STRIPED BASS: THE RECREATIONAL FISHING INDUSTRY VERSUS THE RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN

 

The recent discussions impacting striped bass conservation, and the need to rebuild the spawning stock biomass by the 2029 deadline imposed in the management plan, have been disappointing in many respects.

The data on which any management measures must be based is, at best uncertain, with biologists forced to make projections of 2024 landings, future fishing mortality rates, and so the trajectory of the spawning stock biomass based on information that is not really sufficient for the scientists’ needs.  So it’s probably not surprising that the Technical Committee came up with a disappointing set of no-harvest (and no-target) options that would impose punitive closures on some states, particularly in northern New England, where seasons are already short, while allowing anglers in long-season states such as New Jersey to escape the same sort of consequences.  And, given that the coastwide size limit hasn’t fallen below 28 inches since the mid-1980s, it’s understandable, yet also disappointing, that the Technical Committee lacked the data to adequately analyze the impact that reducing the slot limit below 28 inches would have on striped bass landings in 2025 and beyond.

But perhaps the most disappointing thing about the debate is how the recreational fishing industry has come together to oppose conservative management measures, in order to  maintain their short-term profits and the status quo, while recreational fishermen, who have generally shown concern for the health of the striped bass resource, have failed to find common ground and instead have broken up into myriad factions, making it much more likely that the industry will win the stasis that it is seeking, and that the striped bass will lose.

Historically, the recreational fishing industry, by which I mean both the for-hire fleet and at least the retail side of the fishing tackle business, has opposed striped bass conservation.  Here in New York, that opposition dates back to at least 1995, when the striped bass stock was first declared “fully rebuilt” after it had collapsed a decade and a half before.

Amendment 5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass had just been released.  It allowed states to drop their size limit from the 34 inches permitted by the previous Amendment 4 to just 28 inches, while allowing the bag limit to increase from one bass to two.  While the comments received from most striped bass fishermen and just about all of the striped bass fishing clubs asked that New York maintain its 1-fish bag limit and 36-inch minimum size (because of overwhelming angler sentiment expressed subsequent to Amendment 4’s adoption, New York, like most other northeastern states, had never reduced its bag limit from 36 to 34 inches, even though Amendment 4 allowed it to do so), just about all of the tackle shops and for-hire boats were demanding the most relaxed regulations that Amendment 5 would allow, thinking that a relaxed regulatory scheme would be better for business.

A long and very intense debate ensued, in which tempers frequently frayed and voices were frequently raised, the umbrella organization that supposedly represented both anglers and the angling industry took the industry’s side against its member clubs (at the time, the organization’s president took me aside and tried to explain that they had to make the industry happy, as industry members made the contributions to the organization’s auction that raised the funds that the organization depended to fund it for the entire year) and as a result was almost put out of business, friends were made as people came together, enmities festered as disagreements deepened, and I somehow ended up as one of the spokesmen for the angling conservation community,  a post I have yet to successfully escape.

In the end, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, trying to give everyone what they wanted, split the baby in half—or maybe in thirds—dropping the size limit to 28 inches and giving the for-hire boats a two-fish bag limit, while keeping the bag limit at one for everyone else.

Throughout much of the northeast, the story was the same, if without the baby-splitting, with a 28-inch bag limit becoming the standard from New Hampshire to North Carolina (except, at times, in New Jersey, who was finding a way to finesse a few more dead bass for everyone).

It is probably no coincidence that the 2018 benchmark stock assessment found that striped bass suffered from overfishing in 1996, and experienced overfishing in most of the years between then and 2017.  Such overfishing, which didn’t abate until 2020, is undoubtedly the main reason that the striped bass stock remains overfished today.

We have since learned that, even with striped bass recruitment reaching some of the highest levels ever recorded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a 28-inch minimum size and a two-fish bag limit was just not sustainable in the long term.

In the very early 2000s, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board was developing Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, and a similar split between the recreational fishing industry and the recreational fishermen occurred, which became particularly nasty here in New York.

This time, the cause of the controversy wasn’t a single proposed regulation, but the overall philosophy of striped bass management.  On one side stood those in the commercial and recreational fishing industries who believed that striped bass should be managed for yield, with a lower spawning stock biomass target and a higher permissible fishing mortality, a situation which would lead to higher landings of smaller bass, while removing most of the older, larger, and most fecund females from the population.

