STRIPED BASS: WHAT COMES AFTER ADDENDUM II

 

Last week, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board approved Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.  Addendum II incorporated the emergency measure that the Management Board adopted last May—a 31-inch maximum size, which effectively created a 28- to 31-inch slot limit in the recreational ocean fishery—while also imposing a modest reduction in the recreational fishery in the Chesapeake Bay and cutting commercial quotas—but not necessarily commercial landings—by 7%.

While those measures are certainly a step in the right direction, in themselves, they will probably neither reduce fishing mortality to the target level nor fully rebuild the spawning stock biomass by the 2029 rebuilding deadline.

Additional management measures will almost certainly be needed, and now that Addendum II is behind us, it’s probably time to start thinking about what such measures should be.  An update to the striped bass stock assessment is scheduled for next fall.  Should that update suggest that there is less than a 50% probability that the stock will rebuild pursuant to Addendum II’s management measures, some sort of management action will be in order.  If that proves to be the case, the new Addendum grants the Management Board the authority to act without the need to go through the long, time-consuming process of putting out a draft addendum for public comment, holding public hearings, and finally settling on a suite of management measures to be implemented by the states.

Whether the Management Board will elect to exercise such authority remains an unanswered question, for a number of Management Board members expressed reservations about acting outside of the normal process, even though public comment might be obtained through less formal means.  The severity of the striped bass’ plight might guide their final decision; if the assessment update finds that the probability of timely rebuilding falls only a little bit short of 50%--say, better than 45%, or perhaps even better than 40%--the Management Board might well decide to embrace the formal addendum process.  On the other hand, if the probability falls in the 25% to 30% range, expedited management action is more likely to occur.

At this point, any further management measures will very probably include some sort of closed recreational season, if only because the Management Board is unlikely to further narrow the current, already narrow slot limits, either for the Bay or ocean recreational fisheries, and the 1-fish bag limit is already as low as a bag limit can go. 

That makes a season the only remaining option.

Of course, the Devil is always in the details, and figuring out what such season should look like is not an easy task.  About the only thing that we can be sure of is that the same season—that is, closing the fishery at the same time, for all states along the coast—is not a viable approach.  The fishery peaks in different places at different times; a midsummer closure would have a very different impact in Maine than it would have in Virginia.  Balancing the closures so that everyone shares the pain in a more-or-less equitable matter will be no easy task.

Even within a single state, different interests will favor different closures.  Using New York as an example, closing the season in May and November would have a real, but less significant impact on Long Island’s East End than it would have off New York City and western Long Island, where anglers enjoy some of their best fishing during those two months and see very few bass during the dog days of summer, when, anglers fishing from boats out at Montauk typically do fairly well. 

It might seem that the simple solution to that would be to set a target reduction—let’s say, solely for the purposes of argument, that the Management Board decided to reduce fishing mortality by 20%--and call on the states to each decide on their own seasons, which the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee would then review to determine whether the proposed seasons would lower fishing mortality by the required amount.

Yet, while such an approach would relieve the Management Board of the duty to set a season acceptable to all, it creates the new issue of adjacent states adopting widely differing seasons, which lead to enforcement issues if boats from one state, where the season is open, venture into another state’s closed waters.

Setting up regional seasons could solve much of that problem, although there would still be some conflicts around the edges of such regions.  For example, placing Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts into a single region would probably make sense, even if the bass fishery in southern Massachusetts is more like that of Rhode Island.  Similarly, grouping Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York together would seem a good fit, as boats from all three states often fish together in Long Island Sound, the edges of Block Island Sound, and around Block Island Sound.

But then, what do you do with New Jersey, which shares Raritan Bay with New York, and Delaware Bay with Delaware?  Grouping it with the latter state probably makes the most sense, given that all striped bass fishing must be done in state waters, and the greater expanse of shared water is to the south, but such a split wouldn’t sit well with some New York anglers, who watch their New Jersey counterparts prosecute the spring fishery in Raritan Bay, while they can only sit on the sidelines and wait for the bluefish to show.

