NO EXCEPTIONS: STRIPED BASS REBUILDING IS EVERYONE'S JOB

 

According to the most recent information, the striped bass stock remains overfished.  The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s striped bass management plan requires that it be fully rebuilt by 2029, but given the current trajectory of the stock, such rebuilding remains unlikely.  Thus, at its May meeting, the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board adopted emergency management measures intended to combat a recent increase in recreational landings, which nearly doubled (when measured in numbers of fish, and more than doubled when measured in pounds) between 2021 and 2022.

The emergency measures were intended to be just a stopgap, and are nowhere near enough to put rebuilding back on track.  On August 1, the Management Board will consider a new draft Addendum II to its management plan, and even that will probably need to be enhanced by more restrictive regulations once a new update to the stock assessment is released in the fall of 2024.

Even such relatively modest stopgap measures, because they were adopted without prior public comment, had to be addressed in a series of four public hearings that were held later in May; what was said at those hearings probably foretells the shape of the debate over Addendum II.

A memo written by Emilie Franke, the ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass, reveals that 224 stakeholders attended the hearings, and that 94 provided oral comments.  Of those comments, 62 supported the emergency management measures, while 24 opposed them (the other comments did not directly address the emergency measures).  While those numbers demonstrate a healthy, if not overwhelming, 72% level of support for the emergency measures, they also overstate public opposition to the emergency measures.

Ms. Franke’s memo notes that

“62 people, including representatives from 11 organizations, commented in support of the emergency action.  Comments noted support for taking proactive, swift action to protect the strong 2015 year class so those fish can contribute to the spawning stock biomass and rebuild the stock.  Comments noted the importance of the 2015 year class and the need to get those fish out of the slot limit, especially considering recent low recruitment and the lack of strong younger year classes.  Some comments noted the importance of all sectors contributing equally to stock rebuilding…”

In other words, those supporting the emergency management measures were concerned with the long-term well being of the striped bass, and were willing to make the sacrifices needed to rebuild the stock.

Ms. Franke’s memo also noted that

“24 people, primarily charter captains, and including representatives of 3 organizations, commented in opposition to the emergency action.  Comments noted the narrow slot limit will increase recreational releases and mortality due to fishing longer to find a fish within the slot.  Comments noted this action only targets those who harvest striped bass, and that there should be measures to address the catch-and-release fishery.  Comments noted the negative economic impacts of the narrow slot limit on for-hire businesses, and expressed support for managing the for-hire sector separate from private recreational anglers.  Some noted concern about the accuracy and use of MRIP data.”

Thus, unlike the general public, those opposing the emergency measures were concerned with the short-term impacts of such measures on themselves, not the resource, the public and the bass be damned.

But that’s OK; self-interest is always a potent motivator; the for-hires’ opposition was completely predictable from the moment that the emergency action was passed.

But what many people, and very possibly even many members of the Management Board, probably don’t realize is just how small the for-hire sector is, at least with respect to the striped bass fishery.  On average, since 2017, anglers have taken a little under 17 million trips per year primarily targeting striped bass (annual trips held remarkably steady, even during the peak COVID year, at somewhere between 15.7 and 16.7 million, until spiking to over 20 million last year).  Of those trips, only about 300,000 were taken aboard for-hire boats.

Thus, for hire boats account for well under 2% of all directed striped bass trips (1.67 over the last five years or, to address the impacts of COVID, 1.80% for the five years including 2017-2019 and 2021-2022).  However one chooses to make the calculation, the for-hire fleet doesn’t contribute all that much to the social and economic benefits accruing from the recreational striped bass fishery, which is overwhelmingly the province of shore-based fishermen and private boats.

Thus, while the for-hires may have accounted for 28% of the comments--all opposed--on the emergency action, we can never forget that they also only represent 2% of the striped bass fishery.  That 2% figure places their comments in a far clearer context than the 28% figure, standing alone, ever could.

On the other hand, the for-hires’ current share of striped bass landings is substantial, and disproportionately high.  For the same 2018-2022 period, for-hire vessels accounted for 11.99% of the entire recreational striped bass harvest, a number that drops very slightly, to 11.79%, if the years are adjusted to account for COVID by using the five-year period that begins in 2017 and omits 2020.

Thus, the for-hire fleet already lands about six times the number of fish that might be predicted by the number of trips taken on for-hire boats.  Yet they’re still looking for special privileges that would allow them to take more, at least in comparison with the rest of the angling sector.

That seems an unreasonable ask.  As Dr. Michael Armstrong, a Massachusetts fishery manager noted in an article published in the Boston Globe last May,

“For next year, everything is going to be looked at, and if fishing mortality has to be cut, it will need to involve the commercial fishery too.  They won’t get a pass on this one.  There will be debate, and they will be arguing that they didn’t cause this, but at some point if you’re part of the harvest you need to be part of the solution.”

