SOME ANGLERS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS: SECTOR SEPARATION LOOMS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC

 

Those of us who can still recall our high school—and maybe even junior high school—English classes can probably remember reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and that novel’s oft-quoted line,

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

It now appears that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Bluefish and Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass management boards are considering extending that sort of "equality" to anglers in New England and the mid-Atlantic regions.

They expressed such intent in the Public Information/Scoping Document, Recreational Sector Separation and Data Collection Amendment, An Omnibus Amendment to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass and the Bluefish Fishery Management Plans, which advises that

“The Commission and Council will consider whether recreational sector separation could help tailor management to the varying preferences, data availability, and economic considerations of each component of the recreational fishery.  Currently, the private and for-hire recreational sectors are managed as a single unit and are held to a single, combined recreational harvest target.  Management measures are typically developed and adjusted for the recreational fishery as a whole.  However, the two sectors have different motivations, preferences, fishing behaviors, operational needs, and data reporting requirements.  Some recreational fishery participants have expressed an interest in recreational sector separation, which would entail managing the for-hire and private sectors of the recreational fishery separately.  This could potentially allow managers to better tailor management to the needs and preferences of each sector while allowing for improved utilization of the data provided by the for-hire sector.  Through this amendment, the Council and Commission intend to explore whether recreational sector separation is appropriate for these fisheries.”

Before looking at sector separation more closely, it might make sense to consider the roles of the shore, private boat, and for-hire fisheries with respect to the four managed species.

Using the most recent Marine Recreational Information Program data available, from the years 2021 through 2023, we find that the for-hire fleet is responsible for surprisingly few trips that primarily target any of the four species.  The for-hires’ proportion of trips taken runs from a high of 6.4%, in the case of black sea bass, to a low of 0.9% in the case of bluefish.  The for-hire fleet’s share of trips primarily targeting scup or summer flounder is, in both cases, about 2.3%.

Although some of the MRIP data used to derive such percentages includes a very substantial degree of uncertainty, the percentages are very consistent from year to year, so are probably fairly accurate.  The greatest variation is found in the scup estimates, where the percentage of for-hire trips ranges from a low of 1.3% to a high of 3.3%, but even there, it is clear that anglers on for-hire vessels comprise a very small part of the overall recreational fishery.

On the other hand, those for-hire anglers can account for a disproportionately large proportion of the catch.  That is particularly noticeable in the bluefish fishery where, despite accounting for only 0.9% of all direcrted recreational trips, the for-hire fleet accounts for 5.3% of the recreational bluefish landings; scup also sees a significant disparity, with the fleet accounting for 2.3% of the trips, but 9.2% of the entire recreational harvest.

And yet, the for-hires seem to want more.  As noted by Eric Burnley, a long-time outdoor writer who also sits on the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel,

“Recreational fishermen have a serious problem brewing within our ranks.  There is a small segment of the for-hire recreational fishery that would like to steal fish from the rest of us because they believe having more fish added to their bag limit would put more people on their boats.  They did this with bluefish by dividing the bag limits so that private boats and those of us who fish from shore may only keep three blues per day while charter and head boats may keep five blues per person.”

Mr. Burnley lives in Delaware, a state that lacks a significant scup fishery, but if he fished up here in the northeast, he would also know that scup anglers on for-hire boats also get special privileges denied to the other 97% of the scup fishing community, in the form of a so-called “bonus season” that runs for 60 days and allows for-hire anglers in states between New York and Massachusetts to retain 40 scup per day, as opposed to the 30 scup limit that applies to everyone else.

Given such special privileges, it’s not surprising that for-hire anglers account for such a disproportionate share of the recreational scup and bluefish harvests.  The last thing we need is to see the same thing happen in the summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries.  Because in the end, fisheries management is a zero-sum game.  If you give someone more fish, either through an increased allocation or more liberal regulations, it means that someone else is going to have to get less.

And the public shouldn’t have to accept a lesser share of a public resource just because a portion of that resource has been taken away from them in order to subsidize a handful of private businesses.

Using scup as an example, there can be a very big disparity between the number of fish retained on each trip by anglers belonging to the various sectors.  For the period 2021 through 2023, shore-based anglers kept an average of 2.5 scup per trip, while private boat anglers retained an average of 9.7.  However, the per-trip retention rate for the for-hire fleet was far higher, with party and charter boat anglers keeping an average of 21.6 and 28.7 scup per trip, respectively (it should be noted that, because not all scup are caught on trips primarily targeting them, the per-trip numbers for all four sub-sectors of the recreational fishery, which are based on directed scup trips, are skewed to the high side; nevertheless, there would still be a  big difference between the per-trip harvest of the private versus the for-hire sector even if fish caught on non-directed trips could be filtered out).

