tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48968360919357347992024-03-17T23:01:53.955-04:00ONE ANGLER'S VOYAGEAfter spending over 50 years on and around the water, I have realized that without strong fisheries laws and effective conservation measures, the future of salt water fishing, and America's living marine resources, is dim. Yet conservation is given short shrift by national angling organizations and the angling press. I hope that this blog will incite, inform and inspire salt water fishermen to reclaim their traditional role as the leading advocates for the conservation of America's fisheries.Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comBlogger1065125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-49379332458469330952024-03-17T22:14:00.001-04:002024-03-17T22:14:40.627-04:00DEPLETED FISH STOCKS: WHEN SHOULD THE KILLING STOP?<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A little over a week ago, my marina gave me a call, and
asked when I planned to put my boat in the water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I thought for a second, and ended up saying
the 10<sup>th</sup> or 15<sup>th</sup> of April, even though I hadn’t given the
launch date all that much thought; while I always look forward to getting back
on the water, the simple truth is that I’m an angler, not a “boater,” and never
saw too much point to setting foot on a vessel unless there was some sort of
fish around.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And right now, that’s just not the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fact that I’m writing on St. Patrick’s Day adds a little
more poignancy to that fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I
first moved out to Long Island, March 17 was the unofficial start of the winter
flounder season.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Party boats sailed with
full loads, and private boats swarmed in bay shallows, where the sun shining
through thin water warmed dark mud bottoms, and the flatfish began to stir.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Back then, New York’s anglers took millions of winter
flounder home every year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">The
fishing happened to peak in 1984, my first year fishing on Great South Bay,
when nearly 14.5 million winter flounder were landed by the state’s
recreational fishermen</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But soon after
that, New York’s recreational flounder fishery began to tank.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By 1994—<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">just
ten years after the peak—recreational landings in the state’s waters had fallen
by more than 95%, to about 667,000 fish, and things just kept getting worse
from there</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By 2010, landings had fallen so low that samplers for <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program" target="_blank">theNational Marine Fisheries Service’s Marine Recreational Infoprmation Program, usedto estimate recreational effort, catch, and landings</a>, could no longer find
enough fishermen who had caught winter flounder, and so could no longer produce
even marginally reliable estimates of the number of fish caught.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">The
point estimate for 2023 was a mere 535 fish, but there was so much uncertainty in
the data that the actual number might have fallen anywhere between 0 and 1,680—at
any rate, a tragically small number when compared to the millions of fish that were
once yielded by a healthy flounder stock</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">We
see the same story repeated along the coast between Maryland and Rhode Island,
the states that once hosted the same Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter
flounder stock (the SNE/MA stock is also found off southern Massachusetts, but the
way that MRIP presents recreational data, it’s impossible to separate SNE/MA
landings from those properly attributable to the Gulf of Maine stock of winter
flounder).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1984, all of those states’
anglers combined to land a little over 27 million winter flounder, while the
2023 point estimate for the combined states was 3,410, but the actual figure
could probably fall anywhere between 0 and 7,685</a>, again evidencing a tragic
and pitiful decline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such numbers make it clear that, by any realistic measure,
the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder stock is severely
depleted, and barely even a wisp of what it once was.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Which will let you understand why I found myself dismayed
when a couple of New York’s party boat captains recently began seeking an increase in
landings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://dec.ny.gov/things-to-do/saltwater-fishing/recreational-fishing-regulations">New
York’s recreational winter flounder regulations are fairly restrictive,
although not unreasonably so given the depleted state of the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anglers may keep two fish per day, provided
that such fish are at least 12 inches long, during a season that runs from April
1 though May 30;</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Apparently that’s not good enough for,<a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/a/1045/files/2024/01/MRAC-Bulletin-January-9-2024-e61324eef29900d7.pdf">
as described in the Bulletin of New York’s Marine Resources Advisory Council,
at the Council’s January 9, 2024 meeting</a>,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Marc DeJung, who runs a fishing head boat out of Pt. Jefferson
requests that the DEC begin to allow his customers to keep the occasional
flounder that they may catch while fishing during June, July, August, and
September.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a by-catch fishery, so
let people keep their by-catch…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Mr. Jamie Quarisemo, Miss Montauk, NY is thinking along the
same lines with just a little difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He would like to see something open up for flounder—offshore.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is referring to Federal waters and not
state waters and since everyone now uses GPS, there shouldn’t be a question
with law enforcement as to what waters they were fishing in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He thinks they should follow federal
regulations as well.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Listening to such comments, one begins to wonder whether
there is any fish out there that these folks might not kill, or whether their
mindset is such that returning a fish to the water instead of tossing it into a
pail causes them real distress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, the inshore party boat operator didn’t
seem to be planning to sail on directed winter flounder trips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, should one of his customers happened to catch, along
with the 3 black sea bass, 4 summer flounder, and 30 scup that such customer
could already kill and take home, a winter flounder, the
captain wanted such customer to be able to kill it, regardless of the poor
health of the stock, instead of having to return it, alive, to the water.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not that keeping one of the maybe half-dozen or dozen
flounder the boat's customers might catch would put even a
single additional dollar in the boat owner’s pockets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s just that the idea of letting such fish live seems to offend the party boat captain’s values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I have to admit that when I heard the initial request, I
immediately thought of someone I know down in Galveston, Texas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He runs a charter boat for much of the year,
but also owns some commercial red snapper quota that he can use when the recreational season is closed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to his fishing
operation, the same individual owns one of the largest waterfowl hunting operations
in the State of Texas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Somehow, I can’t
see him going to the Fish and Wildlife folks and telling them,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Every now and then, we get a whooping crane flying over the
decoys.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not planning to offer whooping
crane hunts, but just in case one just happens to come flying by, my folks
ought to be able to shoot it.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No, I believe—I know—he has a lot more respect for native
wildlife than that. Maybe more respect than the folks who are looking to kill winter flounder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And no, I’m not trying to argue that flounder are scarce as
whooping cranes, because that’s just not true, although it’s interesting to
stop and think about the sort of thing that might, in theory, happen if someone tried to get Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder listed under
the <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1531.html">Endangered
Species Act</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It's even more interesting to think about what might happen if such a listing effort succeeded.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1532.html">The Endangered Species Act defines a species as “endangered” if such species</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
part of its range…’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and deems a species “threatened” if it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Taking that language on its face, it would seem to exclude
winter flounder from either definition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
the fish may not be as abundant as they once were, when one considers all of
the flounder assigned to the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Maine,
and Georges Bank stocks, there seems little real danger of the<b><i> species</i></b>
becoming either extinct or endangered in the foreseeable future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1532.html">However,
the Act defines “species” to include</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
<b><i>distinct population segment</i></b> of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. [emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And with that definition, it is not necessarily
relevant that there might be a sufficient abundance of winter flounder in parts
of the Gulf of Maine, or perhaps on Georges Bank, to make extinction unlikely
in the foreseeable future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question instead
becomes whether there is a <b><i>distinct population segment</i></b> of flounder, perhaps somewhere in Long Island Sound, that is at severe
risk.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090508032037/http:/www.fws.gov/endangered/policy/Pol005.html">A
joint policy statement, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration on February 7, 1996
provides guidance for determining whether a “distinct population segment” exists:</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Three elements are considered in a decision regarding the
status of a possible [distinct population segment] as endangered or threatened
under the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are applied
similarly for addition to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants, reclassification, and removal from the lists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“1. Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it belongs,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“2. The significance of the population segment to the species
to which it belongs, and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“3. The population segment’s conservation status in relation
to the Act’s standards for listing…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“<i>Discreteness</i>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete
if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quantitative measures of
genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“2. It is delineated by international government boundaries…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Significance:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a
population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above
conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then be considered in
light of Congressional guidance…that the authority to list DPS’s be used ‘…sparingly’
while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In carrying out this examination, the Service
will consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment’s
importance to the taxon to which it belongs, but is not limited to the
following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“1. Persistence of the discrete population segment in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“2. Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“3. Evidence that the discrete population segment represents
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range, or<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“4. Evidence that the discrete population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“<i>Status</i>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a
population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a discrete
population segment) its evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be
based on the Act’s definitions of those terms and a review of the factors
enumerated in section 4(a).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may be
appropriate to assign different classifications to different DPS’s of the same
vertebrate taxon.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Could there be one or more distinct population segments of
winter flounder swimming somewhere within New York’s waters?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/sgcnwinterflounder.pdf">A
species stock assessment produced by the State of New York in 2014 noted that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In New York, two distinct behavioral groups have been
identified: an inshore contingent that is present in coastal bays year-round,
and an offshore contingent of larger individuals that travels inshore during
the winter to spawn...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066126">while
at least one scientific paper, which found fairly severe inbreeding occurring in
populations of flounder on Long Island, noted that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Previous research on [Long Island] proposes the existence of
multiple distinct behavioral groups with observations indicating the presence
of resident and migratory individuals termed ‘bay fish” and ‘offshore fish,’
respectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[One researcher] estimated
morphometric differences and variation in age and growth across four south
shore bays of [Long Island].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not
yet clear if these contingents are genetically differentiated…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[internal references omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/19425120.2011.603957">Another
scientific paper based on research in New York’s Shinnecock Bay noted that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“If resident winter flounder represent a separate genetic
population, the seasonally more abundant dispersive population may mask a
long-term decline in resident winter flounder that once supported Long Island
fisheries and may eventually lead to <b><i>extirpation</i></b> of
residents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, there is at least the possibility that distinct
population segments of winter flounder exist in New York waters, or elsewhere
on the coast.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But <b><i>if</i></b> they exist, would any of those
population segments qualify for an ESA listing?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, that’s impossible to know unless and until a petition
is submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1533.html">the
law provides that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The Secretary shall…determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. [formatting and internal numbering omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Taking a look at that list, it seems that nearly all of the
listing criteria <b><i>might</i></b> apply to winter flounder in one way or another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, filling in coastal marshes, dredging
in estuaries and bays, and other alterations of inshore waters have impacted
flounder habitat, while NMFS’ <a href="https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10176">data
shows that the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock was overfished for many years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Studies suggest that predation has had a
major impact on the recruitment of new fish into the population</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And regulators, whether the New England
Fishery Management Council or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Winter Flounder Management Board have never managed to impose regulations
stringent enough to allow the population to rebuild.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, again, there is at least an arguable basis for considering
a discrete population segment of winter flounder for an Endangered Species Act
listing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And if that listing ever happened, much on the coast would change, because <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1538.html" target="_blank">it would then be illegal to "take any such species within the United States or the territorial waters of the United States.</a>"</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-16-conservation/16-usc-sect-1532.html" target="_blank">in that context, "take" doesn't just mean to toss a flounder in a pail to bring home, but to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">So dredging a channel or a boat basin where flounder might be found, or fishing for scup or sea bass or anything else that requires a bait that flounder might eat, might all be significantly restricted, or even prohibited, if they result in too many incidental flounder "takes."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">It could become a significant burden, but things should never get that far.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">About a decade ago, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, responding to <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/52fbdc98winterFlounderBoardProceedings_May2013.pdf">an
