STRIPED BASS ADDENDUM II: STAKEHOLDER COMMENT (PARTICULARLY ON THE RECREATIONAL OPTIONS) AND WHAT COMES NEXT

 

At 1:15 p.m. on January 24, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will meet to decide what the final version of Addendum II to Amendment 7 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass will look like.

The Management Board’s decisions will help to determine whether the ASMFC meets its obligations to rebuild the still-overfished striped bass stock by 2029, and whether the Board will put itself in a position to quickly respond to any new obstacles to rebuilding the stock.

It’s often difficult to predict what the Management Board will do although, given that even the best-case scenario only gives Addendum II a 51% chance ofrebuilding the stock by the deadline, while the worst case is a 64% probabilityof failure, it’s probably fair to say that the more the Board does at next week’s meeting, the less it will have to do between now and 2029—beginning, most likely, next October, after the release of a scheduled update to the stock assessment.

Yesterday, Emilie Franke, the ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass, released a comprehensive summary of stakeholder comment received on Addendum II, along with each written comment received.  Although none of the comment was particularly surprising, some interesting patterns emerged which ought to be noted by the Management Board.

Stakeholders submitted a total of 3,525 comments, which broke down into 2,832 written comments (1,062 comments from individuals, 1,723 form letters, and 47 comments from organizations) along with 693 comments provided at the various hearings held between Maine and Virginia.

The ocean recreational fishery

Not surprisingly, 2,448 of those comments, the most addressing any individual issue, addressed the ocean recreational fishery, and as Ms. Franke noted in here memorandum to the Management Board,

“The vast majority of commenters favored ocean Option B (28-31” all modes).  Commenters noted this option is the most conservative option with the highest estimated reduction, which is needed to support stock rebuilding.  This option would best protect the 2015-year class…Most commenters noted specific, strong opposition to any mode split options.  They noted the entire recreational sector should have the same regulations and participate equally in rebuilding the stock.  They also noted that all recreational anglers should have the same fishing opportunity.,.  [emphasis added]”

Option B was supported by 93.5% of the people who commented on the issue.

Option C, which would grant special privileges to anglers fishing from for-hire vessels, was preferred by slightly less than 6.5% of the commenters.  Ms. Franke noted that

“The second most-supported ocean option was Option B (28-31” private/shore; 28-33” for-hires).  Support for this option was primarily from the for-hire industry.  Comments noted the…for-hire did not see the same level of harvest increase in 2022 as private vessels/shore anglers.  Comments highlighted that allowing the wider slot has a negligible impact (0.1%) on the estimated reduction.  Stakeholders noted the narrow 28-31” slot has had negative economic impacts on for-hire businesses with fewer bookings this year, as customers do not feel the trip is worth it with such a narrow slot.  Comments noted a wider slot would attract customers and would support anglers who value bringing fish home for food.  Comments also noted a wider slot would decrease release mortality, and that many dead fish in water have been observed this year with the narrow slot.  [emphasis added]”

While Ms. Franke provides a fair and accurate review of the comments provided, there are nuances in the comments that couldn’t be captured in a single paragraph.  The supporters of Options B and C did not neatly break down into anglers on one side and for-hires on the other; some anglers supported Option C, while a surprising number of for-hire operators and other angling-related business supported Option B.

A more accurate breakdown of the comments might be made by the commenters’ focus. 

While not everyone provided a rationale for their choices, among those who did, Option B’s supporters typically emphasized their concerns for the long-term health of the stock, along with a sentiment that all anglers, regardless of whether they fished from shore, from a boat, or from a for-hire vessel, had an equal obligation to contribute to the recovery of the striped bass stock, and that shifting some portion of that burden from for-hire anglers to the shoulders of shore-based and private boat anglers was manifestly unfair.

