“Where have all the stripers gone?”
It then began,
“One of the most commercially important
fish species in the United States seems to be disappearing from the Atlantic seaboard.
“The question, of course, is: Why?
“A dramatic decline in East Coast striped
bass landings during the past decade has now combined with three consecutive
years of dismally low reproduction in the fish’s major spawning ground,
Chesapeake Bay…”
It goes on to observe that
“Commercial net fishermen continue to
resist restrictions that would ‘put them out of the bass business,’ but they
say they are under increasing pressure as the battle deepens over this most
highly coveted inshore species. The
conflict over bass has pitted fisherman against fisherman, state against state,
and in some cases, even region against region.
“The age-old fight between sport and
commercial fishermen is most intense in the states where the latter still earn
a living netting for bass. This list
includes Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and, to a lesser degree,
North Carolina.
“Lately, debate has focused on
implementing a pending interstate plan to manage the species…”
The article later notes that
“While sport and commercial fishermen and
fishery officials lock horns over regulations, the real culprit—pollution—is being
ignored, contends…a third-generation Chesapeake fisherman and the president of the Maryland Waterman’s
Association.
“’The problem is not that we don’t have a
good brood stock,’ [he] says, ‘After the fish hatch, they don’t
materialize. From a waterman’s point of
view, weather and environmental factors control almost everything.’
“…Harvesting and environmental pressures
are involved, and the latter may affect both predation by other species and
food availability. Bass stocks are also
affected by meteorological conditions over which man has no control…
“Many ask about the health of Chesapeake
Bay itself and wonder about its ability to sustain future populations not only
of striped bass but also of kindred anadromous species such as perch and shad.
“…Water quality in the bay is
deteriorating…
“The submerged aquatic grasses that
nurture marine life in the bay have virtually disappeared. Nutrient levels enhanced by nitrogen and
phosphorus have doubled in the last 20 years, causing algae blooms and cutting
the amount of sunlight reaching the bottom.
Dangerous toxins are present.
“Moreover, nearly one-third of the bay is
oxygen-deficient from late spring through [fall]…
It’s depressing reading, and I
suspect that more than a few folks who read the above lines are putting their personal spin
on them, thinking either “Yes!
That’s exactly why the ASMFC should have taken some action last month!”
or “That’s just what I’ve been saying. Fishing
regulations won’t improve spawning success.
We need to address the real problems facing striped
bass in the Bay.”
So before I go on, I ought to
point out one more thing.
The article that I’ve been quoting
first appeared in the 1983 Yearbook of National Fisherman. It addresses the last striped
bass stock collapse, which occurred over 40 years ago. It has nothing to do with the striped bass’
current distress.
Still, it is
instructive, for as Mark Twain may (or—more probably—may not) have said,
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it
often rhymes.”
So whether or not the striped
bass is in exactly the same place it was in four decades ago, there are
nonetheless lessons to be learned from the past stock collapse.
One of the biggest lessons may be
that it is better to take decisive action, even if that action is somewhat
imperfect, than to spend months, perhaps years, looking for the perfect
solution.
The
last time the striped bass collapsed, it caught just about everyone by
surprise. Just a few years before the collapse began in the late 1970s, 1970 produced the highest juvenile abundance index ever recorded, up to that time, by the
Maryland juvenile striped bass survey.
At 30.59, it dwarfed the next-highest figure of 23.50, recorded in 1964;
no other year's index had risen above the teens. Neither
fishermen nor fishery managers had an easy time believing that things could
have turned bad so soon. And plenty of
big bass were still being caught, which masked the poor recruitment and made it
that much harder to believe that the bass was facing a crisis.
And even as the population began
to crash, fishery managers and the broader fishing community were slow to take action. They talked a lot, and tried to find a cause,
blaming everything from polychlorinated biphenyls—“PCBs—to sunspots for poor
striped bass spawns.
We’re seeing the same sort of
thing today.
“There have been six weak year classes in
a row of striped bass spawning in the Chesapeake Bay. This poor spawning success is not due to overfishing
as there is a strong biomass of striped bass, but rather due to environmental
factors such as poor water quality. We would
challenge the ASMFC to strongly focus on trying to improve water quality and
spawning habitat in the Chesapeake Bay as this seems to be the critical
issue. No cuts or conservation efforts
will be successful if the fish cannot spawn successfully.”
They aso include a letter from
the Connecticut Charter and Party Boat Association which opposed new
restrictions on the recreational fishery because
“One can see by just looking at the ASMFC’s
own graphs the exact timeline in which the decline of the menhaden stock and striped
bass stock mirror each other. There
currently isn’t enough forage to sustain the present-day striped bass biomass…We
are striving to rebuild to an absolute peak target (98% historical high level). This [target level] was voted on at a time of
a healthier Chesapeake and more abundant menhaden stock.”