ASMFC action</a>, proposed regulations that would have quintupled the length of
the recreational winter flounder season, to something like what the party boat
operators recently suggested to the Marine Resources Advisory Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The public response to such proposal was
overwhelmingly negative, with comments opposing the proposal coming in not only
from anglers, but from national conservation groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> At least one of those groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, frequently files petitions under the Endangered Species Act, and resorts to the courts when such petitions are denied.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">That didn't happen the last time winter flounder regulations were proposed, perhaps because the DEC, in the face of such opposition, wisely decided to withdraw the proposed regulatory change.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is little doubt that, if the matter comes before the
Marine Resources Advisory Council once again, the Council will vote for an
expanded winter flounder fishing season, for the makeup of the Council, which is dominated by the recreational and
commercial fishing industries, virtually assures that conservation concerns
will ultimately be ignored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And there is
a very good chance that if the DEC decided to do what the party boat operators
ask, and again propose allowing anglers to kill more winter flounder, the same
sort of opposition would arise once again.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We can at least hope that will be the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Because, while it’s difficult to decide just when it’s time
to stop exploiting a badly depleted stock, it’s easy to say that when fish get
so scarce that landings fall to less than 0.004%--that’s less than <b><i>four
one-thousandths of one percent</i></b>—of what they were in the not-so-distant
past, then the time to stop killing passed a very long time ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-56902927071428762622024-03-14T17:03:00.000-04:002024-03-14T17:03:38.498-04:00MARYLAND CHARTER BOATS CONTINUE EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65e74b3eFishFocusJanFeb2024.pdf">Last
January, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped
Bass Management Board adopted <i>Addendum II to Amendment 7 of the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i> as an
interim measure intended to reduce fishing mortality to something close to
sustainable levels, until a stock assessment, expected to be released in six
months or so, provides more concrete advice on future management efforts.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65c54740AtlStripedBass_AddendumII_Am7_Jan2024.pdf">Addendum
II, among other things, established new recreational management measures for the
Chesapeake Bay, which included a 1-fish bag limit and a 19- to 24-inch slot
size limit, as well as a 7% reduction in the commercial striped bass quota</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the slot size limit, applicable to all
jurisdictions that border the Bay, was something new, the one-fish bag was not. <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e678c5StripedBassAddendumVI_Am6_RevisedMay2021.pdf"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It originally appeared in <i>Addendum VI to
Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan</i>,
adopted in 2019</a>, and was <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63cb1c52AtlStripedBassAm7_May2022.pdf">carried
forward in <i>Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Striped Bass</i></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Addendum VI permitted
the unrestricted use of “conservation equivalency,” the doctrine that allows a
state to propose, and adopt if approved, management measures that diverge from
those in the fishery management plan, so long as such divergent regulations are
calculated to have the same conservation impact on the managed fishery
resource.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Taking advantage of that
doctrine, in 2020 <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63d8018aAtlStripedBassBoardProceedingsFeb2020.pdf">Maryland
created a matrix of proposed regulations that placed added restrictions on
shore-based and private-boat anglers, including new closed seasons when even
catch-and-release fishing for bass was prohibited, in order to maintain a 2-fish
bag limit for anglers fishing from for-hire vessels within Maryland’s portion
of the Chesapeake Bay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the February
2020 meeting of the Management Board, Michael Luisi, the Maryland fishery
manager, confirmed such intent to favor the for-hires, saying</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It’s the no-targeting provisions that
allow for some extra credit, if you want to call it that, <b><i>to allow the
charterboat fleet the extra fish</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Maryland made the conscious
decision to subsidize the extra fish for its for-hire anglers by taking away
opportunities from the state’s shore-based and private boat fishermen even
though,<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">
in 2019, such shore and private boat fishermen accounted for 93% of the directed
striped bass trips taken in Maryland</a>, and thus also for the lion’s share of
the recreational, social, and, almost certainly, economic benefits gleaned from that
state’s recreational striped bass fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Addendum II brought such
subsidies to a halt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> N</span>ew language in Amendment 7 provided that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“[Conservation equivalency] programs will
not be approved for non-quota managed recreational fisheries, with the
exception of the Hudson River, Delaware River, and Delaware Bay recreational
fisheries, when the stock is at or below the biomass threshold (i.e.,
overfished), as determined by the the results of the most recent stock
assessment update or benchmark stock assessment approved for management
use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>CE programs will not be considered
until a subsequent stock assessment indicates stock biomass is above the
threshold level.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Since <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">the
most recent stock assessment update, released in late 2022, found the striped
bass stock to be overfished</a>, such language applied to the new recreational
measures included in Addendum II.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That being the case, it’s hardly
surprising that Maryland’s Luisi, who has a long history of subordinating the
interests of Maryland’s anglers to that of the state’s charter and commercial
fleets (such bias becomes particularly evident in <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63d801d5AtlStripedBassBoardProceedingsAug2019.pdf">the
transcript of the August 2019 Management Board meeting, where Luisi, on
multiple occasions, raised the specter of conservation-equivalent regulations
that didn’t apply Addendum VI’s 18% fishing mortality reduction equally across
both sectors, but would instead make only a minor reduction in Maryland’s
commercial quota, and thus require the recreational sector to shoulder a
greater than 18% reduction to make up the difference</a>), and has been <a href="https://asafishing.org/advocacy/sportfishing-community-criticizes-marylands-approach-to-striped-bass-management/">criticized
by recreational fishing groups such as the American Sportfishing Association</a>
for just that reason, <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2024/01/asmfc-approves-striped-bass-addendum-ii.html">fought
long and hard to include provisions in Addendum II that favored the charter
fishing sector over the recreational sector</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, such efforts failed to
win the support of the Management Board.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now, it appears that reality is
beginning to set in, and the Maryland charter and commercial fleets don’t want
anything to do with Addendum II at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.wmdt.com/2024/03/striped-bass-restrictions-from-asmfc-sees-local-push-back-as-mdnr-works-to-give-some-relief-for-watermen/?fbclid=IwAR0CjAbWY8e4mcjwWqpOj8O_76DKoq1dZcBe9iBYDqHOj4YxOnh_DA7DBg4">The
website of Maryland broadcaster WMDT announced yesterday that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Dorchester County joined Queen Annes, and
Talbot counties in calling for a reversal of a decision from the Atlantic States
Marine Fishing Council [sic] (ASMFC), that imposed a one fish limit, 7 percent
commercial reduction, and creel limit on striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“[Dorchester County Council President
Michael] Pfeiffer tells 47ABC he wants to see the regulation pushed back by
[the Maryland Department of Natural Resources] to allow for relief…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Delmarva Fisheries [Association]
President Captain Robert T Newberry says the department must appeal the
decision from ASMFC.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But, while the ASMFC does have a
process for appealing its species management boards’ decisions, there are
requirements for taking such an appeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One of those requirements is that all three of the state’s management
board members—the Administrative Appointee/state fisheries manager, Governor’s
Appointee, and Legislative Appointee—must agree on taking such appeal, and
right now, that does not seem to be the case in Maryland.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Michael Luisi, who was quoted in the article,
revealed that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In this case, there is a split within the
ranks of those people sitting at the table representing Maryland as to how to
move forward. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the [sic] appeal was not
something that we could move forward with.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it appears that Maryland
may still try to eke out extra fish for its charter boat fleet, permitting the
crew of the vessel, and not merely the fares, to retain a bass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Luisi observed,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“If there are six people on the boat, they
might be able to bring home eight fish instead of six fish, it’s not 12 but it’s
8.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, that still creates
issues if a charter makes more than one trip per day, because the operator would
then have to decide which trip will benefit from the extra striped bass
allotted to the captain and crew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For if
a regulation allowed the captain and crew to keep one fish <b><i>per
trip</i></b>, rather than <b><i>per day</i></b>, such rule would appear to conflict with
Addendum II’s 1-fish-per-person-per-day bag limit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Based on the comments that he
made for the WMDT article, while Luisi isn’t happy about how Addendum II turned
out, he seems resigned to complying with its terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there are others who want to see
that Addendum go away, and have taken steps to make that happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.bayjournal.com/news/fisheries/fishing-groups-challenge-striped-bass-catch-limits-in-court/article_7ed10256-e09f-11ee-a62c-cb85f7194a0f.html?fbclid=IwAR3qr3c7loJlg9GwCxTTjUn3ZLLUQBgDZJdMkNeK__7vcDhBvlFzD8LBhkY">On
Tuesday, the <i>Bay Journal</i> reported that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Two Maryland commercial fishing groups
have filed suit challenging new striped bass harvest limits imposed on charter
fishing business and watermen, arguing that they are ‘illegal, unnecessary, and
improperly premised.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In a complaint filed March 8 in the U.S.
District Court of [sic] Maryland, the Delmarva Fisheries Association and Maryland
Charter Boat Association and two of their members contend that the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission violated federal and state law and
constitutions in ordering harvest reductions.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The <i>Bay Journal</i> also
reported that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The lawsuit asserts that there is ‘no
scientific or rational basis’ for the new harvest reductions to be applied to
Bay fishers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The coastal stock of
striped bass is no longer experiencing overfishing, the groups note.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And while the total harvest and mortality of
fish increased 32% coastwide in 2022 over the previous year, the groups say it
has been steadily declining in the Bay since 2017…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The lawsuit contends that the commission
violated its own rules in adopting the charter catch limit by counting the
votes of two federal agencies, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, a bi-state body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The commission’s bylaws say that only states with an interest in the
fishery may recommend changes, the lawsuit says.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>One Angler’s Voyage</i> will
publish a more detailed analysis of the complaint in that action in an upcoming
edition, so at this point will only note that such complaint makes a number of
dubious factual and legal assertions, and observe that the claimed decline in
Bay charter boat landings, while real, is probably better attributed to <a href="https://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2023/10/12/chesapeake-bay-2023-young-of-year-striped-bass-survey-results-announced/">the
current, five-year-long period of striped bass recruitment failure in the
Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay</a>, rather than to any restraint on the
part of the charter boat fleet that might merit special consideration for the
for-hire sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In support of the lawsuit,
Delmarva Fisheries’ Newberry claimed,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Watermen, waterwomen and charter boat
operators already face a huge and growing number of obstacles in their
world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For them and for all Marylanders,
it will be a tragedy of epic proportions if this mandate stands.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Maryland Charter Boat Association
members have made similar arguments, with the <i>Bay Journal</i> noting that
one Severna Park captain claimed that bass<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“have ‘never been more plentiful’ than now
in his portion of the Bay,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">while <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Brian Nesspor, a Rock Hall fisherman who
joined in the lawsuit, said in a deposition that striped bass have been
abundant in the Bay the last three to five years,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">claims that seem inconsistent
with <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">the
declining trend in Maryland’s recreational striped bass landings</a>, and might
even be deemed incredible in light of the striped bass’ overfished status and recent
recruitment failure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For as Tina Berger, ASMFC’s
Communications Director, told WMDT,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Striped bass continue to be over-fished
despite a series of management changes to decrease fishery removals since
2020.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latest measures build upon the
2023 emergency action and aim to reduce fishing mortality and support stock
rebuilding by 2029.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The sooner that <b><i>everyone</i></b>—including
some of the self-centered folks down in Maryland—get behind the ASMFC’s efforts
to reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the stock to its target level, the
better things will be, both for the bass and for those who pursue them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-29476396020441077822024-03-10T15:10:00.000-04:002024-03-10T15:10:15.607-04:00STRIPED BASS: LESSONS FROM THE LAST STOCK COLLAPSE COULD HELP PREVENT THE NEXT ONE<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When
the Chesapeake Bay striped bass stock collapsed in the late 1970s, people tried
to figure out why.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Recreational fishermen were quick to point fingers at the
commercial sector, which was not yet burdened by significant regulation. There
were no gear restrictions and no annual quotas, and the fishery accounted for a
larger share of the catch than it does today. The line between commercial and
recreational fishermen was badly blurred, as few if any states required
commercial licenses, and successful anglers regularly sold fish that they
couldn’t use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Commercial fishermen, on the other hand, tended to blame a
declining bass population on Mother Nature and the so-called “cycle,” which saw
bass populations wax and wane on their own, regardless of human activity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">Both sides were sure they were right, and both were unwilling to
consider the other’s position. Now, a recent paper published in the American
Fisheries Society’s journal, </span><em style="font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #333333; padding: 0in;">Marine and Coastal Fisheries Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem
Science,</span></em><span style="color: #333333;"> suggests that both the recreational and commercial
fishermen owned a share of the truth, but neither had a full understanding of