A perhaps surprising number of for-hire operators also supported Option B.  For the most part, they fell into two groups.  Many were concentrated in northern New England, while most—but not all—of the others had stopped trying to promote their business by selling dead fish, and instead owned successful charter operations that sold a quality angling experience, and didn’t depend on putting bass in the cooler. 

It’s probably important to note that the American Saltwater Guides Association, the only for-hire organization that represents charter operators in every state between Maine and North Carolina, supported Option B, and stated that

“ASGA strongly opposes the idea of mode-splits…and implores the Striped Bass Board to not consider these options at this time…the primary goal of Addendum II is to reduce fishing mortality to target levels; this is NOT the time to consider, let alone approve, such a fundamental shift in striped bass management exclusively designed to let one group harvest more fish than others in the same sector and further threaten the long-term sustainability of the stock.  The Striped Bass board should remain focused on rebuilding the stock and not create conflict and controversy within the recreational sector.  [emphasis added]”

Option C’s supporters, when they commented at all, often gave lip service to maintaining the health of the stock, but then focused their comments on personal economic concerns.  They made it clear that their customer base wanted to take fish home, and many of their comments seemed to reflect an attitude of entitlement.  While such entitlement was generally muffled, as it was in the comments provided by a group calling itself the “East Coast Fishing Coalition,” that seems to be composed of charter boat operators from New York and southern New England, which said that Option C

“balances the need for conservation with the socio-economic needs of the for-hire fleet,”

(as if, when managing an overfished stock experiencing recruitment failure in multiple nursery areas, such balancing should even be considered), it was fully displayed in the comments of one Long Island, New York charter boat operator, who brazenly asserted that

“I have been a charter Captain for over 40 years.  As a charter captain I pay a State fee of $250 for my charter business.  I pay for commercial insurance.  I have to maintain my captain’s license and renew it every 5 years.  I am subject to random drug testing.

“For all of these righteous requirements I get no preferential treatment to help maintain my business and no consideration of what I do for the tourist industry in my region.

“This is draconian bullying at its best based on somewhat shaky science.

“Charter catch should be 28 to 35 inch or 36 and over.”

Although it’s unlikely that most for-hire operators feel quite that entitled, none who supported Option C ever really explained why their customers ought to get special privileges that are denied to anyone else, other than it would put more money in the for-hire folks’ pockets.

But, as I noted, not all for-hire operators support Option C.  Capt. Randy Siegler of Marblehead, Massachusetts commented that

“I am writing as the owner of (what I believe is) the largest/busiest guide service in the country that targets Striped Bass.  With 10 (+/-) boats running one or two trips a day, virtually every day of the season June-Sept.), [sic] we typically run 1,000-1,400 Striped Bass trips a season…

“With that as a frame of reference, I want to express how pleased we were with this past year’s size & bag limits (1 fish 28” to less than 31”).  We saw first hand the surge of fish entering the legal slot in 2022 and (previous legal slot) in 2023.  We are absolutely thrilled that these fish from the 2015 year class, critical to the long term success of the population, are being protected.

“Our business is successful if we have fish to catch…it is not dependent on sending every client home with a ‘keeper’ striped bass.  In fact, we probably average about one legal fish retained for every four of five trips.  We certainly catch ‘legal’ fish frequently, but when customers understand the science behind the population, they are more than happy to release fish that could otherwise be kept.

“I suspect that you will hear from some charter operators that they need better access to legal/keeper striped bass in order to attract customers.  I am writing to tell you that is absolutely not the case for us…”

That’s quite a difference between the comments made by two different charter boat captains.

Certainly, some of the difference is attributable to their different business models, which attract different sorts of customers.  There are certainly quite a few for-hire customers who want to take a fish home, particularly those who patronize the party boat fleet.  At the same time, one has to wonder how much customer attitudes are shaped by the attitudes of the captains themselves.  If someone emphasizes “full boat limits” in their advertising, and fills such ads with photos of dead striped bass, it’s not surprising if their customers become conditioned to believe that a full cooler is the best evidence of a good day.  On the other hand, if a boat’s business model emphasizes a quality angling experience, and allows but downplays taking fish home, angler views of a “good day on the water” might be tempered accordingly.

