Fishermen and fishery managers
often disagree about the health of fish populations.
A while ago, I reported on a recentstudy that tried to explain just why that is so, and why fishermen andfisheries scientists can look at the same fishery and come away with completelydifferent conclusions. But in today’s
edition of One Angler’s Voyage, I want to spend a little more time on one
particular source of conflicting perceptions, the question of “catchability.”
Fishermen often, and
understandably, tend to gauge the health of fish stocks by what they are
catching. If they’re not catching fish,
the stock must be in trouble. On the
other hand, if they’re catching well, the stock must be healthy, and when biologists
suggest otherwise, they’re labeled as office-based pencil pushers who “don’t
spend time on the water;” if the comment comes from within the fishing community, it’s
quickly dismissed as coming from someone who isn’t a “real fisherman,” who
knows what’s actually going on.
Yet those making such superficial
and simplistic comments rarely take the time to try to understand why other
people’s perceptions vary so far from their own.
The answer is often “catchability,”
which the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation desfines as
“The extent to which a stock is
susceptible to fishing; quantitatively, the fraction of a fish stock that is
caught by a defined unit of the fishing effort.”
In other words, sometimes fish
can be relatively easy to catch, even though the stock is depleted, while at
other times, even fish that are part of a healthy stock can be dismayingly hard
to find.
The recent history of the striped
bass fishery in the New York Bight provides a good look at the catchability
issue.
There is no doubt that the
striped bass stock is overfished. The
most recent benchmark stock assessment found that bass have been overfished since
2009, while the
latest stock assessment update revealed that, while the spawning stock biomass
is slowly increasing, it remains below the threshold level that defines an
overfished stock.
Yet
New Jersey’s spring striped bass catch data seems to tell an entirely different
story.
For the years when the stripedbass spawning stock biomass was at its peak—let’s say, for the sake of this discussion, the five years between 2002 and 2006—the number of striped bass
caught in all of New Jersey during March and April averaged a little under
550,000 fish.
For the next 14 years, as the
spawning stock biomass declined and the stock became overfished, the number of
striped bass caught off New Jersey in March and April actually increased, averaging
about 665,000 fish for the years 2007 through 2020.
But then something remarkable
happened. In 2021, New
Jersey’s recreational fishermen caught slightly over 4 million striped bass,
most of those fish coming from the vicinity of Raritan Bay. That number dropped to about 1.7 million bass
in 2022 and 2023, but was still well above any year prior to 2021. Not all of those fish were caught in or
around Raritan Bay, but there is little doubt that the Bay’s sharp increase in
striped bass abundance was responsible for most of the spike.
Raritan Bay began to develop a
reputation as the new promised land for striped bass anglers. In
an April 2023 article in Salt Water Sportsman, the author declared,
“Montauk has long been known as ‘Mecca’
for striped bass fishing, but I think that’s about to change. New York’s famed location is going to have to
give up the title to its little brother, New Jersey.”
But he may have spoken too
soon. During March/April 2024, New
Jersey anglers only caught a little over 1 million striped bass, less than they
caught in 2005, 2007, or 2009, strong years that occurred during a 21-year
period when catches were relatively low.
Something
similar occurred in the fall.
During the period of peak striped
bass abundance, 2002-2006, New Jersey’s striped bass catch during November and
December averaged around 1.8 million fish.
For the 14 years between 2007 and 2020, that average declined, to around
1.65 million bass per year, with annual catch generally tracking the size of
the spawning stock biomass.
But beginning in 2021, catch
spiked to levels never recorded in this century, reaching nearly 3.2 million
fish in 2021, about 4 million in 2022, and 6.1 million in the last two months
of 2023. Again, much of that catch
occurred in the New York Bight, although the majority of it happened in the
ocean, and not in Raritan Bay.
There was such a disconnect
between what the stock assessments were saying and what the fishermen in the
New York Bight were catching that some anglers, and many members of the
for-hire fishing fleet, refused to admit that the striped bass stock was not in
good health.
“in the New York Bight area we now have
some of the best striper fishing I have ever seen in my life. This is due to the fact that the Hudson River
stock is in great shape. However, we are
denied access to them because of the declining Chesapeake Bay stock. I believe that as the population of the Hudson
River stock increases so does their range.