what had occurred.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In <a href="https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10248" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">“Perspective comes with time: What do long-term egg and juvenile indices
say about Chesapeake Bay striped bass productivity?”</span></a> author
James H. Uphoff Jr. uses historical fisheries data to cast new light on the
most recent striped bass collapse. In particular, he analyzed the relationship
between the <a href="https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/pages/striped-bass/juvenile-index.aspx" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">Maryland striped bass juvenile abundance index</span></a> (JAI) and
data relating to both the spatial and temporal distribution of striped bass
eggs in the Chesapeake Bay, as determined by samples taken in plankton nets
towed in the vicinity of known spawning areas.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Uphoff used the relationship between the two data sets to create
what he termed an “index of relative larval survival.” If, over the years,
there was a fairly constant relationship between egg distribution and the JAI,
it would suggest that overfishing was the probable cause of last century’s
striped bass stock collapse. On the other hand, if the relationship between egg
distribution and the JAI showed significant changes over time (for example, if
eggs were widely distributed in the Bay in a given year, but the JAI for such
year was low), it would suggest that environmental conditions made a
significant contribution to the striped bass collapse.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To further bolster any evidence of environmental conditions
being a cause of stock collapse, Uphoff looked at two other species common in
the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, white perch and yellow perch, to
determine whether their patterns of changing juvenile abundance correlated to
that of the striped bass.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When all of the data was analyzed, Uphoff found that while the
striped bass JAI declined quickly throughout the 1970s, egg abundance didn’t
show a similar decline until 1979, and only declined enough to impact striped
bass recruitment between 1982 and 1988. Such pattern suggests that, since the
level of eggs found in the plankton net tows remained high throughout almost
all of the 1970s, the stock collapse could initially be attributed to
environmental conditions that were not conducive to larval survival. However,
by the early 1980s, chronic overfishing led to low egg production, and so
exacerbated the stock’s collapse and delayed its recovery.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The evidence of environmental conditions being the primary
driver of the last stock collapse was supported by similar movements in the
JAIs of white perch and yellow perch over the relevant period. Changes in the
JAI of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_perch" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">white perch</span></a>, a small, non-migratory species that belongs to
the same genus as the striped bass, were closely correlated to changes in the
striped bass JAI, while there was a significant, but more moderate, correlation
between the JAI of striped bass and that of the estuarine <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_perch" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">yellow perch</span></a>,
an unrelated species.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Throughout the striped bass stock’s recovery, an increase in
spawning stock biomass trailed a corresponding increase in egg production by
what appears, in a graph accompanying the paper, to be an interval of five or
six years; there was a similar correlation between a decline in egg production
in the early 1990s and a decline in spawning stock biomass that occurred a few
years later. However, beginning around the year 2000, the two values diverged,
with spawning stock biomass reaching its peak around 2003 and then beginning a
long decline about five years later, while egg production fluctuated, with no
clear direction, within a fairly narrow range.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such divergence again suggests that environmental conditions
played a dominant role in the latest decline in spawning stock biomass.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That information can be used to guide the management response to
that decline, which also seems to be driven by environmental conditions. While
fishery managers have no control over the environment, the history of the past
collapse, in which a muted management response led to years of overfishing and
so impaired the stock’s ability to rebuild, reinforces the need for
conservative management measures that set the stage for rebuilding once
environmental conditions improve.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">That point was reinforced by another recent paper, <a href="https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcf2.10274" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">“Climate effects on the timing of Maryland Striped Bass spawning runs,”</span></a> which
was written by Angela Giuliano and also appeared in </span><em style="font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #333333; padding: 0in;">Marine and Coastal Fisheries
Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science.</span></em><span style="color: #333333;"> In that paper,
the author investigated the relationship between warming waters in the spawning
areas and the timing and length of the striped bass spawn in portions of
Chesapeake Bay. She also examined the age of the fish participating in the
spawn and the time at which females from various age classes completed
spawning.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Chesapeake striped bass spawn generally gets underway when
water temperatures reach 14o Celsius (about 57o Fahrenheit) and ends when it
rises above 20o C (68o F) and significant larval mortality occurs. The timing
of the spawn differs somewhat in the various spawning areas. Giuliano found
that, while the timing of the spawn’s start has not significantly changed since
the 1980s, the end of the spawn in the Chesapeake Bay, defined by the date when
water temperatures exceed 20o C, is now occurring earlier, shortening the
spawning season. She noted that a similar, 4-day shortening of the spawning
season has been observed on the bass’ Hudson River spawning grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In what are probably Guliano’s most important observations about
striped bass management, she wrote,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If temperatures continue to warm
quicker in the latter portion of the spawning season, this could result in a
reduced time period during which temperature conditions are ideal for Striped
Bass survival…these temperature changes could affect the timing of larval
Striped Bass relative to their zooplankton prey, a concept known as
match-mismatch. Large year-classes for Striped Bass tend to occur after cold
and wet winters and [research] showed a potential mechanism for this, with the
rate that copepods reach the adult stage over the winter being dependent on
water temperatures…<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Previous literature and the present study
indicate that the larger females spawn earlier in the season than smaller
females and that this range of spawning dates is a result of natural selection
to assure that some larval fish will encounter favorable conditions for growth
and survival. With the shifting spawning window and potential changes in
zooplankton availability due to rising water temperatures, it has been
suggested that having a broad age range of spawning fish will make it more
likely that some eggs and larvae will experience these ideal conditions.
Although fisheries managers cannot directly control the water temperature that
larval fish will encounter, they can consider how <em style="font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><b><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">management actions may affect
the age range of fish available in the spawning stock in addition to the size
of the spawning stock. If these management goals are considered in tandem, the
Striped Bass stock may be better positioned to adapt to the conditions expected
under a changing climate.</span></b></em> [emphasis added, citations
omitted]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: -.5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Right now, faced with environmental conditions that are causing
an extended period of low recruitment, fishery managers are facing the same
situation that they faced in the late 1970s. To their credit, they have, in
recent years, taken actions intended to rebuild the overfished striped bass
stock, including the adoption of <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/64529753pr10AtlSripedBassEmergencyAction.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">emergency management measures</span></a> in May 2023. If managers
hew to their current course, overfishing won’t be allowed to hamper rebuilding,
as it did in the 1980s.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, the recent research suggests that merely maintaining
the size of the spawning stock might not be enough. We must also consider the
age structure of the spawning stock.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has already laid
the foundation for such a two-pronged approach. One of the <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63cb1c52AtlStripedBassAm7_May2022.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in; text-decoration-line: none;">stated objectives of its striped bass management plan</span></a> is
to “Manage fishing mortality to maintain an age structure that provides
adequate spawning potential to sustain long-term abundance of striped bass
populations.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now, managers need to adopt measures designed to meet that
objective, even if such measures are more restrictive than those needed to
merely maintain stock size.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">They already have the tools and the knowledge that they need to
do so. Hopefully, they also have the will to put such tools and knowledge to
use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">-----<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This essay
first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish
Conservation Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-19637227142193989392024-03-07T16:01:00.002-05:002024-03-07T16:01:22.389-05:00COURT DECISION EXAMINES ALLOCATION ISSUES<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/federal-appeals-court-orders-remand-of-red-grouper-allocations">Last
week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
handed down a decision in <i>A. P. Bell Fish Company, Inc. v. Raimondo</i>, after commercial and for-hire fishermen challenged a reallocation of Gulf of Mexico red grouper.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The legal action was brought
after <a href="https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/RF-AM-53-Red-Grouper_9_24_2021_Final.pdf">the
National Marine Fisheries Service approved <i>Amendment 53 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico</i> in 2022.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the key provisions of such amendment
changed the red grouper allocation from 76% commercial/24% recreational to
59.3% commercial/40.7% recreational, based on revised estimates on each sector’s
landings during the years 1986 through 2005, which years were used to determine
the prior sector allocations</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The plaintiffs argued
that, in making the reallocation, the National Marine Fisheries Service relied
on an economic analysis that it had rejected when the previous allocation was
made, and that the reallocation was inconsistent with <a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/msa-amended-2007.pdf">two
of the national standards for fisheries conservation and management contained
in the <i>Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act</i>, including National Standard 4, which requires, among other things, that
allocation measures</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“shall be…reasonably calculated to promote
conservation,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and National Standard 9, which
states that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Conservation and management measures
shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent
bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/gulf-of-mexico-charter-captains-wade-into-red-grouper-court-case">Relevant
to those national standards, one of the commercial plaintiffs commented that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Reallocation to the recreational sector
under Amendment 53 increases dead discards and commercial fishermen are forced
to fish under a reduced catch limit to cover those discards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So commercial fishermen are penalized twice: first
by the reallocation and second, by lower overall catch limits to offset
increased recreational discards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
essence, commercial fishermen now have a smaller piece of a smaller pie as a
result of Amendment 53.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14736156718439047544&q=%22red+grouper%22&hl=en&as_sdt=3,33">The
trial court that first addressed the challenge decided against the plaintiffs,
finding that Amendment 53 complied with all the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens,
and that the underlying decisions found adequate support in the administrative
record</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the Court of
Appeals, in a unanimous decision, disagreed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While it did not vacate the rule that implemented Amendment 53, it did remand
the matter to NMFS,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“so the Fisheries Service can address
whether the economic analysis underlying Final Amendment 53 was sufficiently
different from that discredited in adopting Final Amendment 28 in 2016 and the
implications of further analysis for National Standards 4 and 9.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the ultimate fate of Amendment
53, and the reallocation established therein, will hinge on how NMFS responds
to the remand, some of the most interesting language in the Court’s opinion
lies not in the finding that led to the remand, but rather in the language that
addresses challenges based on the National Standards.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With respect to National Standard
4, plaintiff argued that the reallocation itself, rather than the entirety of
Amendment 53, must be “reasonably calculated to promote conservation,” a
standard that a reallocation favoring the discard-prone recreational
sector was unlikely to meet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“it is not clear that Final Amendment 53
was an allocation for purposes of National Standard 4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Final Amendment 53 relies on the same
historical landings as Final Amendment 30B.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The only difference is that Final Amendment 53 uses more accurate survey
data to extrapolate the historical recreational catch and enforce the
recreational catch limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is unclear
such a methodological change effects a new allocation of fishing rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[citations omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2022/09/red-grouper-in-gulf-dont-look-back.html">In
other words, as I argued in a post that appeared in this blog shortly after the
lawsuit began,</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It’s easy to argue that the new
regulation didn’t really represent a reallocation, but merely a recalculation
that corrected an error made 14 years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After all, the base years used to calculate the allocation—the same base
years that were completely acceptable to the commercial sector back in 2009,
when it was granted 76% of all Gulf red grouper landings—did not change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All that NMFS did was change the percentage
of the landings allocated in each sector, to correct an error it made well over
a decade ago.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the end, the question of
whether Amendment 53 actually reallocated the red grouper resource, or merely
corrected a past error, might not matter, since the Court ultimately determined
that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“National Standard 4 applies to Final
Amendment 53 as a whole and not just to the quota allocation component…Final Amendment
53 might be sufficient to promote conservation by substantially reducing catch
limits and promoting wise use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This may
well depend on how the Fisheries Service addresses its reliance on the analysis
it rejected in Final Amendment 28.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[citations omitted].”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Court’s finding that National
Standard 4 applied to the Amendment as a whole, and not merely to that portion
which addressed the allocation, may well be relevant to future litigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the question of whether the supposed
reallocation was really an allocation subject to the language of National
Standard 4, or was merely a methodological change that did not rise to the
level of a reallocation, could cause some discomfort for the recreational
sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Amendment 53’s reallocation—if that’s
what it was—was based upon <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program">data
provided by the Marine Recreational Information Program</a>, which revealed
that anglers had been, and are, catching far more fish than managers had
previously thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The increase in
recreational landings estimates was largely due to <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/fishing-effort-survey-glance">MRIP’s
use of the Fishing Effort Survey to estimate the number of trips made by