On the other side stood anglers concerned with the long-term health of the striped bass stock, who argued that the fishing mortality rate, and resultant landings, should be low enough to permit older, larger striped bass to form a significant portion of the spawning stock biomass.  They found support in a report jointly issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which noted

“The distribution of age classes in a population has important implications for stock productivity and stability.  Studies on striped bass have shown that larger fish produce larger eggs and larvae, and larger individuals of these life stages have a greater chance of survival.  [references omitted]’

Some of the concerned anglers banded together in a coalition they called “Friends of the Striper” and, adopting the slogan,

“The job’s not done until we BRING BACK THE BIG BASS,”

began a grassroots campaign to highlight the issue.

The campaign was contrary to local industry hopes that, at a time when summer flounder regulations were becoming more restrictive and winter flounder were disappearing, striped bass regulations might be lenient enough to convert what had historically been a sport fish targeted by a relatively small group of anglers into a panfish that might replace some of the disappearing flounder, tautog and similar species in their customers’ buckets.

The ASMFC scheduled an Amendment 6 hearing here in New York.  Ahead of that hearing, the local publisher of a now-defunct weekly fishing newspaper, which was then available both in hard copy and on line, conducted an online poll of his readers, to see which option they preferred.  The response overwhelmingly favored the more conservative, “bring back the big bass” position, and he testified to that result at the hearing.

The industry response was both immediate and extreme.  The morning after the ASMFC hearing, the publication was beset by calls from its advertisers, as for-hire boats, tackle shops and marinas sought to punish the publisher for representing his readers at the hearing, and not hewing to the industry’s party line.  Thousands of dollars of advertising was pulled, enough to force the publisher to partially recant in print by supporting the for-hire’s privileged two-bass bag limit, and causing him to withdraw from the conservation arena, where he had previously served as a valuable and articulate spokesman.

But the bass and the anglers who argued their case won that round, with Amendment 6 stating as its goal,

“To perpetuate, through cooperative interstate fishery management, migratory stocks of striped bass; to allow commercial and recreational fisheries consistent with the long-term maintenance of a broad age structure, a self-sustaining spawning stock, and also to provide for the restoration and maintenance of their essential habitat.  [emphasis added]”

Amendment 6 also included, as one of its objectives, to

“Manage fishing mortality to maintain an age structure that provides adequate spawning potential to sustain long-term abundance of striped bass populations.”

When the Management Board adopted Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass in 2022, that goal and that objective remained intact.

Now, as the December 16 Management Board meeting looms, and the possibility of rebuilding the spawning stock remains in doubt, the recreational fishing industry is again setting itself in opposition to concerned, conservation-minded anglers and the long-term health of the striped bass population.

And this time, it’s pulling out some of its biggest guns.

Last Friday, the ASMFC released the public comments submitted on the rebuilding issue.  The very first comment in to appear was written by the American Sportfishing Association, the national trade organization for the fishing tackle industry and an imposing lobbying force; the letter opposes any additional management measures that might make rebuilding more likely.

The ASA’s position wasn’t surprising, as one of its spokesmen, Michael Waine (who once was the Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass at the ASMFC) had already suggested that the striped bass biomass target was too high, and that the ASMFC ought to seek some kind of “balance” between rebuilding and allowing the public to access—that is, catch and kill—striped bass in a podcast a few months ago.

In its comments, the ASA argues that

“New stock projections show that the current management measures are working to control fishing mortality and achieve rebuilding by the 2029 deadline.  The new projections include lower recruitment assumptions to account for the ongoing scenario of poor recruitment coming out of the Chesapeake Bay.

“The technical committee estimates that the striped bass population is not currently experiencing overfishing and is below F rebuild of 0.13 which is a fishing mortality target that accounts for achieving rebuilding by 2029…

“…This demonstrates that the current management plan is effective without requiring additional restrictions…”

It’s one of those examples where telling a half-truth may be more effective than telling a lie, for everything that the ASA alleged in the above statements—except for the last sentence—is undoubtedly correct.  But it’s what the ASA doesn’t say that really matters.

For yes, one stock projection does say that the stock has a 57 percent chance of rebuilding if no further management measures are adopted.  However, two other stock projections project that the stock is unlikely to recover unless additional management measures are imposed.  And, in its report to the Management Board, the Striped Bass Technical Committee clearly stated that

“all three primary scenarios represent a credible range of what might happen.”

