STRIPED BASS: EARLY THOUGHTS ON ADDENDUM III

 

Last week, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Plan Development Team responsible for drafting the proposed Addendum III to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped bass held its first meeting.  As might be expected this early in the process, the meeting was largely organizational, serving only to chart a path that leads to future actions.

The meeting didn’t directly address 2024 recreational catch and landings, which were also released last week.  That data will be considered at a Striped Bass Technical Committee meeting that will be held during March, at which point the Technical Committee will make its projections as to whether the current fishing mortality level is low enough to have at least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by 2029 and, even if it is, whether it is also low enough to have a 60 percent probability of rebuilding.

If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” the Technical Committee will also determine what level of fishing mortality reductions will be needed to rebuild by the 2029 deadline, considering both the 50 percent and 60 percent probability levels.

It’s going to be interesting to see just what the Technical Committee’s calculations show.

There is no question that recreational striped bass landings and recreational striped bass catch were lower in 2024 than they were in 2023; estimates were down by 39 percent and 31 percent, respectively.  Recreational fishing effort was also down, by a more modest 15 percent.

If the current level of recreational fishing mortality continues through 2029—which it almost certainly won’t, as recreational catch, landings, and effort typically make wide and somewhat unpredictable year-to-year swings—rebuilding by 2029 should, in theory, occur without any need to change the existing regulations.  The Technical Committee, the Plan Development Team, and ultimately the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will all face the unenviable task of figuring out what the likely trajectory of striped bass fishing mortality will be.

We know that the first swing in fishing mortality will almost certainly be upward.  In a presentation made at the December 16 Management Board meeting, the Technical Committee advised that, because the above-average 2018 year class would enter the 28- to 31-inch coastal slot limit this year, recreational landings could increase by 17 percent.  That estimate is based on what happened when the notably larger 2015 year class entered the slot in 2022, so might overestimate the imact of the 2018s.  The estimate is also effort-dependent; if fewer people than expected target striped bass in 2025, the increase would probably be less than 17 percent, while if effort is higher than projected, fishing mortality could instead be higher than that.

The Technical Committee expects that, as the 2018s grow out of the slot, and legal-sized bass become less available (legal bass are already hard to find in the Chesapeake Bay, where the recreational slot is a smaller 19 to 24 inches, which currently includes bass spawned between 2020 and 2022, years that produced year classes which were well below the average year class size), recreational fishing mortality would drop back to low 2024 levels, which would make rebuilding by 2029 likely.  Since striped bass abundance is arguably the best predictor of striped bass angling effort, it is even possible that recreational fishing mortality will drop below 2024 levels as the below-average sized year classes enter the slot, and not only legal-sized bass, but striped bass of any size, become harder and harder for anglers to find.

Should the Technical Committee find that the striped bass stock is likely to rebuild by 2029 without any additional management measures being imposed, it is not impossible that the Management Board will decide to discontinue work on Addendum III altogether.  We have seen the Management Board discontinue work on addendums before, even when the striped bass stock was headed in the other direction—not toward rebuilding, but toward becoming overfished—as was the case in 2011, when an addendum was discontinued even though a stock assessment update advised that the stock would inevitably become overfished if nothing was done.

But the question of whether the Management Board ought to discontinue Addendum III under the circumstances described can’t be disposed of so easily.

First, although it appears that there is probably a very good chance that the Technical Committee will find at least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding by 2029 even if the Management Board takes no further action, there is no guarantee that that current level of fishing mortality will provide a 60 percent probability that the stock will be rebuilt on time.  The Management Board might—or might not—decide to keep Addendum III alive to provide public input on the 60 percent issue.

Adopting the 60 percent probability target would make good sense because, as North Carolina fishery manager Chris Batsavage noted at the Management Board meeting earlier this month, there is significant uncertainty in the recreational data.  Factors unique to 2024 might have rendered fishing mortality atypically low; should that be the case, the assumption that 2024 fishing mortality levels will continue is immediately called into question.

A particular concern might be whether the 2024 data for Wave 6—November and December—is typical of what we’ll see in the future.  In 2023, anglers landed over 921,000 striped bass, and caught 10,610,000 over the course of 4,275,000 trips taken during that two-month period.  In 2024, for the same two months, all of those values were down by about 45 percent, with 499,000 bass landed and 5,760,000 caught, over the course of 2,321,000 trips. 

If Wave 6 effort returns to something close to 2023 levels in 2025 and subsequent years, it may well be enough to prevent the stock from rebuilding if no additional management actions are taken. 

The Management Board might also want to consider the recent poor recruitment experienced in all four of the major striped bass spawning areas.  While Addendum III was intended to increase the likelihood that the stock will rebuild by 2029, the Management Board also asked, as part of the Addendum III process, that the Technical Committee provide projections of the spawning stock biomass going out to the mid-2030s, to show the impacts of what are now six consecutive years of very below-average spawns.  If those projections indicate that the stock will again decline, and is likely to be overfished during the 2030s, the Management Board might decide to adopt proactive management measures intended to stem at least some of the projected decline in abundance.

There are thus good reasons to keep Addendum III alive, and to impose new management measures, even if the Technical Committee determines that there is at least a 50 percent probability of timely rebuilding if no additional management measures are adopted. 

But if the Management Board decides not to seek further reductions in fishing mortality, Addendum III ought to be set aside, for if the proposed addendum is not used as a means to rebuild and conserve the striped bass stock, it should not be used to favor particular sectors of the striped bass fishery. 

Addendum III should not be the vehicle used to adopt mode splits favoring the for-hire sector, and Maryland should not be able to use the addendum as some sort of lifering, that keeps the state from drowning in the sea of confused regulations that it has adopted over the years in its efforts to elevate its commercial and for-hire fisheries over its private boat and shore-based anglers.

It will be at least another month until we know whether the Technical Committee will complete its projections and determine what, if anything, must be done to rebuild the striped bass stock by 2029.  And we won’t know until May whether the Management Board will decide to move forward with the proposed addendum.

But there is one thing we do know right now.

If Addendum III will provide a clear benefit to the striped bass stock, then the addendum should be put in place.  But an addendum that does not provide clear benefits to the striped bass stock is an addendum that we don’t need at all.