BLOWING SMOKE: "FAIRNESS" AND "EQUITY" IN STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT

 

When any major fisheries management measure comes up for debate, we can always be sure that we will hear someone bring up the concepts of “fairness” and “equity.”

And most people, hearing that, would think, “Of course,” because everyone wants to be fair. 

At least in theory.

Even the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has decreed, as part of its National Standard 4, that

“If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen…  [formatting omitted]”

But once we get away from Magnuson-Stevens, we find that concepts of “fairness” and “equity” have no fixed meaning.  For in fisheries, as in kindergartens, geopolitics, and corporate management suites, if I get more than you, then things are perfectly fair and equitable.  I you get more than me, everything is completely unfair, and corrective measures are needed.

Striped bass management may provide the starkest illustration of that truth.

Soon after the adoption of Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, the fairness argument became weaponized by sectors and their advocates on the Management Board, who began slinging it around indiscriminately and without a solid logical basis, solely to gain advantage for themselves at the expense of everyone else—and of the striped bass.

As strange as it sounds, special treatment for particular sectors of the striped bass fishery is now being justified by some twisted concept of “fairness.”

Thus, in August 2023, when the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board began discussing a motion that would extend the emergency action for another year, unless an addendum to Amendment 7 was adopted sooner, Adam Nowalsky, the Legislative Proxy from New Jersey, rose to oppose the motion on what were essentially equitable grounds, saying

“if the concern of this body is the health of the resource, and in five of the last six years removals have exceeded, the majority of the removals have come from release mortality and not harvest, and this emergency action focuses only on harvest.

“How could we in good conscience say we’re doing this purely for the resource?  We are doing this as a de facto reallocation from the harvest fishery to the release fishery.  The reallocation of such has a dramatic impact on the demographics of the users of this resource.  They are very different users.  They come from very different backgrounds.

“They have a very different purpose.  Not only is this not in the overall best interest of the resource, but it severely impacts one demographic group over another…”

It was a somewhat puzzling argument, given that the purpose of the emergency action was to protect the majority of the large 2015 year class of striped bass, which was expected to be instrumental in rebuilding the overfished striped bass stock, and also given that it kept everyone on the same, level playing field, able to harvest the same, 28- to 31-inch fish.  But to Nowalsky, the motion was somehow unfair, because it didn’t let one group of anglers to kill as many bass as they wanted to.

But that is how the “fairness” argument typically goes.  And most of the Management Board seemed to understand that, so the motion Nowalsky opposed passed by a substantial margin.

Yet the debate over granting special privileges to the commercial and for-hire fleets, and placing the greatest conservation burden on shore-based and for-hire anglers—all in the name of “fairness”—was just gaining steam.

For along with the effort to grant special privileges to the for-hire fleet came the effort to prohibit catch-and-release angling during the closed season, a prohibition that was never before put in place on a coastwide basis, not even during the 1980s, when harvest moratoriums in most coastal states helped fully restore what had been a collapsed striped bass stock.  But the for-hire fleet—or, at least, that portion of the fleet that specialized in serving up dead striped bass to its customers—liked the idea, because such “no-target” closures, which theoretically reduced or eliminated release mortality, would allow for a shorter closed season, and let them get back to their business of killing striped bass that much sooner.

Thus, at the same August 2023 Management Board meeting, we saw New York’s Governor’s Appointee, Emerson Hasbrouck, speak in favor of such no-target closures, saying

“Harvest and discard mortality have been pretty much evenly split, in terms of which one comprised the majority of recreational removals over the past 10 years.  I don’t know why we would not want to help address this high level of discard mortality by implementing no targeting…

“I know there are enforcement issues…I have to think that there will be compliance with no targeting, even if enforcement is problematic…

“I also understand that we can’t actually calculate what the reduction in fishing mortality will be with a no-targeting closure.  But we couldn’t calculate that for some of the other things that we’ve implemented, circle hooks and no gaffing, but we know that they are going to reduce mortality.  Similarly, with a no targeting closure it is going to reduce that discard mortality.”

Hasbrouck didn’t play the “fairness” card at that point, but it was only a matter of time before he became a leading advocate of reducing recreational (but not commercial or for-hire) effort in the name of regulatory “fairness.”

Later on in the same meeting, he seconded a motion that would include options granting special privileges to the for-hire fleet, not enjoyed by other anglers, in the draft Addendum II to Amendment 7, which was going out for public comment.

He rose yet again, to put a motion on the table that would have removed a 14.5 percent reduction in the commercial striped bass quota from the draft Addendum II, and so place all of the burden of rebuilding the striped bass stock on the shoulders of recreational fishermen. 

Apparently, neither granting the for-hire fleet special privileges not enjoyed by other anglers, nor placing the entire responsibility for rebuilding the striped bass stock on the shoulders of anglers offended his notions of “fairness,” which seems more than a little absurd after we look at his comments at subsequent meetings.