How a boat catches its bass also affects that perception.  There’s a big difference in the customer experience between  boats that drag umbrella rigs on wire line, never taking the boat out of gear when a fish is hooked, and those that give customers a chance to cast to structure or to breaking fish with gear that actually lets the angler feel the fish fight.  

Last June, a friend told me about what he saw while fishing from the rocks at Montauk, New York:

“I thought I’d seen it all.  Yesterday Montauk with fish pushing tiny sand eels tight to the beach in a blitz a well known charter boat insisted on running 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.”

As anyone who has done it can tell you (and in the old days, I did it a lot), pulling wire for bass can be very effective, but it’s not a lot of fun, using broomstick-stiff rods and keeping the boat moving forward as the angler cranks the hooked fish to the boat.  It’s more like work than recreation, with only the largest fish able to pull back against the heavy gear.  It’s easy to see why charter boats fishing that way have to emphasize taking fish home, because the mere act of catching those fish isn’t particularly entertaining.

It's easy to believe that if more for-hire boats emphasized just catching the fish on gear that makes fishing fun—basically, as my friend suggested, lobbing a diamond jig or other lure into blitzing bass—so that the angler can feel the fish strike and has to struggle a bit to bring the bass to hand, the thrill of the catching can become as or more important than the food from the keeping, and fewer customers would be upset if they don’t bring a fish home.  If we look at other inshore sport fisheries in other places, for bonefish, or permit, or tarpon down South, or for freshwater fish like bass and muskellunge—or, in many cases, for false albacore and bluefish right here off Long Island—anglers are more than happy to hire boats to fish for fish that they have no intention of keeping, just so long as the action is good.  There appears to be no reason why the for-hire striped bass fishery can’t evolve along similar lines.

Unfortunately, too many captains are too set in their ways to try something new.  Of course, much of that may be because, in many cases, a for-hire captain is also a commercial striped bass fisherman, and is imbued with the commercial fisherman’s desire to put bass in the boat using the quickest and most efficient means available.  As one New York angler noted,

“It would seem that the only meaningful change we are considering at this point is a possible split in the regulations (different regs for For-Hire).  As far as New York is considered, the public would require much more transparency on the overlap of those who are licensed to take recreational fishermen for-hire, but also hold permits to harvest striped bass commercially.  We appear to have a population of commercial fishermen who essentially want to be the voice of recreational fishermen.  We simply need better disclosure (data that New York has) to understand the extent to which we have conflicts of interest here.”

Anyone who might question that statement need only look to the votes of New York’s Marine Resources Advisory Council, which routinely sees representatives of the for-hire fleet ally with commercial representatives to defeat proposed conservation measures that might restrict either commercial or recreational landings.  More times than not, particularly when striped bass measures are being considered, the outcome of such votes can be predicted before voting even begins.

Nick Montefusco, an angler from New Jersey, added another twist to the mode split issue, saying

"any option which grants for-hire vessels less restrictive regulations as compared to shore-based private anglers is inherently incompatible with the concept of maintaining fairness in regulations across economic classes (i.e., people should not be able to pay for the privilege of retaining fish that couldn’t be retained otherwise), irrespective of the minimal impact on the projected mortality reduction.  It also opens the possibility of undermining enforcement, since it will not be immediately obvious if possession of a fish that is 31”-33” constitutes a violation…”

The ASMFC’s Law Enforcement Committee expressed similar concerns, noting that

“Consistent compliance requirements across all modes within a sector leads to enhanced voluntary compliance.  Compliance is complicated when there are varied sizes, seasons and possession limits for recreational fishers who fish in different modes.  The [Law Enforcement Committee] recognizes and respects the desires by fishers to advocate and pursue management options for their respective modes of fishing for striped bass, however when specific management options intended to safeguard the stock of a species are complicated by different regulations for different modes of fishing, voluntary compliance and enforceability decrease.”