recreational fishermen</a>, as such survey found that the number of trips taken by anglers was at
least 2 ½ times higher than estimated by <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26185/chapter/4">the older and
badly flawed Coastal Households Telephone Survey</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After the recreational landings for the years 1996-2005 were recalculated using the Fishing Effort Survey methodology, and managers learned that such landings had been badly underestimated before</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
initiated Amendment 53, in part to correct that problem.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But now, a new issue has
emerged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A<a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/08/15/nmfs-finds-errors-in-recreational-fishing-data/">
preliminary study, unveiled last year, now suggests that the Fishing Effort
Study is overestimating the number of recreational fishing trips, perhaps by as
much as 30 or 40 percent</a>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-fisheries-announces-large-scale-study-its-recreational-fishing-effort-survey">NMFS
has embarked on a large-scale study to determine whether, and to what
degree, the error in the Fishing Effort Study exists in all regions and in all
fisheries</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should that study find
that recreational effort in the Gulf red grouper fishery was overestimated, and
that recreational landings were thus overestimated as well, and should the
logic that drove the allocation provisions of Amendment 53 still prevail, the Gulf Council could revisit the allocation question in a new amendment, and once again adjust each sector’s shares
to match the newly available data.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, any such action would
whipsaw the “anglers’ rights” organizations that consistently support larger
allocations for the recreational sector.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For example, the Coastal Conservation Association, speaking out of one
side of its mouth, intervened in the red grouper litigation as a defendant
supporting the validity of Amendment 53 and its increased recreational
allocation based on Fishing Effort Survey data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><a href="https://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/give-power-to-the-states/">The
same CCA, speaking out of the other side of its mouth, aggressively rails
against</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“a federal management system…struggling to
function due to uncertainty in the federal recreational data,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and notes that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“errors in [NMFS’] recreational data
program…is causing the over-estimation of recreational harvest by up to 40
percent for some species…managers will be forced to use the flawed data for management
for several years as the system is analyzed.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, that organization already finds
itself in the unenviable position of supporting an allocation that, if its own
spokesman is to be believed, is based on flawed and uncertain data that may
have overestimated recreational red grouper landings by as much as 40%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the supposedly faulty data is now revised so that it no
longer overstates recreational landings, and the Gulf Council seeks to revise
the red grouper allocation accordingly, the CCA will have to choose between
accepting a smaller allocation based on revised and more accurate recreational landings
estimates, or fighting to maintain a Amendment 53 allocation that, by its own
admission, was based on “flawed data.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One doesn’t need the gift of prophesy
to accurately predict which option they’d select.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The court’s discussion of the bycatch
issue should also give recreational fishermen pause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It notes that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“in balancing the practical constraints
[of limiting bycatch] and the Act’s competing objectives, the Fisheries Service
had relied on the conclusion that [Amendment 53’s preferred] Alternative 3 ‘results
in the smallest reduction in net economic benefits to the Nation of all the
alternatives considered.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet that conclusion was based on
the same questionable economic analysis that caused the Court to remand Amendment
53 to NMFS, so<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“the Fisheries Service may need to revisit
whether further bycatch minimization is not practicable and provide additional
support.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That could further endanger
Amendment 53’s allocation provisions, for as the Court notes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The Fisheries Service admitted that it
did not consider measures to ‘directly reduce the bycatch of red grouper and
other species.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, it referenced
the potential future use of measures that had already proved insufficient, including
‘catch limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, season and
area closures, a minimum size limit, and a recreational bag limit,’ as well as
gear requirements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beyond that, the
Fisheries Service reasoned that bycatch will decrease because overall catch
limits are being reduced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this
approach suggests that virtually any allocation that reduces a catch limit will
satisfy National Standard 9, at least so long as the Fisheries Service
reasonably concludes that additional measures were not practicable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Fisheries Service appears not to have explained
how that is a reasonable application of National Standard 9.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[citations omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Given that recreational hook-and-line
fisheries, because of their size limits, bag limits, closed seasons and high
levels of effort, often produce more bycatch, in the form of regulatory
discards, than do related, quota-governed commercial fisheries, such language
could easily bode ill for future reallocations in favor of the recreational sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At this point, it’s difficult to
say which side will prevail in <i>A. P. Bell Fish Company, Inc. v. Raimondo.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>The opinion gives both appellants and
appellees reasons for hope, and reasons for concern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The important thing is that, so long as science-based catch limits
remain in place, the final allocation will not put the red grouper at risk.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, the Court’s decision
makes it clear that setting allocations is not as simple as looking at past
landings patterns and perpetuating them into an indefinite future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The National Standards still apply, and the
need to promote conservation and minimize bycatch, among other considerations,
can still influence how regional fishery management councils make allocation decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For, as I’ve noted many times before, allocations
provide an opportunity to provide a better future for America’s fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They don’t require managers to preserve the
mistakes of the past.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-37277933074013540172024-03-03T16:42:00.000-05:002024-03-03T16:42:09.697-05:00WILL MAINE LOBSTER BENEFIT FROM LESSONS LEARNED?<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://conservefish.org/2015/08/27/a-lesson-from-lobsters/">Nearly a
decade ago, I wrote a piece for the Marine Fish Conservation Network’s “From
the Waterfront” blog called “A Lesson from Lobsters.” It described how the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission’s American Lobster Management Board received very clear
scientific advice telling it that the Southern New England stock of lobster was
in significant trouble and how, instead of taking the only action that might
have helpt the stock rebuild, the Management Board hemmed and hawed, and did
everything within its power to avoid taking the needed action, thus causing the
stock to enter a steep and very probably permanent decline</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/species/american-lobster">Today, the ASMFC admits that
the Southern New England lobster stock is experiencing</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“record low abundance and recruitment…[and] remains
severely depleted with poor prospects of recovery.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Fortunately, at the time the last benchmark
stock assessment for lobster was released in 2020, the Gulf of Maine/Georges
Bank stock was not only doing well, but was at a record <b><i>high</i></b>
level of abundance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, in the ocean, nothing remains the
same, and the ASMFC now reports that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“since 2012, lobster settlement surveys throughout the
[Gulf of Maine] have generally been below the time series averages in all
areas. These surveys, which measure
trends in the abundance of juvenile lobsters, can be used to track populations and
potentially forecast future landings. Persistent low settlement could foreshadow
declines in recruitment and landings. In
the most recent years of the time series, declines in recruitment indices have
also been observed.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This time, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65aa95ecAmLobsterAddendumXXVII_revisedOct2023.pdf">the
Management Board didn’t sit on its hands, and instead adopted <i>Addendum XXVII
to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster</i>,
in order to increase protection of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank lobster stock
in May 2023. Addendum XXVII provides
that, if managers observe a 35% decline in the recruit abundance index for any
management area (compared to the three-year average index during the years 2016
through 2018), changes must be made to the gauge used to determine whether a
lobster is legal-sized and, in some areas to the size of the escape vents in
lobster traps</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When Addendum XXVII was adopted, no one realized
how soon the recruit abundance trigger was going to be tripped. Just <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65aa95ecAmLobsterAddendumXXVII_revisedOct2023.pdf">five
months later, the American Lobster Technical Committee informed the Management
Board that when 2022 data was added to the recruitment time series, the
recruitment abundance index for the Gulf of Maine region fell 39% below the
2016-2018 average, and that more restrictive management measures would thus be
required. The first of those measures,
increasing the minimum gauge size (which measures the lobsters’ carapace from
the back of the eye socket to the back of that shell) from 3 ¼ to 3 5/16
inches, would originally have been put in place no later than June 1, 2024</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, due to practical difficulties
associated with the unexpected announcement, including the need to manufacture
now size gauges and get them into the hands of lobstermen, <a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/news/waterfront/data-show-fewer-baby-lobsters-but-fishermen-say-eggers-abound/article_6fe8ae4e-d3f0-11ee-ae4e-1f9b5f48fd69.html">the
Management Board agreed to Maine’s request to defer the new size limit to
January 1, 2025</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even with that delay in implementation, Maine’s
lobstermen aren’t pleased with the new management measure. As is typically the case when fishermen
challenge new regulations, <a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/news/waterfront/data-show-fewer-baby-lobsters-but-fishermen-say-eggers-abound/article_6fe8ae4e-d3f0-11ee-ae4e-1f9b5f48fd69.html">they
expressed doubts about the science while expressing economic concerns</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The data used to determine the number of
juvenile lobster recruiting into the stock is developed through annual surveys,
using trawls and ventless lobster traps, conducted by Maine’s Department of
Marine Resources. Conducting the survey
in a similar manner each year allows Maine fishery managers to create an index
that can be used to gauge annual recruitment success. It was that index which suggests a recent,
significant decline in recruitment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/news/waterfront/data-show-fewer-baby-lobsters-but-fishermen-say-eggers-abound/article_6fe8ae4e-d3f0-11ee-ae4e-1f9b5f48fd69.html">Maine
lobster landings also suggest that there are fewer lobster around today than
there were a few years ago. Such
landings reached an all-time high of 132 million pounds in 2016, but have
declined since then, falling to just 98 million pounds in 2022. According to an article in <i>The Ellsworth
American</i>, a Maine newspaper, Patrick Kelliher, the Commissioner of the
Department of Marine Resources, predicted that when 2023 landings data is
finalized,</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We’re going to be quite a bit less than 100 million.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/news/waterfront/data-show-fewer-baby-lobsters-but-fishermen-say-eggers-abound/article_6fe8ae4e-d3f0-11ee-ae4e-1f9b5f48fd69.html">Predictably,
fishermen question the data, with <i>The Ellsworth American</i> reporting that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“some fishermen, like Jack Merrill of Cranberry Island, told
[fishery managers] that they are seeing a boom in lobsters ‘egging out’ or
females bearing eggs that will grow into adult, legal-sized lobsters to catch…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“’Right now, there’s so many eggers—there’s too many of
them, and it’s only going to get worse,’ Merrill said.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Exactly how one determines that there are “too
many” reproducing females, or why having even more such females makes things “worse,”
was never made particularly clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Merrill was also apparently concerned that
the minimum size increase would have a negative financial impact, in part because
small lobsters sell well, being less expensive than larger individuals, and
also because the increase in minimum size will not impact Canadian lobstermen,
who can continue to retain the smaller individuals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Merrill noted that, given market conditions,
Canada has no incentive to increase its minimum size. Another lobsterman, eyeing he Canadian fishery, reportedly
made the defiant statement that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I am not going to throw a lobster over that’s going to
go to Canada”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">to be caught and sold there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Commissioner Kelliher was adamant
about the need for management action, if Gulf of Maine lobster are to escape
the fate that overcame the Southern New England stock. He told lobstermen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“What we did see in southern New England was a complete failure
of management to act in time once the decline started. Management [in Maine] wanted to ensure that
did not happen in the most valuable fishery in the state.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As he patiently explained, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The whole idea is to avoid a crisis.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Commissioner Kelliher, it seems, did learn
the lesson taught by the Southern New England lobsters, and has taken it to
heart.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And that’s a good thing, for a failure to respond
quickly to a fishery’s problems only makes it more likely that they’ll get
worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/64/1/149/646621">That was borne
out in a 2006 paper published in the <i>ICES Journal of Marine Science</i>, titled
"Delay in fishery management:
diminished yield, longer rebuilding, and increased probability of stock
collapse,” in which the authors simulated how eight overfished fish stocks,
each with different characteristics, would be affected by varying lengths of
delay before implementing fishery management measures needed to end overfishing
and rebuild the stock.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The researchers concluded that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Delay can cause markedly more severe management measures
to be needed for rebuilding a stock…In our simulations, increasing delay in
management increased the number of years a stock was below its [Minimum Stock
Size Threshold]. Conversely, prompt
management decreased the likelihood that a rebuilding plan would become
necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Related to rebuilding plans is the recovery time
frame. As shown by our simulations, the
required time frame increases with delay in management. Consequently, delay may lead not only to more
severe regulations, it also lengthens their duration, in some cases by decades.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Our simulations indicate that delay in management can
lead to stock collapse…In fisheries, economic collapse may occur prior to stock
collapse…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All of those things were known nearly a
decade before the Management Board confronted—and ultimately did nothing
meaningful to prevent—the decline of the southern New England lobster.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Fortunately, it appears that in the case of
Maine lobster, managers are far more willing to confront their problems
head-on, and act to address them. For as
the researchers also note,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Another fact often overlooked—or perhaps considered an
acceptable risk—is that some stocks, after being fished to low levels, have
failed to recover, even under stringent management. Thus, it seems entirely possible that “rational”
delay can lead to the point of no return.