The absurdity—for both Hasbrouck and others—began early when the Management Board met in January 2024, to approve the final version of Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, as Hasbrouck implicitly questioned the validity of the public comment when he asked

“…For most of the written comments and comments received at then public hearing.  The majority of those commenters, again written and again at the public meetings, were recreational fishermen, primarily?  Is that correct?...”

Upon learning that his assumption was true, he went on,

“However, our own [Advisory Panel] we have a more balanced representation between recreational anglers, the for-hire industry and commercial fishermen, so that provides us with a more balanced representation.  As I recall from your presentation, the [Advisory Panel] and the majority, actually twice as many, I think, members of the [Advisory Panel] supported Option C [granting special privileges to the for-hire fleet] for the ocean fishery.  There was also overwhelming support for Option, I think it was Option A, status quo for the commercial reduction.”

Thus, his comments suggested, the great majority of the public comment should be discounted, and the sector that generated about 90 percent of all striped bass removals, and the vast majority of the social and economic benefits gleaned from the fishery largely ignored, to the benefit of two special interest groups, the for-hire fleet, which accounted for less then two percent of all recreational trips primarily targeting striped bass, and the commercial sector, which was only responsible for about 10 percent of striped bass removals, and which, from a purely economic perspective, probably shouldn’t exist at all.

Yet Hasbrouck seems to see nothing “unfair” about his anti-angler bias, as soon after making his comment, he seconded an ultimately unsuccessful motion that would have allowed the for-hire fleet to retain striped bass that must be released by the rest of the angling community.

Shortly thereafter, Maryland’s Luisi made not one, but three different motions attempting to grant for-hire boats in the Chesapeake Bay a two-fish bag limit, when the rest of the anglers could keep only one.  In justifying his efforts, he said

“Fairness has been brought up, it has been discussed, and in my opinion it’s very difficult for me to have two different sectors of the same group.  You have your…sport angler, your catch and release angler and your for-hire captain, who is taking trips for parties for the purpose of business.  It’s very difficult for me to look at those two individuals and believe that they are one and the same.”

The problem with that argument, of course, is that the striped bass bag limit isn’t intended to regulate for-hire captains—or to regulate tackle shops, fuel docks, or any other angling-related business, all of which are affected to some degree by striped bass regulations.  The bag limit is applied to the individual angler, and it is hard to argue that it is “unfair” for all anglers to be governed by the same rules. 

Although Luisi, in his efforts to aid the for-hire fleet, fell back on the “fairness” argument anyway, even using it in support of what would have been, from the anglers’ perspective, a very unfair rule that favored one small group of anglers over everyone else.  His efforts finally raised the ire of a member of his own delegation, Legislative Proxy David Sikorski, who fumed,

“Let’s stop trying to define people by the way they choose to participate in the fishery, or what their opinion might be at the time you talk to them.  Stop this—sportsmen versus clients versus these people or those people.  It is the general public, and I cannot support giving some people in the general public two fish, when other people get one…”

He was talking about real “fairness”—creating a level playing field for everyone—and enough people agreed that all of Luisi’s efforts went for nought.

But that didn’t stop some Board members efforts to create special rules and exemptions for a privileged group of stakeholders.  Once the recreational sizes and bag limits were addressed, John Clark, the Delaware fisheries manager, made a motion to leave the commercial quota unchanged, a motion which would have, again, placed the entire burden of striped bass recovery on the recreational sector.  He seemed to reject the “fairness” argument, saying

“I understand how there is a concern that if the recreational side has to do something, then the commercial side has to do it.  But once again, I said when we first started this addendum process, we weren’t even talking about taking anything away from the commercial, because we recognized what a small part of reduction in the striped bass numbers were out there.”

Why the commercial sector shouldn’t, in “fairness,” make an equally small contribution to the bass’ recovery wasn’t quite clear.

Hasbrouck seconded Clark’s motion, justifying has action by arguing

“everyone will benefit from an increase in the population of striped bass.  But we’re trying to deal right now with this large increase in recreational removals.  Again, I think it’s disingenuous for us to put a lot of that onus on the commercial fishery, when they haven’t been part of the problem that we’re looking to address.”

Apparently, in his mind, the 10 percent of striped bass removals attributable to the commercial fishery didn’t contribute to the present, depleted condition of the striped bass stock.  Thus, it was apparently “fair” for the commercial sector to share fully in any increase in the striped bass population, but “disingenuous”—that is, dishonest or duplicitous, and so even worse than “unfair”—to make the commercial sector responsible for 10 percent of the species’ recovery.

Maybe, if you’re biased against the recreational sector—or biased in favor of the commercials and for-hires, which amounts to about the same thing—that makes some sort of sense although, if you believe that everyone should share the burdens and the benefits of a striped bass recovery equally, the logic is pretty hard to see.

The shenanigans continued after the effort to leave the commercial quota untouched had failed.  That’s when Luisi moved to cut the commercial reduction by seven percent, as opposed to the 14 percent reduction faced by the recreational sector.  Jeff Kaelin, the Governor’s Appointee from New Jersey, seconded.  The motion then passed by a narrow majority, which apparently saw nothing “unfair” about the disparate conservation burdens.