Which brings up another big question:  If seasons are put in place, will such seasons merely prohibit anglers from keeping striped bass, or would they also prohibit targeting the fish?

From a practical standpoint, no-harvest seasons which still permit catch-and-release fishing, are the only viable option, since no-target closures are not readily enforceable.  That was made very clear when Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass was being developed in 2021.  It is just about impossible to prove to a court beyond a reasonable doubt—the standard that enforcement would have to meet to convict someone for targeting bass out of season--that that an angler who is fishing for striped bass during the closed season is not actually targeting something else.

How can one prove that the angler casting a chunk of menhaden from a Long Island beach isn’t really fishing for bluefish?  How can one demonstrate that the angler drifting eels near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel isn’t seeking cobia, instead of striped bass?  So long as they aren’t foolish enough to put a bass in the cooler, both anglers would almost certainly escape a fine.

No-harvest closures that allow catch-and-release also make economic sense, as they allow tackle shops, marinas, charter boats, and other angling-oriented enterprises to still benefit from an active fishery.  Some businesses argue that anglers won’t fish if they can’t bring bass home, and so incomes will suffer, but as Capt. John McMurray wrote in a recent blog post for the Marine Fish Conservation Network,

“Starting that first week of October here, there were an increasing number of large striped bass targeting adult menhaden schools.  Not unusual for this time of the year, although the numbers certainly were.  What was very different is that for most of October, in my region, you really couldn’t find a ‘keeper’ (28 to 31” slot fish).  It was, for all intents and purposes, a catch-and-release fishery.

“Yet, the daily crowds were undoubtedly the largest I’ve ever seen them.  If the weather was nice, you could honestly count 200+ boats.  We’re not gonna get into the ‘no one works anymore’ stuff here, but the point is, there was a ton of traffic when it was really clear that no one was catching any keepers.

“Sure, those folks could have been out there simply to try and get a keeper, however low the chances were, but I don’t think so.  More than likely, they were out there for sport, and/or to get their hero pics (which was certainly why we were out there).”

Such commentary from a very successful, experienced Long Island charter boat captain provides solid evidence that if the Management Board imposed significant no-harvest closures, fishing-related businesses could still survive.  Some bass would certainly be lost to release mortality, but the Management Board could account for that simply by extending the length of the season when harvest would not be allowed.

The question then, of course, would be how long the closed season should be extended to account for such mortality.  That might be a more difficult question to answer than one might think.  For as Capt. McMurray also noted,

“While sure there were guys throwing plugs or dropping flutter-spoons, it was pretty clear that most of the fleet were ‘snag-and-drop’ fishing.  In other words, ripping a weighted treble hook through a menhaden school, sticking one, letting it swim and waiting for a striped bass to eat it.  What do I mean by most?  I dunno, I’d guess around 80-90%?

“If you’re up on your regs, which you should be, that’s illegal in New York, and, well, everywhere else.  In fact, fishing any live or dead bait on a treble is prohibited…Which I suppose makes sense, as it’s more likely you’re going to gut-hook a striper on a treble…A solid regulation intended to reduce dead discards.  IF…it were at all enforceable.

“The problem is, it’s efficient, and unless there are repercussions, there’s no reason for anglers NOT to do it.  If there were any boardings during the run—which I may be wrong, but there sure didn’t appear to be, and if someone were to have gotten called for snag-and-drop, well, all the angler had to say is that they were targeting bluefish (even though there weren’t really bluefish around, but enforcement officers don’t know that, nor could they prove it even if they did).

“Even before this ‘feel-good’ regulation went into place, law enforcement reps were clear, on the record, about the enforcement and compliance problems such regs cause.  Many folks, Commissioners specifically, claimed that regardless of the enforcement issues, most anglers would be compliant just because it was the right thing to do.  From what I see though, that just isn’t true.