They are heading further North, South and East providing great sport in
areas where they never used to travel to.”
And,
“I am absolutely sure that there are many
more Stripers in the population today than at any time in my life time. As a matter of fact even as I am writing this
there is fantastic striper fishing going on from Long Island, New York to
Virginia Beach.”
As well as,
“The fishing this Fall in New York and New
Jersey is unbelievable. I read where, on
an average trip, every patron on a 65 foot head boats [sic] lands at least five
fish a trip in the 40 to 50 pound range.
The fishing continued for weeks.
Where did these fish come from?
It is my believe [sic] that your data collection system has missed large
schools of large fish.”
And finally,
“New Jersey has the most exciting, and one
can argue the healthiest, Striped Bass fishery in many generations. Conservation is an important measure to ensure
a sustainable future for this amazing fishery for a generation to come—no one
doubts that—but with such a great fishery unique to this area, it begs the
question of whether we need to come to terms with a truth, backed by data—not all
waters governed by ASMFC are created equal.
“The 2023 Emergency Action was a
commendable action to preserve the Chesapeake Bay stock—which isn’t healthy—but
data shows the Hudson River stock continues to outperform its average and there
is an abundance of bass in all size ranges.
In addition to scientific evidence, anecdotal reports from party boat
and charter boat captains will tell you that they haven’t seen the type of
Striped Bass migrations in the Spring and Fall that we experience today…
“The 2023 Emergency Action’s application
in New Jersey is not backed by science, data or any educated fisherperson’s POV
in the area. It’s an unnecessary
protection that creates unnecessary barriers of entry to this sport…costing the
for-hire fleet and those that it supports (bait shops and other businesses
supported by fisherman [sic]) dearly.”
In each case, the commenter was
willing to advance a position that has no scientific support (“the population
of the Hudson River stock increases,” “there are many more Stripers in the population
today than at any time in my life time,”
“your data collection system has missed large schools of large fish,” “the Hudson
River stock continues to outperform its average.”) than to consider the
possibility that there may be a reason that they are catching more bass in
recent years, despite the depleted stock.
And there is a reason: The recent abundance of menhaden in the New
York Bight.
The author of the Salt Water
Sportsman article alluded to that fact when he wrote,
“Jersey politicians did one thing right:
Getting the Omega 3 bunker boats out of state waters. That has allowed a vast biomass throughout
the year in Jersey waters. This draws
behemoth bass into the bays, river systems and alongshore to fatten up on
omnipresent adult bunker.”
For it was the presence of the
bunker—Atlantic menhaden—in Raritan Bay and the New York Bight, in far greater
numbers than in past years, that drove the striped bass fishery. The big bass bunched up under the bunker
schools, making them far easier to find and far easier to catch, than they were
before 2021. The striped bass did not
suddenly become more abundant—given the size of the fish being caught, if it
was really a matter of abundance; if it were, that abundance would have been
seen in earlier years’ catch data, as even larger numbers of younger fish
passed through the fishery.
The Hudson River did not suddenly
begin turning out large numbers bass that could somehow, miraculously, grow
from egg to 40 or 50 pounds over the course of a single year.
But the menhaden could
concentrate the available striped bass in a relatively small area and make them
easier for anglers to find and to hook—that is, the bunker made the bass for
more catchable.
It's no coincidence that in the spring of 2024, when menhaden abundance in Raritan Bay was lower than it had been in the three preceding years, New Jersey anglers started catching fewer striped bass. Those that found and fished over menhaden schools still managed to catch a lot of fish, but with schools harder to find, the overall number of striped bass caught plummeted.
And that's not a bad thing.
While increased
catchability might prove a temporary boon for anglers, it doesn’t do much good
for the fish, as it leads to an unexpectedly high number of bass being removed
from the population, as either landings or release mortality, and because it
makes anglers doubt the science behind fisheries management, and reduces their
willingness to work with the management system.
The difference between
catchability and abundance is very real.