In other words, when anglers perceive regulations to be unfair, because they grant special privileges to others and not to them, some anglers will try to rectify the situation by taking unilateral actions that may be illegal, but satisfy their sense of fairness in the fishery.

Some of the largest recreational fishing organizations in the country, including the American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership recognized that truth in a joint comment letter, which stated,

“We are adamantly opposed to mode splits.  If ASMFC hands out conservation passes to the for-hire mode, what incentive does any one individual angler have with a mentality that if you’re a small percentage of the overall pie your slice doesn’t need to bear the burden of conservation?”

The Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery

Although the ocean recreational fishery drew the most comments, the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery options generated 2,399 written comments, only a few dozen less.  Once again, stakeholders were asked to pick the most appropriate slot limit, and also asked to choose whether for-hire anglers should get special treatment not enjoyed by the rest of the angling community.  And once again, the responses broke down among similar lines.

As Ms. Franke reported,

“The majority of comments noted support for Chesapeake Bay Option B1 (19-23” fish all modes) and Option B2 (19-24” fish all modes), noting either option is estimated to meet the 14.5% reduction.  Most other comments supported Option B1 specifically, noting this is the most conservative option with the highest estimated reduction to support stock rebuilding.  Comments also noted the need to protect the 2018-year class.  Many comments noted specific opposition to mode split options, noting the entire recreational sector should have the same regulations, should contribute to rebuilding, and should have the same fishing opportunity.  Many comments also noted the need for conservative Bay regulations considering recent poor recruitment in the Bay.  [emphasis added]”

With regard to commenters supporting mode splits, Ms. Franke reported that

“Those in favor of Chesapeake Bay Option C2 (19-24” 1 fish private/shore; 2 fish for-hire) noted that charter businesses in the Bay could not survive with a 1-fish bag limit, and that for-hire trips have already decreased.  Maryland stakeholders noted that Maryland charter vessels participate in the state’s electronic reporting program and provide detailed information on trips and catch.”

Stakeholders preferences with respect to the Chesapeake fishery were even more one-sided than they were with respect to the ocean fishery, with slightly over 95% of the comments supporting Options B1 or B2, and less than 2.5% supporting Options C1 or C2, the two mode-split options.

Comments were similar to those submitted on the recreational ocean fishery.  Anglers and some for-hire operators expressed concern for the health and the future of the striped bass stock, and supported the “B” options, while supporters of the “C” options were primarily concerned with business issues.  But at least one tackle shop operator was also concerned with business issues, and he didn’t care for the “C” options at all.  He wrote,

“My business, Anglers Sportscenter, which employs between 20 to 40 people at any given time, depends to a large degree on recreational sport fishing for striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay.

“As striped bass regulations have become more restrictive it has had a negative impact on my business.

“Shifting part of the allowable catch from one sector of recreational anglers to another is a case of the government picking economic winners and losers, as tightening restrictions on my customer base hurts my business while giving more of the share to other forms of business benefits theirs.”

One of the more poignant comments came from a high school student, James Ronayne, from Annapolis, Maryland, who does his striped bass fishing from a 12-foot tin boat called the “Pork Chop.”

“…When I think about regulations, I think about the future.  I think about what a fishery will look like not only for my future, but for my kids and grandkids.

“I fully recognize that shutting down or restricting a fishery has massive implications for a lot of people and their livelihoods today.  BUT what I keep thinking about is tomorrow.  If we kill all the fish now, what does our livelihood look like next year or 5 years down the road?  What does it look like for future generations?

“While the past 5 years of a poor spawn can be partially attributed to poor weather conditions, it is also due to overharvesting.  It does not seem fair that charter boats that that possess decades of fishing knowledge, and thousands of dollars of fish-finding equipment can go out and keep upwards of 60 fish per day while I am limited to 1.  The effort per catch on their boat vs my boat is not comparable…”

If more adults felt the same way that teen does, our bass might well be in much better shape.