Although one cannot ignore the influence of favorable stochastic events
on population and fishery dynamics, it hardly seems prudent to bet on them.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-3629668039812566012024-02-29T14:23:00.001-05:002024-02-29T14:23:29.591-05:00STRIPED BASS: HOW DID THE 28- TO 31-INCH SLOT LIMIT REALLY AFFECT THE FOR-HIRE FLEET?<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65c54740AtlStripedBass_AddendumII_Am7_Jan2024.pdf">Addendum
II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass<span style="font-style: normal;"> has been finalized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Included among its provisions was a 28- to
31-inch slot size limit for anglers participating in the ocean recreational
fishery.</span></a></i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/64529753pr10AtlSripedBassEmergencyAction.pdf">That
slot limit did not originate with Addendum II; instead, the new addendum effectively
ratified the emergency action taken by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board last May, after
recreational landings spiked in 2022.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While most dedicated striped bass anglers appeared to be happy with the emergency action, <a href="https://www.change.org/p/striped-bass-fish-to-dish?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=cb236c70-0b11-11ee-ba85-a7a886a5ed05">it
received a hostile reaction from much of the for-hire fleet, which seemed to
believe that the narrow slot would cut deeply into their profits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The for-hires’ position was exemplified in a
petition drive initiated by the Montauk Boatmens’ and Captains’ Association, which
wrote</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Recently, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) took drastic, unreasonable, and unnecessary measures to pass
an emergency action that reduces the maximum size of an allowable striped bass
from 35” to 31”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many anglers will
recall the days when customers who paid a premium to fish on board a charter or
head boat had the privilege of going home with 2 striped bass per person, vs
the 1 per person limit for recreational anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regulations then changed, limiting the catch
to 1 fish per person for all anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three
years ago, in 2020, NYS introduced a slot size, further hurting the ability of
captains to catch striped bass for our customers and requiring not only a
minimum size of 28”, but also a maximum size of 35”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And then, earlier this year, the ASMFC
approved its preposterous emergency action, which was subsequently implemented
by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation on June 20, 2023, reducing
that maximum size to 31”, leaving us with a slot range of a mere 3”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The emergency action will have a direct adverse impact
on our for-hire fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our customers
expect to take fish home after paying a charter or party boat fare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With the rising prices of fuel, bait, tackle
and insurance, our captains have had no choice but to raise their rates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From our customers’ perspectives, the
increase in rates is ofttimes offset by the ability to put fish in their
coolers to bring home for their families.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Particular in light of rising costs for basic groceries, this trade-off
is essential.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If our customers are unable
to bring fish home, they will be less inclined to book a fishing trip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, in turn, also hurts our local
businesses, including hotels, restaurants and shops, all of which rely upon
Montauk’s visitors to thrive.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Taking away the breathless rhetoric, and
leaving aside the fact that, if putting groceries on the table is the ultimate
goal, it’s a lot cheaper, and a lot more certain, to buy fish rather than charter
a boat and attempt to catch them, the argument breaks down to a simple
proposition:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Customers won’t patronize for-hire boats if they aren’t reasonably sure of bringing home a striped
bass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is that proposition rooted in reality, or
is it merely one more argument made by folks uncomfortable with change,
no matter how necessary that change might be?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To examine that question objectively, I analyzed
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">Marine
Recreational Information Program data for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2021 provided a baseline, when the
28- to 35-inch slot was still in effect, most of the big 2015 year class had yet to
enter that slot, and fishing mortality was very slightly below the fishing
mortality target.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">2022
saw the 2015s enter the slot in large numbers, causing recreational landings to
spike and driving fishing mortality well above target without, so far as we
know right now, exceeding the threshold that defines overfishing</a>, and so created optimum conditions for for-hire customers who wanted to take a striped
bass home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The emergency measure which
created the 28- to 31-inch slot limit became effective on July 1, 2023,
although most states adopted it sooner, and so provides a gauge of how Addendum
II’s continuation of that slot should impact the for-hire fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I limited my inquiry to three categories of
data:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For-hire striped bass landings,
for-hire trips primarily targeting striped bass, and total for-hire trips in
each state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also limited the inquiry
to the New England states, New York, and New Jersey, since Maryland’s and
Virginia’s for-hire bass fishery does much of its fishing in the Chesapeake
Bay, and thus wasn’t be significantly impacted by the ocean slot limit, while
Delaware’s for-hire fishery for striped bass is too small to generate
meaningful data.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I was surprised by what the data revealed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Based on the comments that I heard at various
New York meetings, as well as the comments submitted with respect to Addendum
II, I expected the number of directed striped bass trips to decline sharply in
2023, but that wasn’t the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In four
of the seven states analyzed, the number of such directed trips taken in 2023 was <b><i>higher</i></b>
than the number taken in the 2021 base year, when regulations were less
restrictive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That was also the case when
2023 striped bass fishing effort was compared to effort in 2022, which provided
the most favorable conditions for the catch-and-keep fishery since <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e678c5StripedBassAddendumVI_Am6_RevisedMay2021.pdf">Addendum
VI to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management
Plan</a></i> was implemented in 2020 (although the New Jersey increase in 2023 was
so small as to be statistically indistinguishable from the directed effort in
2022; New Jersey’s 2023 effort might well have been significantly lower had New
Jersey not delayed implementation of the emergency measure until July 1, thus
allowing its for-hire fleet to take full advantage of the strong spring striped
bass run in Raritan Bay).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut all saw
directed striped bass trips in 2023 exceed the number of such trips made in
both 2021 and 2022, while Massachusetts’ 2023 directed striped bass trips were about
27% higher than the 2021 total, but about 23% lower than the number of such
trips made in 2022 (when considering such percentages, it’s necessary to
remember that there is always some uncertainty in the estimates, particularly
when made at both the state and sector level; thus, it’s reasonable to say that
the relative increase in Massachusetts’ 2023 effort compared to 2021, and the
decrease in effort when compared to 2022, were roughly equivalent).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There were other coastal states that saw
directed trips drop over the three years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Both New Jersey and Rhode Island saw 2023 directed for-hire striped bass
trips decline by about 20% when compared to 2021, while the number of New York’s
directed for-hire trips fell far more sharply, by about 55%, over those two
years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be easy to argue that,
in those states at least, the emergency regulations caused real harm to the
for-hire fleet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But, once again, the data does not support that
claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In all three states, a significant decline in directed for-hire striped bass trips occurred in<b><i> 2022</i></b>, the very year when
the big 2015 year class grew into the 28- to 35-inch slot caused recreational
landings to spike, and <b><i>should</i></b> have made catch-and-keep anglers eager to book
trips aboard for-hire boats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> T</span>hose striped bass bookings did not
occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, 2022 for-hire effort trailed that
of 2021 by 13% in Rhode Island, 20% in New Jersey, and 31% in New York, even though anglers’ chances of
catching a legal fish increased substantially.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If we add landings data to the number of
directed trips taken in the three states, we find that in Rhode Island, anglers
retained only 0.34 bass per for-hire trip—about one fish for every three
outings—in 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although retention more
than doubled, to 0.74 bass per trip, in 2022, the number of directed for-hire
trips taken went down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> In </span>New York, for-hire anglers retained about 0.43 bass per
trip in 2021 and 0.67 bass per trip one year later, yet the number of for-hire
trips taken in 2022 declined by a far greater percentage than it did in Rhode
Island.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Jersey’s data provides an even more
puzzling pattern, as landings per for-hire
trip dropped from 0.78 fish in 2021 to 0.68 fish in 2022, despite the greater
availability of the the 2015s, and the for-hire effort
decreased as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But even though the
emergency regulations restricted the number of legal fish available, 2023
landings per trip increased to 0.84, although the number of trips taken didn’t
change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At that point, it becomes pretty clear that something
other than an increase or decrease in the availability of legal striped bass is
driving for-hire bookings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Rhode Island, while directed for-hire
striped bass trips declined between 2021 and 2023, the number of overall
for-hire trips increased substantially—by 34%--over those years, suggesting that
the decline in the availability of legal striped bass did not lead to a
corresponding decline in for-hire revenues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In New Jersey and New York, the decline in
directed striped bass trips corresponded to a larger, overall decline in the
number of for-hire trips taken, regardless of the species targeted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In New Jersey, overall for-hire effort fell
by 40% between 2021 and 2023, even though striped bass only comprised between
13% and 17% of for-hire landings during that time—and made the greatest
contribution to overall landings in the same year that the emergency measure
was imposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In New York, overall for-hire effort fell by
32% between 2021 and 2022, the same year that directed striped bass landings
fell by a statistically indistinguishable 31%; between 2022 and 2023, directed for-hire
bass trips fell by 33%, while overall for-hire effort only fell by 3%. Thus, while
the emergency regulations <b><i>might</i></b> have discouraged for-hire anglers from pursuing
striped bass, as <b><i>may</i></b> also have been the case in Rhode Island, they probably did not lead
to a significant loss of for-hire revenues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In summary, MRIP data provides little or no evidence
suggesting that the 28- to 31-inch emergency striped bass slot limit led to substantial
reduction in overall for-hire revenues in 2023 (although there is no way to disprove that, had the emergency action not been taken, revenues might have been somewhat higher).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In three of the seven states examined, <b><i>more</i></b> directed striped bass trips
were taken in 2023 than were taken in either 2021 or 2022; in a fourth state,
Massachusetts, more directed for-hire trips were taken in 2023 than in 2021,
although fewer than in 2022.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The three states which saw directed for-hire
striped bass trips decrease from 2021 levels all shared a common pattern: The greater part of the decrease occurred in 2022,<b><i> before</i></b> the emergency
action was taken, and was thus entirely unrelated to the 28- to 31-inch slot
limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, in two of those states,
Rhode Island and New York, a further decrease in directed for-hire trips
occurred in 2023, which may or may not have been related to the emergency
measure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is notable that, in both Rhode
Island and New York, an increase in for-hire trips targeting other species led
to either an increase (RI) or statistically trivial decrease (NY) in the
overall number of for-hire trips taken in 2023, so that overall for-hire revenues
likely either increased or were largely unchanged. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That does not mean that some individual
for-hire operations were not impacted by the emergency action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any operation that had a client base primarily
interested in catching and keeping striped bass, which was either unable or
unwilling to expand into other fisheries or into the catch-and-release striped
bass fishery, probably suffered a significant revenue loss as a result of the
emergency measure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, for-hire
operators in states which suffered a decline in overall effort over the three-year
period, as was the case in New Jersey and New York, also likely experienced
revenue loss, although a decline in striped bass bookings, whether or not due
to the emergency action, was not the decisive cause.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That being said, 2023 data
presents a snapshot of a particular time with respect to the state of the
striped bass stock. 2023 patterns of landings and effort do not
necessarily predict the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While Addendum II perpetuates the emergency
action’s 28- to 31-inch slot limit, 2024 will see only a small portion of the
2015 year class fall within the bounds of the slot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, the primary cohort of fish falling
within the slot will be 2017s, with 2018s taking their place in 2025 (assuming
that, as was the case with the 2015 year class, the average 8-year-old bass is
31.5 inches long).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.asmfc.org/species/atlantic-striped-bass">Both of those year
classes recruited into the population in reasonably good numbers, although the
recruitment of neither year class, at age1, was close to the recruitment of the
2015 year class at the same age</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given
that <a href="https://www.asmfc.org/species/atlantic-striped-bass">the weak