“In case you haven’t drawn the conclusion on your own, there were a LOT of dead discards this October.  Every day we’d see several floaters, plus a LOT of fish that came over the boats’ gunnels pretty darn bloody.  [emphasis added]”

Such observations certainly cast doubt on the 9% release mortality rate generally used when calculating the impact of management measures on striped bass; there is certainly reason to suspect that, at least in the case of big bass, the mortality rate will be higher.

But such observations also lock us into a perplexing conundrum when it comes to no-harvest versus no-target season closures.

No-harvest closures make sense because they are far more enforceable, and still permit extensive recreational and economic activity.  Yet if anglers frequently engage in illegal activity to catch bass during those closed seasons, and so cause excessive release mortality, while the regulations they’re violating are not practically enforceable, no-target closures that just shut all bass fishing down may seem the best way to ensure that fishing mortality remains within acceptable bounds.

Yet if no-target closures aren’t enforceable…

That problem alone may be enough to dissuade the Management Board from taking quick action in response to bad news in the upcoming stock assessment update, in order to glean enough input from law enforcement, state regulators, and stakeholders as to which path to take.  But eventually, unless something unexpectedly happens that boosts the stock’s prospects, the seasons are going to come.

My guess is that, when it finally decides, the Management Board will opt for no-harvest closures, and leave the enforceability questions up to the states.  If that happens, some states may decide that no-target closures are manageable, as Maryland already has, and prohibit all striped bass fishing during some portion of the year.  Others will take the Board’s actions at face value and just put no-harvest closures in place.

Others might even attack the root of the problem and, along with their choice of closures, ban the use of treble hooks while fishing with bait, regardless of the target species, taking the “I’m fishing for bluefish” excuse off the table.

And, given the lack of remaining options, maybe that’s the sort of thing we ought to be thinking about:   management measures that are enforceable, but go beyond the usual size limits, bag limits, and seasons.  In that regard, two proposals that were briefly considered bother proposals that were briefly considered but quickly discarded during the development of Amendment 7 might deserve another look: requiring the in-water release of larger striped bass and requiring anglers to stop fishing once they but a striped bass in the cooler

Florida already prohibits anglers from removing tarpon more than 40 inches long from the water during the release process, and such rule is apparently being observed by most anglers.  The objections to adopting such rule for striped bass centered around the possible hazards of practicing in-water release when waves are running high.  However, whether releasing a large bass from surf or shore, such bass are often exhausted by the fight, and require the angler to spend some time reviving the fish in the water.  If the sea is too rough to allow in-water release, it is also to rough for such revival, meaning that anglers would probably be returning some number of exhausted fish to the water to die.

Thus, in-water release is a viable option, so long as anglers keep one thing in mind:  If the sea is rough enough to put either the bass or the angler at risk during the release process, no one should be fishing there and then in the first place.

Requiring anglers to stop fishing after keeping a bass is even more controversial, since it forecloses the opportunity to fish for other available species once such bass is retained.  However, such regulations work well in Alaska’s Kenai River king salmon fishery (where removing any salmon over 20 inches in length from the water prior to release is also illegal), preventing anglers from mortally wounding a fish that they will not be able to retain.

Granted, there are far more different species of fish caught all along the striper coast than there are in the Kenai, but anglers intent on a multi-species trip can always target striped bass later in the day, when their fluke or sea bass or drum or croaker are already on ice.  That might mean fishing when time and tide make landing a legal bass far less likely, but given the current state of the striped bass population, along with the threats that it faces, it might still be a viable option.

For the ocean is a changeable place, and it is possible that a successful spawn this year, if it occurs, could put a very different spin on the bass’ immediate prospects.  But until some good news emerges, the Management Board would be wise to strike a precautionary stance, and to think long and hard about any action that might better ensure the future health of the striped bass stock.