On the other hand, many of the Maryland charter boats commenting on the proposal insist that they will lose so many customers that they could go out of business if their bag limit is reduced to just one bass.

That may well be true, but one must then ask whether that problem is entirely due to the bag limit, or the charter boats’ usual practice of returning to the dock once a limit of bass has been caught, even if anglers only fished for a portion of their originally allotted time.  After all, there are other fish in the bay that the boats could also target for their customers to bring home, in addition to the one striper.  As John Billings, a former mate on various Maryland for-hire boats observed,

“I understand the Captain’s [sic] concerns that they may have a reduction in clientele if they can only keep one striped bass, but there are other fish in the water for harvest.  Yes, they may have to adapt to the changing times, but we all do.  Speckled sea trout, white perch, redfish, bluefish, Spanish mackerel and sea bass are all available to catch as well.  They can supplement any client’s desire for meat with most of these options, and nearly all can be caught using the same or very similar techniques and equipment they currently employ.”

Once again, as in the ocean fishery, an aversion to change may be the for-hire fleet’s biggest problem.

Other recreational measures

The draft Addendum II addressed two other issues directly related to the recreational fishery, but which attracted far fewer comments.

One asked whether, if mode splits were allowed, the captain and crew of for-hire vessels would be allowed to keep fish falling within the wider, 28- to 33-inch slot, or whether they should be restricted to the narrower 28- to 31-inch slot that applied to everyone else.  Only 303 comments were received on this question, with 247—81.5%--recommending that captain and crew be restricted to the same slot as private boat and shore-based anglers.

The other issue, which gave rise to 648 comments, asked whether, if states allowed bass to be filleted at sea or at shoreside locations, anglers/for-hire vessels should be required to 1) keep the racks from the filleted fish so that law enforcement could determine if the fish were of legal size, 2) keep the skin on the fillets to facilitate identification of the species that they came from, and 3) only possess two fillets for every rack retained.  Of the people who commented on the issue, 555, or 85.5%, favored such requirements.

Most of the opposition to this requirement came from the for-hire fleet which, as Ms. Franke reported,

“noted that fillet requirements would delay the turnaround time between charter trips.  Charter vessels need to transition as quickly as possible between trips.  Commenters noted questions and concerns about where the racks would be disposed of, and noted that state/local rules would limit where racks could be disposed of.”

Reducing the commercial quota

The draft Addendum II also proposed reducing the commercial quota by up to 14.5%.  This option drew 2,407 comments, with 2,249 of them, or just under 93.5%, supporting such reduction.  Ms. Franke reported that

“The majority of comments support Option B (up to 14.5% quota reduction), with most comments supporting the full 14.5% reduction for both the ocean and Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries.  Comments noted that all sectors should take an equal reduction to rebuild the stock.  Some comments noted the reduction should be taken from landings, not from the quota.

“Those in favor of Option A (status quo commercial quotas), primarily the commercial industry, noted the commercial sector should not be penalized for the increase in recreational harvest…Comments noted that unlike the recreational sector, the commercial sector is heavily monitored with accountability through tagging and quota paybacks.  Comments noted there have been multiple quota reductions the past several years, and additional reductions would be detrimental to the industry with negative economic impacts.” 

Response to stock assessments

Finally, the draft Addendum II asked whether the Management Board should be allowed to adopt new management measures in response to upcoming stock assessments, without the need to first put proposals out for public hearing, if the assessments suggested that, without such additional measures, the stock was unlikely to rebuild by the 2029 deadline.

The ASMFC received 2,240 comments on the issue, with the vast majority—2,150, or nearly 96%, the greatest percentage in favor of any proposal in the draft Addendum—favoring such grant of authority.  As Ms. Franke noted,

“The majority of comments support Option B (Board action process) noting the need for quick, decisive action by the Board following stock assessments to rebuild the stock and quickly implement new measures.  Some commenters noted that while they support a fast process, opportunities for public comment should be clearly communicated.