2016 year class</a> was seven years old, the age when the average-sized fish
should have fallen within the slot, in 2023, it is very possible that 2024 and/or 2025 will
see a larger number of legal-sized bass available to anglers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If that proves to be the case, it will be
even harder to argue that Addendum II’s 28- to 31-inch slot limit causes any
harm at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-4320302683267195422024-02-25T16:58:00.003-05:002024-02-25T16:58:41.866-05:00BLACK SEA BASS: IS THE BLOOM FALLING FROM THE ROSE?<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/species/black-sea-bass">The
northern stock of black sea bass, which includes all such fish found north of
Cape Hatteras, was still overfished in 2007.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But from that point on, thanks to good fishery management and a boost from
Mother Nature, the stock experienced a startlingly fast recovery, with the
spawning stock biomass spiking at nearly 2.4 times the biomass target in 2014.</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"> </span><u><span style="color: #0563c1; mso-themecolor: hyperlink;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The sharp increase in black sea bass numbers was due, in
part, to a warming ocean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/5953f11d2016BlackSeaBassStockAssmt.pdf">Black
sea bass recruitment is largely dependent upon the conditions experienced by
Year 0 fish during their first winter which is spent near the edge of the
continental shelf, with warm, saline water increasing the survival of young
fish</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A warming coastal sea has also
shifted the abundance of older fish northward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65cbe54c2023_BSB_UNIT_RTWG_Report_V2_12_2_2023.pdf">The
population model used to assess the stock indicates that, prior to 2005,
spawning stock biomass in the northern region (New York and New England)
averaged around 1,300 metric tons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After that, it began to increase significantly, reaching nearly 16,300 metric
tons—more than a 12-fold increase—in 2016, before dropping back to an average
of 13,400 metric tons in the years since</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">Sea
bass landings spiked, too, particularly in New England, where they increased
from 350,000 fish in 2007 to 1,850,000 fish in 2010, eventually peaking around
2,550,000 million fish in 2021, even as size and bag limits grew ever more
restrictive</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fish became so abundant that, anywhere between New
Jersey and Massachusetts, it was hard not to run into them, regardless of what
an angler was fishing for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of
such abundance, anglers began making more and more trips targeting the
species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">using
numbers for just the New England fishery, 2007 saw anglers make about 56,000
trips that primarily targeted black sea bass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Directed black sea bass trips more than doubled, to 190,000, in 2010,
and rose to about 785,000 in 2021, when landings peaked</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5df0fed8c4c6bc16efcf6688/1576074970319/14_BSB_rec_Dec2019.pdf">Fishery
managers were both unable and unwilling to constrain recreational black sea
bass landings, even though such landings regularly exceeded both the
recreational harvest limit and the annual catch limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beginning in
2019, both the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management
Board chose to maintain status quo, or near status-quo, black sea bass
landings, even though the annual catch limit for the recreational sector had been chronically
exceeded, triggering the accountability measures incorporated into the fishery
management plan</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such attitudes have continued to the present day, <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/01/04/mid-atlantic-harvest-control-rule-one-year-later/">At
the December joint meeting of the Council and Management Board, fishery
managers chose to ignore a regulation that clearly called for a 10% reduction
in recreational black sea bass landings, justifying their actions by arguing
that such regulation didn’t contemplate the situation where a stock assessment
was delayed and managers were forced to make their decision based on
three-year-old stock status data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And,
as happened in the past, even though average recreational landings for the
previous three years exceeded the average annual catch limit, both Council and
Board failed to adopt any accountability measures, this time claiming that a 10%
landings reduction imposed the previous year, coupled with a new model for
setting recreational harvest limits, eliminated the need to hold anglers responsible for their past excesses</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps because of the increased fishing pressure, abetted by fishery managers’ failure to make even a half-hearted
effort to constrain recreational catch to or below the sector’s annual catch
limit, something interesting is happening in at least part of the sea bass’
northern range.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The average size of the fish caught by anglers seems to be shrinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ve always fished for black sea bass from time to time, but
given that the stock was overfished, and that sea bass were, for a very
long time, largely small and rarely abundant, I didn’t start putting in any
significant effort until <a href="https://asmfc.org/species/black-sea-bass">about
15 years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At that point, spawning stock biomass was still rebuilding, although it
had nearly achieved its target level</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Regulations, as I recall, included a 15-fish bag limit, a size limit of
13 inches or so, and a season that started sometime in the spring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though the season had been open for a
couple of months, I could still run out to a local wreck (located in about 85
feet of water off Fire Island, New York), and over the course of a couple of
hours, catch a limit of fish that included many large males weighing more than
three pounds; using two baited hooks, I'd regularly catch a few double-headers of sea bass big
enough that their combined weight broke the seven-pound mark.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite the quality of the fishing, I could often run out to
a wreck and be the first, and often the only, boat to fish it that day. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A few years later, because of increasing angling pressure,
the season had been shortened, to begin in July, while the bag limit was cut to
eight fish and the size limit increased by a little.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Still, </span>when I ran out at the start of the season, before the larger fish had been picked off
the wreck, I could still limit out, with the smallest fish around 16 inches and
the largest over four pounds, in less time than it took me to run to the wreck
from the inlet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But not long after that, things changed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The size limit had been increased again, and
the bag limit cut to just three fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> O</span>n the same wreck where I could once limit out with eight quality fish
in well under an hour, it now took me a couple of hours, even on the first day
of the season, to find three 16-inch fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Last year, even fishing with jigs, which typically catch larger fish
than does bait, I shuffled through nearly 40 black sea bass without finding a
single fish that broke the 16 ½-inch minimum size.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fishing club that I belong to is made up of nearly 100
members, with most being skilled and experienced anglers. Yet it only had two black sea bass entered into its annual contest last year,
and both weighed less than three pounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And shrinking black sea bass aren’t only found off Fire
Island.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I speak to anglers, and some
professional captains, who fish both off Montauk and off Long Island’s West
End, I hear the same stories of having to return large numbers of undersized
fish in order to find—if luck favors the fisherman—one, or two, or maybe three legal
fish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Shrinking fish size is usually a warning to fishery managers, a
sign that all is not well with the stock, with too many fish being removed from the
water too soon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the case of black sea bass,<a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/65c388be1bb4061354f985bc/1707313866913/06-BSB+Assessment+Overview.pdf">
a recent research-track stock assessment makes it clear that the fish is not
currently in any trouble at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although spawning
stock biomass has declined from its peak, when it stood at nearly 240% of the SSB
target, it remained robust in 2021, when it was still estimated to be at about
181% of its target level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recruitment of
new fish into the population also appears to be fairly strong</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If there is any cause for concern, it is that <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/65c388be1bb4061354f985bc/1707313866913/06-BSB+Assessment+Overview.pdf">mild
overfishing seems to have occurred in 2021, when the threshold fishing
mortality rate was exceeded by about 8%</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Assuming that spawning stock biomass has continued to decline since
2021, and recognizing that excessive recreational landings continue to drive
catch above the annual catch limit, the next management track assessment, which
will be released later this year, may well find that such overfishing continued,
at an accelerated rate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even if that is the case, there is no cause for panic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are still plenty of black sea bass
around, and should be for some years to come.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it may be time for both anglers and, particularly,
fishery managers, to stop taking black sea bass abundance for granted, and to
recognize that even very abundant species can experience overfishing, and that
such overfishing, if not addressed in time, can have a negative impact on both the fish and on the fishermen who pursue them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-11441829925932442822024-02-22T16:16:00.000-05:002024-02-22T16:16:02.846-05:00SHOULD MARYLAND'S (AND EVERYONE ELSE'S) FOR-HIRE FLEET GET THEIR OWN STRIPED BASS QUOTA<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the hot issues in
fisheries management over the past few years has been “sector separation” or “mode
splits,” the concept that the for-hire fleet should be governed by special
regulations that allow its customers to retain more fish or smaller fish than anglers
fishing from private boats or from shore, and perhaps also fish during seasons closed
to other members of the angling community,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Amendment%2040%20Sector%20Separation.pdf">Sometimes,
there has been good reason to put such special rules in place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The best example may have been the Gulf of Mexico
red snapper fishery, which saw private boat anglers kill so many snapper within
(or, at least, <i>supposedly</i> within) state waters that federally-permitted
for-hire boats were left with an impossibly short season—at one point, a season
that only lasted three days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that case,
creating different sets of rules for private and for-hire vessels merely
leveled a playing field that was thrown badly off-center by the excesses of the
private boat fleet.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But when the for-hire fleet in
the northeast and mid-Atlantic talk about sector separation and mode splits,
they’re not just seeking parity with shore-based anglers and those who fish from
private vessels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, they’re seeking
special privileges that elevate their anglers above the rest of the recreational
fishermen, and let them kill more fish than everyone else is allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That effort became very apparent
in <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">the
recently concluded debate over <i>Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>, which saw the for-hire fleet make
a concerted effort to expand their slot size limit in the ocean fishery to 28
to 33 inches, while private boat and shore-based anglers were constrained to a
28- to 31-inch slot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Chesapeake
Bay, Maryland for-hires were attempting to cling to their own special privileges,
a 2-fish bag limit that contrasted sharply with the 1-fish bag that applied to
the rest of the recreational fishery</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the end, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65c54740AtlStripedBass_AddendumII_Am7_Jan2024.pdf">the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management
Board decided that an angler was an angler, no matter what platform they
decided to fish from, and denied the for-hires the special rules that they
sought</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some of the for-hires are still
throwing tantrums about that decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.stardem.com/news/local_news/maryland-charter-boat-and-commercial-fishermen-air-grievances-about-rockfish-limits/article_0129e38a-cf70-11ee-a697-17fb9a25f9f6.html">Perhaps
the most spectacular of those occurred earlier this week in Talbot County, Maryland,
where the Delmarva Fisheries Association and the Maryland Charter Boat
Association co-hosted a meeting of commercial fishermen and for-hire operators,
giving them a chance to complain about the ASMFC forcing them to share some of
the burden of conserving the same striped bass resource that they profit from
throughout the season. </a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The for-hires would have much preferred to
leave that responsibility up to the private boat fleet and the folks who fish
from the shore.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, the organizers of the event
also invited some local politicians, lawyers, and representatives from a public
relations firm, trying to spread news of their grievances far and wide (although,
given that I have only seen one local publication, <i>The Star Democrat</i>,
pick up the story so far, the PR folks might not have been needed). <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2816664832596318803&q=new+york+v+atlantic+states+marine+fisheries+com%27n&hl=en&as_sdt=3,33" target="_blank">There was also talk of bringing a federal lawsuit against the ASMFC, but given the 2010 appellate court decision in <i>New York v. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission</i>, the ASMFC probably isn't too concerned about that.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Maryland charter boat operators
were united in the belief that the one-fish bag limit would not only harm their
businesses, but also limit the profits of other enterprises that are supported
by striped bass anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Capt. Brian
Hardman, president of the Maryland Charter Boat Association, seemed
particularly outraged over the pending regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the <i>Star Democrat</i>, he fumed
about the ASMFC’s ability to impose management measures on coastal states, and
whined,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I can’t believe that…other states can
dictate how a business is run in the state of Maryland, and how they can create