Although Dr. Armstrong was specifically addressing the commercial fleet when he made the comment, his logic clearly applies to the for-hire fleet as well.

It should also be noted that the for-hire fleet is not in unanimous opposition to the emergency action.  While three regional organizations, including the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat Association, the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association, and the Montauk Boatmens and Captains Assocation, opposed the emergency measures, two other for-hire organizations, the Maine Association of Charterboat Captains and the American Saltwater Guides Association—the latter not a mere regional group, but an organization that includes members in every state along the striper coast, as well as in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico—strongly supported the Management Board’s action; some individual captains supported the emergency measures as well.

That being the case, the conflict over the emergency rules—as well as the inevitable upcoming conflict over Addendum II—is not a conflict between private anglers and the for-hire fleet, but rather one waged between those who are willing to change to accommodate the current demands of both the fish and the fishery, and those who insist that the regulatory environment must change to accommodate their own desires.

Canadian author Louise Penny once noted that

“Life is change.  If you aren’t growing and evolving, you’re standing still, and the rest of the world is surging ahead.”

Some members of the for-hire fleet have accepted the need to adapt to the times, and have adopted business models that allow them to take advantage of new opportunities when old approaches are no longer profitable.  They recognize that one of the most basic imperatives in business can be summed up as “Chege or die.”

Yet professional fishermen, whether commercial or for-hire, tend to be “small-c” conservatives, with their outlook, if not necessarily their politics, driven by an aversion to change.  Thus, in this third decade of the 21^st Century, they cling to a business model that originated just after—or perhaps before—the Second World War, that could be summed up as “Leave the dock.  Find fish.  Kill fish.  Bring fish back to the dock for your fares to take home.”

It’s kind of funny but, as anyone who has jigged parachutes from a charter boat’s cockpit can tell you, such a business model doesn’t necessarily even involve the fares enjoying themselves; they might have to spend hours jigging with wire line, or sit in a chair, cranking in umbrella rigs festooned with striped bass, while the boat chugs relentlessly forward, or engage in other, similar labors intended solely to put fish on ice.  Having an enjoyable and rewarding outdoor experience is not the primary goal; any reward, under such model, takes the form of good catch, and not necessarily a good time. 

It is, in many ways, a commercial philosophy wrapped in recreational trappings.  Pinhookers--commercial fishermen who employ rod and reel--use about the same productive, if uninspiring, tactics that the charter boats do.

Their commitment to that unchanging, “the way we always did it” approach was brought home a month or so ago, when I heard from a friend, who is also a charter boat captain, describing something he witnessed at Montauk this spring.

“I thought I’d seen it all.  Yesterday Montauk with the fish pushing tiny sand eels tight to the beach in a blitz a well known charter boat insisted on trolling parallel to the shore trying to pull wire thru 7 feet of water.  This despite clear signs all you needed to do was lob an Ava jig and make a few cranks…

“It was amazing they went back and forth a few times and didn’t put them down.  My son thought it was very funny.”

It may have been very funny, but it was also very illustrative of many for-hire’s mindset.

The captain in question was clearly out to put bass in the boat, and was doing what he always did to accomplish that goal.  Never mind that fishing wire resembles work more than play, and that his customers probably would have taken far more pleasure from casting to and hooking the blitzing fish, and fighting them to the boat, rather than winching in bass being dragged through the water on a pool-cue rod and wire line.  It’s even possible that, if none of the blitzing bass fell within the legal slot, his customers might even have enjoyed themselves so much that they wouldn’t have minded going home with an empty cooler.

But their enjoyment wasn’t the point.  The captain saw his job as killing bass, and tried, to to the best of his ability, to get that job done.

And that brings us right into the middle of an important policy discussion that, unfortunately, has yet to occur at the management table:  If an industry is so averse to change that clings to a business model even though, pursuant to such model, it cannot survive unless its customers are awarded special privileges that allow it to harvest a public resource at a far greater rate than the rest of the public, does it make sense to subsidize that industry with a disproportionate share of that public resource?  

Or does it make more sense to let the industry make its own choice to change or not change, grant no special privileges, and let economic and social forces decide its fate?

If an industry cannot both abide by and thrive pursuant to the science-based management measures that regulate all other participants in the fishery, how does the industry's continued survival benefit the public as a whole?

Right now, all available information suggests that the striped bass stock is facing real problems.  That being the case, as Dr. Armstrong noted, “if you’re part of the harvest you need to be a part of the solution.” 

I might have chosen to add, “If you take a disproportionate share of the harvest, you ought to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden,” but I’m not going to take things that far.  I am, however, going to argue that no one, whether private angler, for-hire operator, or commercial fisherman, should get away with contributing less than others to the striped bass’ recovery.

If someone wants a full share of the bounty, they must accept a full share of the burden as well.