That’s all fine if overall recreational landings remain low enough that recreational management measures may remain unchanged.  However, should it be necessary to reduce recreational landings, no distinction is made between the private and for-hire anglers; even if for-hire anglers made a proportionately higher contribution to the overage, harvesting more fish per angler than other recreational fishermen, they are not required to make the same proportionately higher contribution to any resulting reduction.  Thus, one of the scenarios considered in the recently-released scoping document, an option that

“would focus only on processes for setting different management measures by recreational sector, without separate allocations of catch or harvest,”

is inherently inequitable, to the extent that it does not link more liberal management measures for the privileged for-hire sector with more restrictive management measures for that same sector, compared to less-privileged anglers, should an overage occur.

Anyone who attends fisheries meetings of any kind, but perhaps particularly including advisory panel meetings, knows that the for hire-fleet regularly seeks smaller size limits, bigger bag limits, and the longest possible seasons.  

It could, in theory, get all of those things under a sector separation protocol, that merely adopts different management measures for for-hire anglers, but allows them to fish on the same allocation as other recreational fishermen.  In such case, regulations for shore-based and private-boat anglers would have to be made more restrictive to avoid exceeding whatever limitations on catch and/or landings might apply.

Typically, fishery managers employ a combination of three tools—bag limits, size limits, and seasons—to manage a recreational fishery.  It is thus easy to argue that if managers truly believe that the for-hire fleet needs a larger bag limit, then equity requires that such managers impose an offsetting size limit or season to create what the ASMFC might deem “conservation equivalent” regulations that maintain overall parity between for-hire and shore-based and private boat anglers.

It is highly unlikely that the for-hire sector would be pleased with whatever conservation equivalent regulations might result from such approach.

Arguably, the other option proposed in the scoping document, separate allocations for each sector, would provide a more level playing field than would a grant of special and exclusive privileges to for-hire anglers.  As the document explains,

“There are several ways in which separate allocations could be created for the for-hire and private recreational sectors.  Separate allocations would ultimately result in managing these components of the fishery differently, using differing management measures.  Potential allocations could be made on the basis of catch (includes both harvest and dead discards; e.g., separate annual catch limits) or landings (harvest only; e.g., separate recreational harvest limits).  Options to be considered may include separate annual catch limit (ACL) allocations, separate recreational sub-ACL allocations, or separate recreational harvest limits (RHLs). These options may require development of corresponding accountability measures.”

 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act recognizes three separate sectors, defining not only “recreational fishing” and “commercial fishing,” but also “charter fishing,” which is defined as

“fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire…who is engaged in recreational fishing.”

Given that definition, if managers insist on imposing sector separation on the recreational fishery, it would make the most sense to completely separate the sectors, and provide separate Annual Catch Limits, along with associated Accountability Measures, for commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, and charter fishermen, so that an overage by any one of the sectors would be addressed by sector-specific Accountability Measures. 

Thus, if the charter fishing sector successfully argued for overly liberal regulations that led to that sector catching too many fish and exceeding its Annual Catch Limit, the shore-based and private boat anglers would not have to give up fish to feed the for-hires’ hunger; instead, only the charter fishing sector would be held accountable—and, of course, should the recreational sector catch enough fish to trigger accountability measures, which often occurs, those accountability measures would not affect the for-hire fleet.

Of course, allocating fish between the recreational and charter fishing sectors would be a contentious process, as allocation debates are always among the most rancorous of any in fisheries management.  Common sense would just base the allocation on recent—say, the past five years'—percentages of the overall angling catch taken by the recreational and charter fishing sectors, but it’s not hard to predict that the for-hires would want a bigger slice of the pie, and argue that the allocations should consider an earlier time when there were more for-hire boats in operation, those boats drew more passengers, and the charter fishing sector’s share would thus be higher.

But a new allocation—all fisheries measures, really—should be looking forward and not backwards, and consider what the fishery looks like today, and will look like in the future, and not what it looked like thirty or forty years ago.  And by those standards, the allocations allotted to the charter fishing sector would be very small, as appropriate for a sector that accounts for such a tiny proportion of overall trips, and so generates a very, very small percentage of the social and economic benefits gleaned from the angling industry.

Yet even a separate allocation doesn’t solve all the problems created by sector separation. 

Consider, for example, the black sea bass fishery off New Jersey and the South Shore of Long Island.  For the most part, the ocean floor off that coast is composed of some combination of mud, sand, and gravel, with very few natural rocky formations.  Since black sea bass are a structure-oriented fish, most of the fishing takes place on artificial reefs established to enhance recreational fishing or on the remains of ships, barges, and aircraft that were lost, due to war or mishap, somewhere off the coast.

Although some fish more on and off such man-made structure throughout the season, for the most part, black sea bass—and, in particular, legal-sized black sea bass—are far more abundant on the first few days of a newly-opened season than they are later on in the year, as recreational fishing pressure quickly cleans the larger fish off the wrecks and reefs, leaving behind mostly undersized sea bass with just a handful of individuals large enough for anglers to retain.