financial havoc on businesses in the state of Maryland.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such comment ignored
the history of the ASMFC and its empowering legislation, the<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/Striped_Bass_Act.pdf"> <i>Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act</i></a> and the <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/ACFCMA.pdf">Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act</a></i>, which gave the ASMFC the right to impose its preferred management measures on states after the last striped bass stock collapse precisely
because, when left on their own, some states were more interested in protecting
their businesses than they were in protecting and rebuilding the depleted striped
bass population.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Eventually, Hardman made what
might have been the most interesting comment of the night, saying<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Give us our own quota like the commercial
guys.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are a commercial entity; give
us our own quota and then leave us alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If we fish it out, that’s our problem.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The more that I think about that
comment, the more that I believe that Hardman is right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes sense for the for-hires to have
their own quota.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folks who have been reading this
blog for a while might be surprised that I wrote that, as I have long been
adamantly opposed to extending special privileges to for-hire anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-concerted-attack-on-catch-and-release.html" target="_blank">As I noted in a post a few weeks ago, doingso creates an elite group within the angling community, which is grantedprivileges not enjoyed by the common rabble who fish from their own boats orfrom shore</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that an angler is
an angler is an angler, regardless of the platform that they choose to fish
from.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, I thought that New York was wrong back
in 1995, when it awarded its for-hire fleet a two-fish striped bass bag
limit, while everyone else was restricted to one (for the record I, and most
other serious striped bass anglers in the state, wanted one fish at 36 inches
for everyone, not the two at 28 inches that the for-hires sought).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And I still think that it’s wrong
for the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to create a
special “bonus season” for scup that allows for-hire anglers to retain more
fish than other recreational fishermen, and also to create a special five-fish
bluefish bag limit for the same for-hire anglers, while restricting everyone
else to retaining just three, particularly because those anglers’ landings are
included in the same annual calculations as the landings of the less privileged
masses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But that’s not what Hardman was
talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was talking about
regulating an entire<b><i> industry</i></b>, and not just a few anglers that,
aside from the platform they fished from, were indistinguishable from the
whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And that’s probably a good idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The constant refrain of the
for-hire fleet is that it needs to kill more fish than anyone else, in order to
retain its clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So perhaps it’s time
to let them do so, within reasonable restraints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/msa-amended-2007.pdf">Perhaps
it’s time to carve for-hire anglers out of the recreational sector, and put
them in a sector of their own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not
a new idea; the <i>Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act </i>already
defines three different modes of fishing, providing that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The term ‘charter fishing’ means fishing
from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire…who is engaged in recreational
fishing;”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The term ‘commercial fishing’ means
fishing in which the fish harvested, either in whole or in part, are intended
to enter commerce or enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade;”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The term ‘recreational fishing’ means
fishing for sport or pleasure.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, even though
Magnuson-Stevens doesn’t govern the recreational striped bass fishery, which may
be legally pursued only within state waters, the law nonetheless sets out a practical
definition of the three sectors that could guide the creation of a separate
striped bass “charter fishing” sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Once the ASMFC established a separate charter fishing sector, it would be a simple thing to create a baseline charter fishing allocation,
both for the coast and for individual states, denoted in either fish or in
pounds, based on what the charter fishing sector caught under current
regulations and the current condition of the striped bass stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To be sure that they get the allocation
right, the ASMFC could base it on the for-hire boats’ vessel trip reports,
rather than the admittedly uncertain estimates created by the Marine
Recreational Information Program, as in both the Addendum II debate and in
debates addressing other fisheries issues, for-hire representatives repeatedly
assert that such VTRs represent the best data with respect to for-hire
landings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although some for-hire operators
might chafe at allocations based on landings governed by the current 28-
to 31-inch slot limit, such concerns are not justified
by the landings data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to MRIP
(unfortunately, VTR data isn’t readily available to the public), 2023 for-hire landings
were not driven to historically low levels as a result of the 28- to 31-inch slot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" target="_blank">2023’s estimated landings of 271,620striped bass caught from for-hire boats fell within the range of annual for-hire landings for theperiod 2015 through 2023</a> (such years were chosen because they’re subsequent to
the ASMFC’s adoption of <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/54d2aa96AtlStripedBassAddendumIV_Oct2014.pdf">Addendum
IV to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan,<span style="font-style: normal;"> which introduced a one-fish bag and 28-inch minimum
size for all coastal states—although conservation-equivalent measures were
still allowed)</span></a></i>, ranking 6<sup>th</sup> in the 9-year time series.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" target="_blank">2023 landings were greater than for-hire landingsin 2016, 2018, and 2020</a>, even though in such earlier years, either a 28-inch
minimum size or a 28- to 35-inch slot limit prevailed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" target="_blank">Four New England states, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, actually had higherlandings in 2023 than they had in 2021</a>, although Connecticut’s increase was
small enough to be statistically insignificant (2022 landings were higher in
most coastal states, but since <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/64529753pr10AtlSripedBassEmergencyAction.pdf" target="_blank">the purpose of the new, narrower slot wasto reduce landings from 2022 levels</a>, that fact is not relevant to this
discussion).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" target="_blank">New Jersey’s 2023 landingsdecreased by about 13.6% compared to 2021</a>, although it’s not clear how much of
that decrease was due to the elimination of the conservation-equivalent
regulations that prevailed in the earlier year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" target="_blank">Only two coastal states, Rhode Island and New York saw for-hire landingsdecrease significantly in 2023 compared to 2021</a>; such landings decreased by 31.7%
and 43.4%, respectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the rest of
the coast, the narrower slot had no significant impact on for-hire landings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, for most states,
establishing state quotas should be a relatively painless process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>States should then be required to issue tags
to their for-hire operators, as is already the case with the commercial
fishery, and require those tags to be attached before a bass is put in the fish
box, to best assure that the sector quota is not exceeded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The number of tags issued would change along
with striped bass abundance; if the Management Board adopted a new addendum in
response to an increase in the spawning stock biomass, the charter sector quota
would be increased as well, while if a decline in the stock brought required
more restrictive management, the number of tags would be cut.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most of the remaining regulation
could be left up to the states, although the Management Board might want to set
a coastwide size limit to assure that important year classes of fish are
protected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, with the tagging
requirement in place, it would be up to the states to decide whether to impose
a bag limit or season, knowing that once a for-hire boat used up all of its
tags, no matter how quickly or slowly it did so, it would be out of the fishery
for the rest of the season, unless the state also decided to make tags
transferrable, and allow for-hire operators to buy and sell tags as the need to
do so arose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, if a state exceeded
its charter fishing quota in any year, pound-for pound (or fish-for-fish)
paybacks would be imposed in the following season.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such a sector-specific approach
to management would allow for-hire operators to make market-based decisions as
to when, and how quickly, to utilize their available tags, in order to optimize
their income.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would also allow them
to adopt bag limits and seasons that might be different from those preferred by
private boat and shore-based anglers, without placing additional stresses on
the striped bass resource.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It is, I believe, an approach
worth exploring, which could pave the way for similar management of not only
striped bass, but other species where the for-hire fleet believes it might
benefit from management measures different from those which bind the larger part of the angling community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-5805963565231628072024-02-18T14:42:00.004-05:002024-02-18T14:42:44.315-05:00SHIFTING FISH STOCKS GAIN SENATE'S ATTENTION<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Over the last decade or two, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-species-are-shifting-toward-the-poles/" target="_blank">we’ve seen stocks of fish respond to a warming ocean by shifting toward thepoles</a>. It is a worldwide phenomenon that
is particularly noticeable to those living and fishing along the New England
and mid-Atlantic coasts, where important commercial and recreational species
are moving northward, shifting their centers of abundance away from traditional
fishing grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such movement has had a big
impact on fishermen, fish allocations, and other aspects of fisheries
management. Commercial fishermen in
southern states, which were granted the largest allocations based on where fish
were during the 1980s, are having to travel much farther to land their quotas,
while their counterparts to the north have fish right off their ports, but lack
the state quotas that would allow them to take advantage of such local
abundance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We've seen it in recreational
fisheries, too. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Black sea bass may be
the best example. The fish have become much more abundant in more northern
waters, where anglers fish under far more restrictive rules than their southern
neighbors, merely because some southern states had far larger historical
catches which are memorialized in current rules. Perhaps the worst example of
that is the dichotomy between New York and New Jersey where, despite the fact
that some of the states’ anglers may fish side-by-side on New York Bight
wrecks, <a href="https://dep.nj.gov/njfw/news-20230411-recreational-fishing-regulations-for-black-sea-bass-and-scup/">New
Jersey fishermen are allowed to retain 12 ½-inch fish and have a bag limit of
10 to 15 fish for most of the year (although the bag limit during July and
August is just a single fish)</a>, while <a href="https://dec.ny.gov/things-to-do/saltwater-fishing/recreational-fishing-regulations">New
York’s recreational fishermen must endure a 16 ½-inch minimum size and a bag
limit of either three or six fish, depending upon the time of year</a>, even if
they’re fishing on the same sub-stock of fish in the same waters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Viewed objectively, it doesn’t
make a lot of sense, but neither the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission nor the federal regional fishery management councils have developed
the political will to fully new allocation and management schemes that fully align
with current patterns of fish abundance (although <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/53079e87SF_BSB_AddendumXXV_Feb2014.pdf">the
ASMFC has come closer to doing so, particularly in the case of the recreational
summer flounder fishery</a>, than any of the regional management councils). That’s typically the case when politics,
rather than science, dictates management measures. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Political problems require
political solutions, and in the case of shifting stocks, it appears that <a href="https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-blumenthal-and-warren-introduce-new-legislation-to-support-commercial-fishermen_sustainable-fisheries-in-response-to-climate-change">three
United States senators, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Richard Blumenthal
(D-CT), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have introduced legislation that will
begin to address the issue. Titled the “<i>Supporting
Healthy Interstate Fisheries in Transition Act</i>,” (“<i>SHIFT Act</i>”), the
legislation is intended to</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“modernize outdated regulations governing
commercial fishing along the Atlantic Coast.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">because<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Restrictions on the species and number of
fish that can be caught in Atlantic waters haven’t been updated in decades,
even as fish locations have changed dramatically in response to warming ocean
temperatures and climate change. As a
result, commercial fishermen are forced to travel significant distances to
access these fish populations and are often forced to throw their landings back
into the ocean, resulting in high mortality rates.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The senators intend that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The <i>SHIFT Act</i> would require the
Secretary of Commerce and encourage the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission to account for the impact of climate change on the current distribution
of fish populations when deciding fishing quota allocations.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12524shiftactbilltext.pdf">The
language of the <i>SHIFT Act</i></a> is similar in effect, in not in precise
wording, to <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4690/text/ih#toc-H6036562776F3473D9BFD2C7B27491173">shifting
stocks language that appeared in Rep. Jared Huffman’s <i>Sustaining America’s
Fisheries for the Future Act of 2022</i></a>, to the extent that it requires a