Another comment, submitted by New
Jersey’s Hi-Mar Striper Club, argued
“Increased restrictions on both
recreational and commercial Striped Bass fishing, while having many negative economic
impacts, have not addressed the problem of poor recruitment. There are other factors in Chesapeake Bay
that are outside of the responsibility for taking action by this Board but must
be considered. These include increased
water temperatures, low water levels and pollution from upstream sources,
predation of juvenile Striped Bass by the invasive Blue Catfish and the lack of
forage due to the allowed decimation of Menhaden stocks by Omega Protein…”
Reading such comments, it’s
impossible not to hear echoes of the same arguments made when striped bass
faced collapse in the early 1980s, and impossible not to wonder how people have
failed to learn from history; how they have failed to hear history rhyme
as striped bass recruitment fails and the fish become more at risk of sliding toward another
precipitous decline.
Yet people still deny the need
for action. I still have people respond
to my blog posts by arguing that regulators are focused on further restricting, and so aren't addressing the heart of the problem, and aren't taking the sort of actions that might rebuild the stock.
To them I respond, “Heed the
voice of history; having been in this place before, it will tell us what must be done.”
For the past provides a perfect
example. With the striped bass stock
collapsed, and only a single healthy year class, the 1982, to work with, the
ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board sliced through the Gordian knot of debate and adopted Amendment 3 to the
Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.
“The [Interstate Fishery Management Plan]
for Striped Bass is hereby amended as follows.
The effective date of this amendment is October 10, 1985.
“Objective 1. That the states prevent directed fishing
mortality on at least 95% of the 1982 year class females, and females of all
subsequent year classes of Chesapeake Bay stocks until 95% of the females of
these year classes have an opportunity to reproduce at least once. This objective is intended to apply to the
fishery until the 3-year running average of Maryland young-of-year index
attains 8.0. Management measures which
accomplish this objective include combinations of the following which insure
that no fishing mortality occurs on the target year classes:
a) Target
closures of striped bass fisheries. Where
a state whose waters border on or are tributary to those which are closed
should take complimentary actions to insure the enforceability of such
closures.
b) Establishment
of minimum size limits below which 95% of females have spawned at least once.
c) Establishment
of minimum size limits in combination with seasonal closures which insure that
sub-adult females are not taken in open fisheries.
d) Elimination
of any allowably bycatch below minimum lengths.
Such measures need to be made effective
prior to the time at which 1982 year class females become exploitable under a
given jurisdiction’s regulations.
Objective 2. That the Striped Bass Board support
restoration efforts in the Delaware River system including the Delaware Bay and
that a moratorium on striped bass fishing in the Delaware Bay system be
implemented upon the onset of restoration efforts.”
That’s it. No mention of pollution, water temperatures,
water levels, aquatic vegetations, predation, forage fish, or any of the other
factors that might have an impact on striped bass reproduction.
Just a simple reduction—a very
significant reduction—in fishing mortality, the one thing that fishery managers
can control.
And it worked.
So today, as we face problems
that are similar to, if somewhat less severe than, those which plagued the
striped bass stock in the early 1980s, managers would be wise to respond in a
similar manner to how they responded in 1985:
Take decisive action to reduce fishing mortality and protect what
remains of the large year classes needed to rebuild the striped bass stock.
No, such action won’t address the
meteorological conditions that have probably suppressed reproduction, although
we can hope that this year’s cold winter might lead to a cool, wet spring and
the sort of conditions that juvenile bass need to thrive. No, such action won’t eliminate whatever
pollution, hypoxic conditions, or excess predation might be limiting
spawning success. And yes, any decisive
action is likely to impact some stakeholders more than others, and cause some
to call it “unfair.”
But what such strong and decisive
action will do is protect the overfished striped bass resource, help it to
rebuild, and make it more likely that the stock will remain at sustainable
levels as it enters an uncertain future.
And maintaining a healthy fish
stock, regardless of species, should always be the first priority of fisheries
managers. While it is understandable why managers might be concerned about an action's impact on fisheries-related businesses, over the long
term, those businesses need, more than anything else, healthy and sustainable
fish stocks; thus, in the long run, the fish should always come first.
It was disappointing that the
Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board failed to put the bass first and take such decisive action when
it met last December 16, although given the uncertainty surrounding the 2024
stock assessment update and the Technical Committee’s advice, it’s not
surprising that it did not.
But as the Management Board
begins the process of drafting the proposed new Addendum III to Amendment 7 to
the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, it needs to heed
one important lesson from the past:
Above all else, take care of the bass.
That might not solve all of the problems. It might not feel “fair” to everyone in the
fishery.
But as we learned a full forty
years ago, if we put bass on the road to recovery, we’ve accomplished the
biggest part of the job. Compared to restoring
a healthy and sustainable stock, any other issues are minor, and can wait to be addressed until the primary job is done,.
No comments:
Post a Comment