer at this time, based on the comment, that we talk more about the consequences to the commercial, recreational, and for-hire fisheries,”

likely in the hope that Board sentiment might shift in his favor as public comment faded into the past and threats of “consequences” to various interest groups caused some Board members to waiver.

Thus, the lines were drawn for the most important issues. 

Although some jurisdictions switched sides on specific votes, Management Board sentiment largely pitted the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and North Carolina, all of which generally adhered to the stakeholder comments, against New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, which generally discounted stakeholder sentiment while pursuing their own agendas.

The importance of the public comment became apparent as soon as G. Ritchie White, Governor’s Appointee from New Hampshire, after moving to remove consideration of different, or additional, management goals and objectives from Amendment 7, noted that his motion was based on stakeholder public input.

Once the Management Board voted to remove Issue 1, David Sikorski, the Legislative Proxy from Maryland, broke with Luisi, his state’s fishery manager, to move that Issue 2 be excised from the draft Amendment; the fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass reference points would remain unchanged.  This was arguably the single most important motion of the day, and in seconding it, Maine’s Megan Ware emphasized the public comments’ very clear direction on the issue, and observed that the public wants the ASMFC to “strengthen its commitment” to effective striped bass management. 

The debate was nuanced, as just about everyone recognized that the existing spawning stock biomass reference points were so-called “empirical” reference points that were selected through observation, and not calculated by a stock assessment model, and that the latter represented a better scientific approach.  However, lacking a model capable of producing such reference points, the lack of scientific support for any other reference points, and the level of public support for the status quo, this motion passed as well.

Gary, from the PRFC, then shifted Management Board focus to the recreational release mortality issue, calling for it to remain in the Amendment; his motion, which was seconded by New Jersey manager Joseph Cimino, was not controversial and received unanimous support.  Yet it generated controversy anyway, particularly when New Jersey’s Fote engaged in a brief diatribe against catch and release angling, saying that the resultant release mortality makes it more difficult for people to take bass home to eat.

At that point, Connecticut’s Dr. Justin Davis moved to remove rebuilding times from Amendment 7.  In doing so, he unintentionally set the stage for what was probably the most unexpected, and most heartening, event of the entire afternoon.  e noted that the public had provided “a clear signal” of support for the 10-year rebuilding period, that there was no support for a longer rebuilding period, but some support for rebuilding the stock sooner.  He said that he believed that 10 years were appropriate given the biology of the stock, and stated that the

“Public should rest assured that the Board is cognizant of the [10-year rebuilding timeline that went into effect when the stock was declared overfished].”

Dr. Davis’ motion was seconded by Capt. John McMurray, Legislative Proxy from New York, who stated that

“We made a promise to the public with [the 10-year rebuilding timeline in] Amendment 6 and I think we should keep it.”

Like Dr. Davis, he noted the strong public support for that timeline.

That’s when the remarkable moment occurred.  Ms. Ware moved to amend the motion, and include measures to protect the large 2015 year class in Amendment 7, even though the issue had not been included in the PID.  In doing so, she cited strong public concerns that the 2015s could be heavily fished as they entered the current slot size limit.  Recognizing the low recruitment that occurred in recent years, she talked about a “make or break” rebuilding effort, and how the presence of a big year class has historically led to a spike in striped bass landings.

Again, there was debate.  Fote found reason to oppose such protections.  Luisi complained that he couldn’t support year class-focused management, and expressed concerns that doing so could create inequities among the states, depending on where the year class is abundant (left unsaid was that Maryland typically takes a big toll of big year classes, before the immature fish have a chance to leave Chesapeake Bay).

But Michael Armstrong then said what needed to be said.  Along with a 2014 year class in the Hudson River that was “not bad,” the 2015s represent all the fish that managers have to work with, and

“We have to start doing Draconian things to get this stock rebuilt.”

And yes, the motion passed.

The last really contentious issue was conservation equivalency, which has often been used by states to game the management system and so escape their full share of the management burden.  New Hampshire’s Ritchie White went after it with a vengeance, moving to keep the topic in Amendment 7, and noting that the public is “extremely upset” by how conservation equivalency has been used.

Megan Ware, who seconded the motion, stated that the misuse of conservation equivalency is “lowering public confidence” in the Management Board and influencing the outcomes of management actions.

There was general agreement with those sentiments and with the public comment demanding that the use of conservation equivalency be modified to prevent abuse; the motion passed, with only New Jersey in opposition.  New Jersey’s opposition was hardly surprising, given how New Jersey has long used conservation equivalency to its own advantage.  Joseph Cimino, the state’s fisheries manager, even went so far as to complain about being “demonized” over such use, but when you intentionally don a pair of horns and start doing things that have an adverse effect on others, demonization probably comes with the territory.

It was very clear from commissioners’ comments on the above comments that stakeholder input played a major role in Management Board members’ decisions. 

That being the case, thanks are in order.

Thanks go out to the stakeholders, who took time out of their lives to gain an understanding of the issues, and convey their thoughts to the Management Board.

And they go out to those members of the Management Board—a clear majority—who took the time to listen, read, and embrace those comments, and who used them to formulate clear, conservation-oriented positions at the March 5^th meeting.

Finally, they to out to ASMFC staff, who provided the technical information, put it together in a way stakeholders could understand, ran the webinar/hearings, and put the comments together and presented them to the Management Board.

Had any of those people not done their jobs as diligently as they have, the results of the meeting could have been very different.