A NEW THREAT TO STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION

 

The American Sportfishing Association is the largest trade organization representing the fishing tackle industry.

Twenty-five or so years ago, it was an active advocate for fisheries conservation.  I still recall when, back in the late 1990s, I was very involved with the Coastal Conservation Association, and we worked with the American Sportfishing Association and The Billfish Foundation to advocate for legislation that would allocate funds for buying out a significant part of the pelagic longline fleet, in order to reduce its bycatch and dead discards of billfish and other non-target species.

The legislation had a decent chance of passing until recreational fishing organizations from New Jersey, led by the now-defunct Recreational Fishing Alliance, went out of their way to lobby against it, seemingly for no better reason than the fact that it wasn’t originally their idea.

There was no question that the ASA was a legitimate conservation advocate back then, and a little bit later, too, when it again joined with CCA and other organizations to ensure that the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act didn’t roll back the conservation provisions that had been made a part of the law a decade before.

But times have changed, and the recreational fishing industry has, for the most part, turned its back on conservation concerns.  The change can probably traced back to the creation of the Center for Sportfishing Policy (originally, the Center for Coastal Conservation) in 2006, which brought the ASA, CCA, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and a number of other industry and “anglers’ rights” groups together within a single umbrella organization. 

While the original intent of the Center was benign—I was around at the beginning, and it really was intended to focus on conservation work when it started out—it soon became an industry-dominated voice for the tackle and boating industries, dedicated to dismantling the federal fisheries management system in order to win more “access”—a euphemism it often employs, in lieu of “more dead fish”—for recreational fishermen, which it hopes will translate into more profits for angling-related industries.

Conservation is no longer a concern.

So we have seen the ASA and its affiliated organizations attack federal red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic, as it seeks more “access”  for recreational fishermen.  And we have seen it actively support “Recreational Management Reform” in the mid-Atlantic, advocating for a management approach that would allow anglers to exceed the recreational harvest limit, and even the annual catch limit, with complete impunity, in the name of increased “access.”

Thus, as someone who has been a striped bass fisherman for more than 60 years, and who has been very active in striped bass management issues for a very long time, I have to admit that I felt more than a little trepidation when I read an American Sportfishing Association press release that outlined the organization’s “policy priorities” for the upcoming year.

Some of its priorities would be good for everyone, such as reauthorizing the Dingell-Johnson Act, which assesses a 10% excise tax on fishing tackle and some sales of motor boat fuel, and passes that money on to the states to fund recreational fisheries management.

Some are the sort of self-serving priorities one would expect of any trade organization, intended to provide economic benefits to its members, even if they don’t necessarily serve the public interest.

But down toward the bottom of that list, amongst some of the small print, was the priority that set alarm bells off in my head:

“improve access to striped bass.  [emphasis added]”

Not “rebuild the striped bass stock.”

Not “address poor striped bass recruitment.”

Not even “seek ways to reduce the number of striped bass that die after release.”

Instead, it was “improve access to striped bass,” which, when the euphemisms are all stripped away, means “find ways for anglers to kill more striped bass (so ASA members can sell more striped bass stuff).”

And when you see the ASA saying that, knowing that its efforts to derail striped bass conservation efforts have in the past been and will in the future be supported by such well-funded and politically savvy groups as the Coastal Conservation Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, and other members of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, the threat to the bass’ future becomes clear.

For a very long time, striped bass seemed to fly under the American Sportfishing Association’s radar; the ASA rarely commented at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board’s meetings, and rarely if ever mentioned striped bass in its press releases.  But that all began to change in 2024, during the American Sportfishing Association’s annual trade show, ICAST, when Michael Waine, ASA’s Atlantic Fisheries Policy Director, appeared on a podcast, where he said, among other things,

“the question becomes like how far are we willing to go from a management and policy side to meet these very ambitious conservation goals, and you can see the byproduct of that, we have a very narrow slot limit.  And so where we, where we’re currently focused is where do we go from here?  We want to avoid the scenario like southern flounder and a scenario like red snapper [where recreational landings are sharply curtailed].  We want to make sure that management…is aware of the headwinds but also allows for access for anglers to go out and catch a fish, and so how do we balance these values?  How do we balance building back a population to a conservation level that we can all agree on, which we never likely will, with the ability to actually go out and catch these fish, and what worries me, worries on this specifically is like we’ll go too far, meaning we’ll actually tell people to stop fishing for striped bass, which is where I think everyone loses…  [emphasis added]”

It was a relatively innocuous statement, which expressed concerns about the impact of needed conservation measures on recreational fishing effort (with less effort, of course, likely to mean lower revenues for the fishing tackle industry), but didn’t yet take a hard stand against striped bass conservation efforts.  Yet it marked a line where, for the first time, an ASA spokesman suggested that there was a point where conservation efforts might need to be curtailed to “[allow] for access for anglers to go out and catch a fish,” regardless of how such curtailment might impact stock rebuilding.

Waine, and so the American Sportfishing Association, took a harder line when the Management Board met on December 16, 2024, to decide whether to adopt management measures intended to reduce fishing mortality and protect the slightly above-average 2018 year class as it grew into the recreational slot size limit in 2025; with striped bass recruitment over the previous six years the worst that had ever been recorded (poor recruitment in 2025 has now extended the recruitment drought to seven years), most fishery managers believed that the 2018 year class would be needed to rebuild the stock by the 2029 deadline imposed by the management plan.

An overwhelming majority of the public comment on the issue supported reducing landings in order to better protect the 2018s; out of 3,370 comments received, 2,853—84.7%--favored reductions that would protect the 2018s and the striped bass stock as a whole.