“Those in favor of Option A (Addendum/Amendment process) noted the need for a full public comment process during the development of management actions to make informed management decisions.”

A complication

Based solely on public comment, one might expect the Management Board to maintain the current 28- to 31-inch slot limit in the ocean recreational fishery, adopt a 1-fish bag limit and either an 18- to 23-inch or 18- to 24-inch slot in the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, require racks to be retained, etc. if fish are filleted at sea, reduce the commercial quota by 14.5%, and give the Management Board the authority to fast-track management measures if a stock assessment or assessment update suggests such measures are needed to timely rebuild the stock.

However, it is likely that one or more of those things will not happen as, for whatever reason, the ASMFC’s Striped Bass Advisory Panel seemed out of touch with the desires of its constituents, and recommended far different actions.

Only four out of 13 Advisory Panel members supported the commenters’ clear choice in the ocean recreational fishery, a 28- to 31-inch slot for all anglers.  Instead, eight Panel members supported the for-hire fleet, and recommended Option C, which would hold shore-based and private-boat anglers to such 3-inch slot, but allow anglers fishing from for-hire vessels to enjoy a broader, 28- to 33-inch slot limit.

Reasons given for such decision included claims that the larger slot would reduce discards on for-hire trips, that it would have roughly the same effect on reducing recreational landings, and that it would support the for-hire business.

The Advisory Panel reached a similar conclusion with respect to the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, with only five supporting any of the “B” options, which would create a 1-fish bag limit and the same slot limit for all anglers fishing within the Bay, while six supported Option C1, which would create an 18- to 23-inch slot limit, accompanied by a 2-fish bag for for-hires and a 1-fish bag for everyone else.

Again similar to the ocean recreational fishery, the majority of the Panel supported such option because it believed that the 2-fish bag was essential to the for-hire fleet’s survival, that the fleet had little to fish for besides striped bass, that the for-hire fleet was required to report its fish electronically, and because such a limit would discourage the release of small fish in the hopes of catching a larger one.

With respect to the other recreational measures, the Advisory Panel disfavored holding for-hire captain and crew to the same limits as private boat and shore-based anglers, with only one member supporting the proposal and four opposing it.  Nine members opposed rack retention requirements when fish are filleted at sea, with none supporting the proposal.

The majority of the Advisory Panel also opposed reducing the commercial quota, with seven opposing such reduction, and only four supporting it.  Reasons given for the opposition included the fact that Addendum II was initiated because recreational, and not commercial, landings spiked in 2022, because quota cuts would cause economic losses, because the commercial industry is “highly regulated” and landings are capped by quotas, because quotas are rarely caught, because most landings are now recreational, and because commercial gear has generally been adapted to avoid spawning-sized fish.

Finally, ten Panel members opposed giving the Management Board fast-track authority to adopt management measures, while only two supported the proposal.  The opposition claimed that it was concerned about losing the opportunity for public comment, that emergency actions could still be taken, that there was frustration over the last emergency action, that “faster is not always better,” that the Addendum/Amendment process is designed to address management issues, and that they wanted to avoid “knee-jerk” reactions.

Thus, the Advisory Panel was out of step with the public comment on every single issue.

Neither public comment nor Advisory Panel recommendations dictate Board action, which lies solely within the discretion of the Management Board.  However, the Advisory Panel recommendations will provide Management Board members who might be looking for an excuse not to go along with public opinion an easy way out, and a justification for supporting the views of a very small minority of stakeholders.

Thus, the future of Addendum II is very much in doubt.

On January 24, we will learn whether a majority of the Management Board will yield to the calls of the minority, and support narrow economic interests, or whether it will choose to represent the public and the needs of the bass, and support the majority view.

Right now, I can’t predict which path it will choose.