Regulations that opened a for-hire season before the season for private-boat anglers began could quickly strip the structure of most of the larger black sea bass, leaving little for the great majority of recreational fishermen to enjoy.  If for-hire anglers were gifted with a higher bag limit than that allowed the rest of the angling community, it wouldn’t take long before a few party boats, with forty, fifty, or more anglers on board, picked a wreck clean of most of its legal fish, leaving little more than undersized sea bass and a small handful of larger individuals for everyone else.

Considering how likely such outcomes would be under any sort of sector separation scheme, and the very small proportion of recreational trips that might benefit if such a scheme was adopted, any upside sector separation might provide would seem to be far outweighed by its downsides. 

The scoping document tries to justify adopting different management measures for for-hire and shore-based/private boat anglers by claiming that “the two sectors have different motivations, preferences, fishing behaviors, operational needs, and data reporting requirements,” but for at least the three demersal species—summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass—those assertions are dubious at best, for all three are what anglers deem “meat fish,” species that are primarily pursued because of their food value, are usually retained when caught, and do not support meaningful catch-and-release fisheries.

In the case of all three species, anglers who pursue them, whether from shore, from private boats, or from for-hire vessels, go out with the intention to kill their catch and bring it home for personal consumption or, perhaps, to share with family and friends.  All anglers would prefer the smallest minimum size, largest bag limit, and longest season that the science, regulators, and common sense might provide.  

In motivation, preferences, and fishing behavior, there is little separating them, regardless of the platform they may choose, or be forced by circumstances, to fish from.  (I will concede that the situation is different in the case of bluefish; during the same 2021-2023 period used to determine effort and landings for the various recreational sectors, shore-based and private boat anglers released far more bluefish than they landed, a smaller proportion was released by anglers on charter boats, while party boat anglers kept significantly more fish than they released.)

I’m not sure how the “operational needs” of for-hire anglers differs from those of the great majority of recreational fishermen, although I suspect many might travel for longer distances to get to the dock, and once there, they only need to find a seat and a place at the rail, and not need to maintain and operate a vessel like private boat anglers do.  

As far as “data reporting requirements” go, while for-hire operators often point to their mandatory vessel trip reports as providing better data than the estimates provided by MRIP, we must always remember the acronym “GIGO”—Garbage In, Garbage Out—coined in an earlier era of computer use.  While we can hope that the for-hires’ trip reports are accurate, we know that, in the past, for-hire captains have seemed oblivious—or, perhaps, were willfully ignorant—of the fact that their customers were keeping fish far in excess of the legal limit, with one New Jersey party boat operator reportedly commenting that he

“did see fishermen keeping [out-of-season] black sea bass, but said ‘I didn’t think it was that many [at least 819 illegal fish on a single trip].  And I’m not getting paid by the state of New Jersey to take fish out of people’s buckets.”

In another incident,

“Marine enforcement officers…saw what they estimated was hundreds of pounds of fish being thrown overboard from a Montauk party boat…

“As they continued the inspection of the starboard side, there was a massive fish kill on the port side, with dead sea bass floating all over the place…anglers who had [supposedly] not caught anything during the trip [were] filing off the boat…

“When the dust cleared…there were a dozen coolers left with no owners, which held more than 1,000 sea bass [although the bag limit at that time was just three].”

With for-hire captains casting a blind eye on such goings-on, one must wonder whether all of the legally caught fish, not to mention any of the illegal ones, make it onto the vessel trip reports that are supposedly accurate enough to justify special rules.

Yet despite all of the arguments that can be made against sector separation, there is a very good chance that it will be adopted in some form, and the reason is simple.

In George Orwell’s novel, of the assemblage of rebellious livestock that established “Animal Farm,” all but a few were subordinated to a handful of pigs who seized control of the farm and decided its fate.  A similar situation exists at the Mid-Atlantic Council where, out of six seats held by representatives of the recreational sector, five are held by members and/or former members of the for-hire fishing industry; on most issues, such for-hire representatives tend to be supported by the commercial representatives, who see them as fellow watermen in the business of catching fish for their customers. 

Thus, there are few, if any, people sitting around the table to advocate for and represent the interests of the shore-based and private boat anglers responsible for well over 90% of all recreational trips taken in pursuit of Council-managed species; while state fisheries managers try to represent all of their constituents fairly, private anglers’ lack of representation is repeatedly evidenced by decisions that favor the for-hire sector.

Yet there is still reason to hope that sector separation can yet be defeated, and that all anglers might still be allowed a level playing field on which to pursue their preferred avocation.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will be accepting comments on the Scoping Document until 11:59 p.m. on March 20.  Anglers can get a copy of the Scoping Document merely by clicking on this paragraph, and then respond by commenting online, by email, or by regular mail, to the addresses provided in the document.

While there is some momentum behind sector separation, the matter is still at the scoping stage, where the issues are still being defined and stakeholder comment still has a real chance to influence the outcome.

I encourage everyone to make their views known.

Unless, of course, you’re completely content with some anglers being more equal than others, and understand that the “others” means you.