With respect to the projection cited by the ASA, which included an extra two-month “wave” of data, the Technical Committee warned,

“While including additional data (i.e., adding Wave 4) is generally informative, the [Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Subcommittee] notes that using Waves 2-4 to predict removals does not always result in a more accurate estimate of final removals than using only Waves 2-3.”

In other words, while the ASA cites only one of three possible scenarios in support of its position, there are two other scenarios, both just as likely to reflect reality, which contradict the ASA’s claims.

Of course, the ASA didn’t mention those two scenarios at all…

But that doesn’t mean that the ASA doesn’t include an outright falsehood or two among its comments.  Consider its statement that

“The narrow [28- to 31-inch] slot limit protected the strong 2015-year class and is similarly expected to protect the 2018 above-average year class in 2025.”

That assertion is just plain wrong.

The 28- to 31-inch slot limit wasadopted in 2023, when the 2015 year class was eight years old.  The mean size of an eight year old bass is 31.8 inches, meaning that less than half of the 2015s were still in the narrowed slot when it was adopted.  However, the 2018 year class will only be seven years old in 2025.  The mean size of a seven year old bass is 28.7 inches, meaning that more than half of the 2018s will be in the slot, and so targeted by the catch-and-kill fishery in 2025, and just under half will still be in the slot, and targeted again, in 2026.  

Those two years of focused catch-and-kill will result in a lot of the 2018s being removed from the population before they can grow out of the slot.

It's what the ASA might call “increasing angler access.”  It’s what the rest of us think of as reducing the size of the spawning stock.  In fact, the American Sportfishing Association wants to go farther and increase the striped bass kill, as its comments make clear when it suggests that

“the ASMFC should consider adding additional days to the recreational fishery to improve equity across regions for both anglers who prefer to take a fish home for dinner or practice catch and release.  [emphasis added]”

The reason for that position is clear as well:

“We urge you to avoid season closures that would have unnecessary economic impacts on both anglers and the sportfishing industry.”

Other industry organizations made similar arguments.  For example, the New York Fishing Tackle Trade Association, which represents the state’s bait and tackle dealers and wholesalers, argued that

“Conserving resources for the future is not just managing the fishery from a conservation or regulatory approach, but also accounting for the socioeconomic impact of such regulations and maintaining fair and equitable access.”

While saying that conserving resources for the future is not just about conservation seems like a dubious and self-contradictory claim, and while NYFTTA, like ASA, is seeking to leave striped bass regulations unchanged, the NYFTTA comments are actually a little more rational, conceding that there might be a place for regulations that appeared to be a little more equitable and a little better thought-out.

Still, NYFTTA, like the rest of the industry, is supporting the most risk-prone position, although its position is at least based in some semblance of reality, unlike that of the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, which was somehow able to write, with a completely straight face, that

“the spawning stock biomass is robust,”

and

“the numbers and range of fish is astounding.”

Predictably, most of the for-hire fleet also opposed any change in striped bass management measures.  Their comments differed in detail, but were all some variation on the theme of, “We’ll lose money if we can’t kill as many fish.”

Thus, the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association talked about “a healthy striped bass population with great fishing,” even if a peer-reviewed stock assessment update found the stock to still be overfished, while the Captree [New York] Boatmen’s Association completely disregarded the health of the stock and simply maintained that a proposed closure sometime during the November/December period would be “devastating” to their business.

The Connecticut Charter and Party Boat Association calls the stock “robust” and whines that

“Every Striped Bass reduction has been on the backs of those who need and want to harvest striped bass and 0 reductions from the catch-n-release shareholders [sic],”

sentiments echoed by a group of for-hire operators that calls itself the East Coast Fishing Coalition, which also made the remarkable statement that

“It is unconventional to factor the 2018 year class as harvested fish prior to a season even beginning, on the basis that they ‘may’ enter the current 28”-31” slot.  Without that factor there would be a 50-57% chance of being rebuilt by 2029.”

Which is something like saying, “If we could ignore the fact that small fish are going to grow larger, we could stop worrying about the 2018 year class growing big enough to be caught next year…”

And then they complain that

“There just isn’t any room left to cut the For Hire sector.  There is nothing left to fish for.  Paying customers want to harvest fish and eat them for dinner plain and simple.  This has been built into the industry for generations.  Perhaps one day catch-n-release will become mainstream, but present day is just a small fraction of the customer base that find this acceptable.”