Then, the “fairness” issue festered, until the next management action—or, more accurately, non-action—that occurred at the December 2024 Board meeting.

The Board was deciding whether to take any action to protect the slightly above-average 2018 year class of striped bass, which would have grown into the slot by 2025 or, in the alternative, take no action for the 2025 season, but instead initiate a new addendum that would go into effect in 2026. 

In the ocean fishery, the only practical way to achieve the needed harvest reduction was a season, and there was a legitimate discussion about what season would be fair to all—that is, the season that would require everyone to give up something, without placing too much of a burden on anyone, or letting any state get away without making a significant contribution to the recovery of the striped bass stock.

Once again, the issue of no harvest versus no target closures arose, and it came in a pair of hypocritical statements extreme enough to define the entire striped bass “fairness” debate.  And once again, they were made by New York’s Governor’s Appointee, Emerson Hasbrouck, who said

“As a Commissioner in New York, representing all citizens of the state of New York, one of the things that I’m concerned about is equity.  A couple of things that I’ve heard through a lot of the public comment, is that a lot of people say we should take some action here today, and that all sectors need to participate in that reduction.  However, there seems to be an exception being made by the public, an exception for catch and release.

“Some of the language is that many anglers could still participate in the fishery if catch and release is allowed.  But if we’re reducing removals, don’t we want to reduce all removals?..

“Perhaps in the [Advisory Panel] or public comment about how are we going to be equitable here with telling some components of the recreational fishery, you can’t go fishing, and perhaps a reduction in the commercial fishery, and at the same time saying, oh, but it’s okay if we continue to allow a segment of the recreational fishery to keep catching fish and discarding and applying that 9 percent mortality…”

Later on in the meeting, he continued expounding on the same theme:

“This motion [to consider no target closures] an issue that has been concerning me, and that issue is equity and inequity.  You know reading through the public comment, the public comment summary, the [Advisory Panel] report, speaking with fishermen, and as a Commissioner representing all citizens in the state of New York, I see that there is an inequity here in not addressing catch and release.

“We know that catch and release doesn’t remove as many fish, and when I say remove, I don’t mean just harvest, I mean dead discards as well.  But a lot of the comment is that everybody needs to sacrifice, because everybody will benefit.  But then there is always the caveat, except we can’t have no targeting, because by not having no targeting it provides an opportunity for anglers to continue fishing.

“To me that is somewhat disingenuous, and I know that no targeting is difficult to enforce.  But we’ve been ignoring the removals by people who continue to target striped bass during closed seasons and otherwise…”

It’s hard to know where to start when dissecting those comments, although the first thing that sticks out is Hasbrouck’s claim that he is “representing all citizens of the state of New York,” a claim that is patently false because, as much as one might read through the transcripts of Management Board meetings, one will never find a time when Hasbrouck represented the most populous group of New York participants in the striped bass fishery—the recreational fishermen. 

Instead, we will find times, as described above, when he tried to discount the public comments submitted by thousands of anglers, in favor of those made by a handful of commercial fishermen and for-hire operators. 

We will find multiple occasions when he actively supported leaving commercial quotas untouched, so that those same anglers will have to bear the entire burden of bass conservation (something that he did later in the December meeting, when he seconded a motion to cut the commercial quota reduction from nine to a trivial one percent and, when that motion failed, made another motion to cut the quota reduction from nine percent to five), and times when he supported increasing for-hire landings at the same time that shore-based and private boat landings was reduced.

But we will not find a single time that he supported New York’s recreational striped bass fishermen, whom he always cast in a subordinate role.

We will find him asking “don’t we want to reduce all removals?” in an effort to burden the recreational catch-and-release fishery, at the same time that he seeks to minimize, or even eliminate, cuts to the commercial quota, and seeks to increase the for-hire kill.

Worse, we find him misrepresenting the nature of the recreational fishery by pretending that there are two separate components—one catch-and-release, one catch-and-kill—when the reality is that most striped bass anglers keep some of their fish while intentionally releasing others, with some emphasizing harvest and some emphasizing sport, but with most engaging in both activities.  So, when he said that allowing catch-and-release in the closed season would be “telling some components of the recreational fishery, you can’t go fishing,” he was telling a blatant lie, because all components of the recreational fishery could go fishing during such a closure, just as no component of the recreational fishery could harvest a fish during that time.  Such a situation represents true equity, with all components of the recreational fishery treated the same, something that Hasbrouck, with his apparent dislike for catch-and-release angling, refuses to admit—perhaps even to himself.

In the end, what is truly disingenuous is a Management Board member who is willing to give commercial fishermen a pass when it comes to reducing their quota, and is willing to increase the for-hires’ kill, but then focuses on limiting catch-and-release angling as a necessary component of any rebuilding plan.

In the end, that abject hypocrisy might sum up the “fairness” argument better than anything else.

“Fairness” isn’t about treating everyone equally.  It isn’t about expecting everyone to do their share to recover the fishery.

Instead, it’s about indulging your personal biases, and labeling everything you don’t like as “unfair.”