So when a fisherman, whether
recreational or commercial, starts catching a big load of fish, their first
reaction ought not to be “There are plenty of fish in the ocean; the science
has to be wrong,” but rather “With fish this easy to catch, we’d better not
take home too many,” because further depleting an already depleted stock is
never a good idea.
You will never admit overfishing of Omega 3 boats in the Chesapeake Bay and shoreline of Virginia is decimating the striped bass nursery - and you have zero science because that’s how Omega wants it to be. The charter captains all tell you there aren’t big schools of Bunker like there used to be - you won’t listen to them.
ReplyDeleteAnd you won’t acknowledge Stripers live in the Bay 9 years before heading to the ocean and Chesapeake Bay Stripers are 70% of the East Coast stock (or used to be)
I won't admit that Omega is decimating the striped bass in the Bay because, not only is there no evidence that is the case, but there is real evidence that it is not true. That is contained in the Forage Status and Trends Report released by the Chesapeake Bay Project last fall. The bass have plenty of bay anchovies, polychaete worms, and other forage to support them, even if menhaden are less abundant (although the 2024 Maryland juvenile abundance index for menhaden was the highest in many years, so the bass will have plenty of Year 0 menhaden to feed on, too.)
DeleteAnd no, I won't acknowledge that all bass remain in the Bay for 9 years before migrating along the coast because it's just not true. Maybe some remain local for that length of time, but we were catching bass from the Bay's 2015 year class in southern New England by 2018, and wathched them increase in size each year since. That presence of 2015s on the coast is documented in MRIP catch data; if they didn't leave the Bay until their ninth year, we wouldn't be seeing them until this season, and that is not how things worked out. I know of 4 and 5 year old bass tagged in Long Island Sound that were recovered in the spawning reaches of the Chesapeake Bay in later years, demonstrating their Bay origins. So the claim that bass remain in the Bay until their ninth year is demonstrably false.
But yes, the Chesapeake Bay does produce at least 70 percent of the coastal migratory stock, which is why bass are as scarce as they are today.
Angler knowledge may be myopic but that doesn’t make the science always right. I wish I had more faith in our institutions.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that scientists acknowledge and try to accouint for the uncertainty in their data, while fishermen argue that they know the truth, when at best they see only a very small part of the picture, and too often interpret their observations in light of their own biases.
DeleteAs someone who fishes the NY Bight, I can corroborate some of the claims made about prior years bass fishing. It’s very hard to argue with people around me that striped bass are in trouble, when it’s all too easy to go out and catch fish in and fall months especially.
ReplyDeleteIt’s painful to hear and read comments from for-hires and Rec anglers who try to deny the scientific evidence. These are the same kinds of people responsible for the decline of winter flounder among other species.
I recently listened to the audio book the Unnatural History of the Sea, and it is eerie listening to accounts of men lamenting the dearth of fish, positing that they simply swam off to distant or deeper waters. I find the parallels to today quite disheartening
Agreed,
DeleteHow many times do we hear that "the striped bass are all in the EEZ" or "the bluefish are all offshore"? The problem is, I fish for shark and tuna from June through early October (if the wind ever stops blowing), and I not only don't come across bass schools (although some certainly sojourn out there before returning inshore), but with the exception of a 10-day period early last July, when I had some 12-inchers show up, I haven't had a single bluefish in my shark slicks since 2017, fishing the same deep-water spots where they used to swarm.
Yet people still prefer the "they're all offshore" story to the truth that stocks are depleted.
I just don’t understand why folks don’t err on the side of conservation when we’ve actually lost or severely degraded entire fisheries in the past 30 years(Flounder) Truly mind boggling.
DeleteAnother question, was out there yesterday and saw two humpback whales within sight of the narrows, does the pinging of my fish finder affect them? A quick google search was unproductive
Honestly don't know whether the high frequencies used by depthfinders--usually somewhere around 200 kiloHertz, although units intended for deeper water might be 50kHz and those with very fine definition might be as high as 800kHz--can affect or even be heard by whales, which usually emit much lower frequency sounds.
DeleteHowever, I've never seen a humpback act strangely when I had my depthfinder on, and folks who fish around bunker schools in the Bight often see the outline of a whale on their disply, so I doubt that they are particularly impacted by the machines.