In making the statement, they miss the irony that, if the striped bass isn’t rebuilt, and perhaps falls into deeper decline in the near future, there will be even less to fish for, and less for paying customers to harvest, while they also completely ignore the fact that the ASMFC has already admitted that

“The recreational [striped bass] fishery is predominantly prosecuted as catch-and-release, meaning the majority of striped bass caught are released alive either due to angler preference or regulation…Since 1990, roughly 90% of total annual striped bass catch is released alive…”

Given those facts, the striped bass wouldn’t be one of, if not the, most important recreational species in the northeast and mid-Atlantic if “just a small fraction” of anglers were willing to participate in the catch-and-release fishery.

Yet the for-hire fleet keeps making such assertions.

The spokesperson for the East Hampton [New York] Town Fisheries Commission alleged that

“The implementation of the 2023 emergency action restricted the taking of striped bass and reduced income for all the small businesses dependent on this one fish.  Reports of up to a forty-percent loss in income within the For-Hire fleet were made.”

And in truth, there was a big drop in the number of for-hire trips made in New York, but a quick look at the effort data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service will quickly show that the drop occurred well before the emergency regulations were put in place in 2023.   New York for-hire trips dropped from nearly 400,000 to just over 270,000—about a 32% reduction—between 2021 and 2022, a full year before the emergency regulations were adopted.  However, between 2022 and 2023, the year the emergency regulation went into effect, the number of for-hire trips taken in the state only dropped by 3.15%, fairly persuasive evidence that the emergency regulations did not have a significant impact on the for-hire industry as a whole.

Other incredible claims were made by the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association, which operates out of East Hampton, and made the impossible argument that

“Following the striped bass emergency action that was implemented in 2022, which introduced a 28” to 35” slot striped bass, we began to see a downturn in business.”

Such statement is completely contrary to a couple of facts, first that the 28- to 35-inch slot was introduced in 2020, not 2022, as part of Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, and second that the emergency action the MBCA complained about was introduced in 2023, not 2022.

An organization incapable of getting such basic facts straight, and which tried to tie supposed declines in business to a completely and demonstrably false timeline, should be granted no credibility at all.

I could go on quoting the various comments made by the various for-hire groups, but whether we are talking about the North Fork [of Long Island, New York] Captains Association, or the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat Association, or the Stellwagen Bank [Massachusetts] Charter Boat Association, they are all variations on the same theme:  There are plenty of bass in the ocean, we need to kill fish to make money, and that the bass will do fine without any additional management (and if they don’t do too well, it’s not our fault).

In other words, it’s about the same argument being made by the fishing tackle and marine trades organizations, all of which are in vehement opposition to any meaningful striped bass conservation effforts.

Which puts them in sharp opposition to the majority of anglers, who understand that the bass is at risk and are urging the ASMFC to do something about it.

While the anglers aren’t all on the same page about what needs to be done, at least most understand the need for action, making comments such as

“I remember the days when the striped bass stock was severely depleted and do not want to see those days again,”

“[I]f effective and enforceable measures are not taken now to reduce harvest and protect 2015 and 2018 spawners, it is almost certain that fishing mortality will increase not just next season but possibly for years to come, putting at further risk the most valuable sport fish on the East Coast.  That is a risk not worth taking.”

And

“Taking immediate, conservative, and risk-averse actions at this point is required.  That means hard choices and real action, not milquetoast measures or business as usual.”

The positions taken by the majority of the recreational fishing industry and by the majority of recreational fishermen could not be more different, and stand in complete opposition.  There is little to no room for compromise.

If the industry wins, the anglers, and the bass, will lose, and the consequences of that loss could echo for years.  And the industry, left with a less vital ocean that is far less attractive to anglers, will lose in the end as well.

Ironically, if the industry loses this current fight that they’re trying so hard to win, they prevail in the battle that matters, as a restored striped bass population encourages anglers to fish, and to fish more often, and in so doing makes them more likely to patronize the very businesses that are trying to throttle needed conservation efforts.

The benefits of conservation, and a restored striped bass stock, would be easy to see, if only the industry wasn’t blind.