But Waine, and the ASA, demurred, arguing that no action should be taken for the 2025, season; instead, Waine argued that a new addendum, which would become Addendum III to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, should be initiated.  He effectively asserted that the Management Board should discount the great majority of public comment in support of a harvest reduction, saying

“I look at the public comments, and I know there’s millions of striped bass anglers out there.  Millions.  And I’m only seeing twenty five hundred comments from a lot of the same people that we know have been commenting.  And so, as an organization, we’re going to work with our members to try to get more people integrated into this process.  We know that the recreational fishery is very diverse, and I don’t feel the public comments really are a good reflection of that diversity…Don’t talk to the same folks you’ve been talking to all the time.  Find the people who care about this resource in a way that their voices should be heard, too.  And that’s what we’ll do as an organization ourselves.”

Once again, the motivation for the ASA’s position was perfectly clear.  For many years, striped bass have been the single most important recreational fish on the New England and mid-Atlantic coasts, and people who fish for striped bass collectively buy a lot of fishing tackle.  To the extent that regulations which make it harder to take a striped bass home discourage some anglers from going fishing, imposing more regulations for the 2025 season would probably mean less income for ASA members.

In the end, the Management Board decided to adopt no new management measures for 2025, and instead move forward with Addendum III, as Waine had hoped.  And when the debate on Addendum III came to a head at the October 2025 Management Board meeting, the American Sportfishing Association was very well prepared to oppose the proposed conservation measures. 

It had used its “Keep America Fishing” website to argue against any further restrictions, and convinced 660 individuals to sign onto its form letter opposing any harvest reductions; another 269 persons altered the form letter in some regard, and were counted as individual comments opposing the conservation measures (how many of those individuals actually participated in the striped bass fishery, and how many just clicked on the link to send in a form letter because they subscribed to the website, but had no real interest in striped bass, is something that we can’t know).  In addition, it had rallied the Center for Sportfishing Policy, Coastal Conservation Association, Boat Owners Association of the United States, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, and National Marine Manufacturers Association to join them in a letter that argued against the proposed measures, writing, in part, that

“The economic value of the recreational striped bass fishery cannot be overstated:

·       In 2016, striped bass trip and equipment spending across Atlantic coastal states generated approximately $13 billion in total economic output, supported over 104,000 jobs, and contributed more than $7.7 billion to regional GDP.

·       On a per-pound basis, the recreational sector generates 17 times more retail sales value, 8 times more economic activity, and nearly quadruple the jobs compared to the commercial sector.

The proposed season closures—whether prohibiting harvest or targeting—will undoubtedly erode these substantial economic benefits and disproportionately impact coastal small businesses, bait and tackle shops, marinas, boat manufacturers, charter operators, and the entire recreational fishing and boating supply chain.

We represent the entire recreational fishing and boating community, including businesses that serve all anglers regardless of economic background or preferred fishing technique.  Maintaining consistent seasons is the most equitable solution: it preserves both regional economic stability and angler access across preference lines, without inflicting unnecessary economic hardship.  [emphasis added]”

So there is clearly a lot of money at stake for ASA members, and the ASA’s response to Addendum III has made it completely clear that it will do its very best to oppose striped bass conservation measures that might have negative economic impacts on the recreational fishing industry.

But it’s not just about opposing new management measures.  Remember that, when it listed its 2026 policy priorities, the American Sportfishing Association expressed its intent to “improve access to striped bass.”  That “improve access” language suggests that the ASA isn’t going to be happy just maintaining the status quo; it seemingly plans to be proactive, and find ways to pile more dead striped bass on the dock—because that’s what “improve access” really means.

In addition, the Management Board has no current plans to adopt additional management measures before the next benchmark stock assessment is released in the first half of 2027.

So how can the ASA work to “improve access” in the meantime?

There are two ways, both of which have greater long-term implications for the striped bass stock than merely opposing one harvest reduction.

The first would involve influencing the “Work Group” created at the October Management Board meeting, which will be tasked with considering various issues related to striped bass management, and providing advice on issues, which could include changing the reference points used to manage the striped bass stock, that will inform the Management Board when it decides to draft—or not to draft—its next set of management measures.  If the ASA could push the Work Group into recommending a lower biomass target and threshold, it would be in a better position to advance its arguments for higher recreational striped bass kill (which it would, of course, describe as “improved access”).

The second, and potentially more harmful, influence it could have would be to convince the Management Board to amend the terms of reference used in the stock assessment itself, by choosing lower reference points for the spawning stock biomass target and threshold.  By essentially “moving the goalposts,” and lowering the biomass reference points, the Management Board would be able to declare that the stock was no longer overfished, and perhaps even fully recovered, which would in turn allow more liberal regulations that would let anglers bring more dead bass home (and so, “improve access”).

There is a particularly high risk of that happening in the striped bass stock assessment, because the current reference points are not biological reference points derived from the population model used in the assessment, but rather “empirical reference points” based on spawning stock biomass in 1995, the year that the stock was declared fully recovered after it collapsed in the late 1970s and 1980s.  Because the reference points are not model-derived, it is very easy for the ASA, and other advocates for higher landings, to argue that another base year, when the population was lower, could be used to determine the reference points, thus damning the striped bass stock to a smaller spawning stock biomass, with a truncated age structure, that is more vulnerable in the long term.

Based on its conduct over the past two years, the American Sportfishing Association and other affiliates of the Center for Sportfishing Policy could well emerge as the greatest obstacle to striped bass conservation over the next few years.  Should that occur, they will prove a formidable opponent, as the organizations are well-funded, employ capable lobbyists, and have purchased the attention of many members of Congress through the Center’s political action committee.

The only thing that conservation advocates have on their side is the weight of striped bass science, and their determination to prevent the stock from ever collapsing again.