regional fishery management council to request that the Secretary of Commerce
determine whether<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“a substantial portion of a fishery
extends beyond the geographical area of authority of any one Council,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">in which case the relevant
regional fishery management councils would have to decide either 1) which of
them would be responsible for the fishery management plan, or 2) decide to
draft a joint plan. If such councils
could not agree on an alternative within six months, the Secretary would then
make the necessary decisions. In the
case of joint fishery management plans,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“No jointly prepared plan or amendment…may
be submitted to the Secretary unless it is approved by a majority of the voting
members, present and voting, of each Council concerned.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such language may be the Achilles’
heel of the SHIFT Act. To understand
why, let’s take a look at how allocation shifts work in the real world, by
examining <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e3ee81BSB_AddendumXXXIII_Revised_Aug_2021.pdf">the
ASMFC’s<i> Addendum XXXIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan</i>, adopted in 2021, which addressed the reallocation
of commercial black sea bass quota</a> (the <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c02d567cf7af070239ae2f/1690316468173/BSB_com_state_allocation_EA_2023-07.pdf">Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council contemporaneously adopted its <i>Black Sea Bass
Commercial State Allocation Amendment</i>, which addresses the same
reallocation</a>, but for purposes of this essay, the ASMFC document is easier
to work with, as it is not weighted down with the pages of text needed to meet <a href="https://libguides.law.widener.edu/administrative-law-research#:~:text=The%20federal%20Administrative%20Procedure%20Act,to%20directly%20review%20agency%20decisions.">the
requirements of the federal Administrative Procedures Act</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Addendum XXXIII explains that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“State-by-state allocations of the
commercial black sea bass coastwide quota were originally in 2003 as part of
Amendment 13, loosely based on historical landings from 1980-2001. The state shares in <b><i>Amendment 13
allocated 67% of the coast-wide commercial quota among the states of New Jersey
through North Carolina</i></b> (north of Cape Hatteras) and 33% among the
states of New York through Maine. These
state commercial allocations had been unchanged since they were implemented in
2003.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Over the last decade, the distribution of
the black sea bass stock has changed, abundance and biomass have increased
significantly, and there have been corresponding changes in fishing effort and
behavior. According to the most recent
black sea bass stock assessment, which modeled fish north and south of Hudson
Canyon separately, the majority of the stock occurred in the southern region
prior to the mid-2000s. Since then, the
biomass in the northern region has grown considerably. Although the amount of biomass in the
southern region has not declined in recent years, <b><i>the northern region
currently accounts for the majority of spawning stock biomass</i></b>…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In some cases, expansion of the black sea
bass stock into areas with historically minimal fishing effort has created <b><i>significant
disparities between state allocations and current abundance and resource
availability</i></b>… [emphasis added,
references omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Addendum XXXIII also notes that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Connecticut and New York have experienced
<b><i>a substantial increase</i></b> in abundance of black sea bass in state
waters over the last seven years. [emphasis
added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, given that the understanding
that the majority of the black sea bass biomass was now in the waters
stretching from New York to Maine, and no longer in states between New Jersey
and North Carolina, how did Addendum XXXIII reallocate the commercial quota?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">First, it created a new baseline
allocation that increased New York’s percentage of the coastwide quota from seven to a
princely eight percent, while increasing the Connecticut quota from one percent
to three, in supposed recognition of the “substantial increase” in black sea
bass abundance in those states’ waters.
However, in doing so, Addendum XXXIII also <b><i>took away quota from
the other northern states</i></b>, slashing Maine and New Hampshire’s already tiny
quotas in half, and also taking fish away from Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When all was said and done, managers made only a trivial cut in the southern states' share of the baseline quota, reducing it from 67% to 65.2%, while increasing the northern state's share from 33% to a mere 34.8%--even though more than 50% <b><i>of the fish </i></b>are now found between New York and Maine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the end, the northern states
did a little better than that, because in the full allocation scheme, each year,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“75% of the coastwide quota will
be distributed to states using the baseline allocations…The remaining 25% of
the coastwide quota will first be allocated regionally based on the most recent
regional biomass proportions from the stock assessment. Then, regional quotas will be distributed to
the states within each region in proportion to their baseline allocations, with
the exception of Maine and New Hampshire.
Maine and New Hampshire will each receive 1% of the northern region
quota.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So managers will now have to
distribute some additional black sea bass to states where the fish swim today,
but 75% of future allocations will still be based on what was caught in the
days when most of the sea bass still swam south of New Jersey, and not where
they are swimming right now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One interesting thing is that in
the new allocation, New Jersey is considered a single-state “region,” neither
north nor south, supposedly because of <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“it’s geographic position straddling the
border between the northern and southern spatial sub-units (approximately
Hudson Canyon as defined in the stock assessment…)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and thus gets to both keep its
current baseline allocation of 19.42% of the coastwide quota, and also benefit from the movement of fish into the northern region. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Somehow, the states where the
bulk of the fish used to be always seem to come out ahead, while the states
where the fish are today…don’t.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That might not change under the <i>SHIFT Act</i>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If we imagine the black sea
bass reallocation occurring under a <i>SHIFT Act</i> regime, we might see the New
England Fishery Management Council petition the Secretary, claiming that “a
substantial portion” of the black sea bass fishery now exists in the waters
between Connecticut and Maine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The result of that petition would
be one of two things: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A single regional
fishery management council—almost certainly the Mid-Atlantic, which manages
black sea bass today, given the size of the fisheries off New York and New
Jersey, as well as off the other mid-Atlantic states—might be given sole
responsibility for the black sea bass management plan and any amendments, in
which case the resulting amendment would look little or no different from Addendum
XXXIII.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or, the plan and amendments would
be jointly managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic fishery management
councils, in which case the New England Council would probably try to shift
more of the quota to the northern states.
But because a majority of each council would have to approve the
resulting management plan, and because the Mid-Atlantic Council would be highly
unlikely to shift any significant quantity of sea bass to the New England
states, the resulting amendment would still end up looking more-or-less line Addendum
XXXIII.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is some language in the SHIFT
Act that might arguably avoid such outcome, as a provision requires that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“when establishing or revising quota
allocations between any State, Federal, or other management unit in…a plan or
amendment, the Secretary [of Commerce] shall account for, using the best
scientific information available, any climate change impact on coastal fishery resources,
including any change or shifting trend in fish abundance and distribution; and
any potential ecological impact, including food web and habitat impacts,
arising from such revised quota allocations.
[formatting omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whether the phrase “shall account
for” will be interpreted as a <b><i>requirement</i></b> that quotas follow fish abundance, or merely directs that the effects of stock shifts <b><i>be considered</i></b> as one of any number of factors impacting the allocation process, is
something for the Secretary, and undoubtedly the courts, to decide should the <i>SHIFT
Act</i> become law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, the chances of that
happening in the current, election-year Congress is not very good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s unfortunate, because the
SHIFT Act, while imperfect, represents a good first step toward tackling the
intransigent problem of shifting stocks, a problem that will never be adequately addressed
unless Congress intervenes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-91444495538999427522024-02-15T21:14:00.001-05:002024-02-15T21:14:04.486-05:00ODD DAYS IN THE OLD DOMINION<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I don’t pretend to know how some
legislators make their decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Certainly, they try to satisfy their
donors and supporters, along with the constituents who put them and keep them
in office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Party politics can dictate
votes, as can personal relationships in and out of the legislature, as well as
overarching political beliefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
I need to believe that at least some lawmakers are where they are because they
want to do the right thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even so, some legislative
decisions, particularly when viewed in context with lawmakers’ other actions,
seem bizarre enough to leave me shaking my head.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Two recent committee actions down
in Virginia illustrate just what I mean.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It probably shouldn’t surprise
anyone that both of those actions involved not only menhaden, but the industrial-scale
menhaden reduction fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Menhaden, and
menhaden management, has been a long-debated subject in and around the
Chesapeake Bay. Even with <a href="https://asmfc.org/species/atlantic-menhaden">the coastal population above
its biomass target</a>, further <a href="https://www.bayjournal.com/news/fisheries/anglers-environmentalists-push-for-partial-moratorium-on-chesapeake-menhaden-catch/article_a0481600-9e77-11ee-b0a6-3bb9cbba7ff5.html">restricting
the commercial menhaden fishery remains a goal of some members of the
recreational fishing and environmental communities</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When you add <a href="https://omegaprotein.com/">Omega Protein, the company that just about
everyone outside of the commercial fishery loves to hate</a> because of its<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/f?p=215:200::::::"> large (nearly 300
million pounds per year) menhaden landings</a>, to the mix, it’s pretty likely
that something interesting is going to happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One can argue that menhaden deserve
people’s interest, because they are an important forage species, with everything
from juvenile “snapper” bluefish to humpback whales feeding on them at some stage
in the menhaden’s lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And while the
menhaden stock is abundant on a local basis, a lot of folks worry that
concentrated menhaden harvest in a given location could lead to localized
depletion, and resultant harm to menhaden-dependent predators in such
particular region.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is particular concern about
such localized depletion in the Chesapeake Bay, where <a href="https://www.chesapeakebaymagazine.com/va-osprey-nesting-struggle-linked-to-menhaden-fishing/">osprey
nesting success has supposedly declined because of a decline in menhaden abundance</a>,
and <a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2023/05/23/the-battle-for-menhaden-corporate-greed-threatens-the-chesapeake-bay/">some
anglers are blaming the reduction fishery for taking so many menhaden out of
the Bay that the striped bass stock has suffered</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To address such concerns, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/5a4c02e1AtlanticMenhadenAmendment3_Nov2017.pdf">the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management
Board has capped the reduction fleet’s menhaden harvest within the Chesapeake
Bay to 51,000 metric tons</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://omegaprotein.com/omega-protein-statement-on-asmfc-non-compliance-referral/">Naturally,
the reduction fishery, in the form of Omega Protein, denies such allegations, and
has argued that the 51,000 metric ton cap is completely unnecessary</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2023/10/25/study-on-menhaden-in-chesapeake-bay-would-cost-2-6-million/">The
Virginia state legislature, in an effort to resolve that issue and expand its
knowledge of the menhaden and its impacts on the state’s waters, considered funding
a three-year study that would hopefully answer the questions now being debated</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2024/02/in-pursuit-of-ignorance-virginia.html">The
study seemed to have near-universal support, with even Omega Protein buying
in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, as I noted in this blog about
ten days ago, a legislative committee decided that such study should not be initiated
this year, and pushed off any further consideration until 2025.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The committee never deigned to disclose the
reason for its actions, although some of the study’s supporters have publicly
surmised that the legislators were swayed by Omega lobbying against the
proposed research, allegations that Omega Protein has strongly denied.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The decision not to fund the
study this year caught many people by surprise, given public concerns about the
localized depletion issue and the widespread support that such study seemed to
have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, however surprising that
decision was, it probably didn’t qualify as truly odd.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/mid-atlantic/virginia-advances-legislation-against-harassing-fishermen">The
odd stuff surfaced a few days later, and culminated when a different
legislative committee unanimously approved a bill that would increase the penalties
imposed on anyone found guilty of harassing a commercial fishing activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That legislation arose out of an incident in
which someone riding a jet ski, who apparently didn’t approve of the menhaden
reduction fishery, harassed a purse seine crew last September.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I don’t side with the guy on the
jet ski.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnyUtghCU8E">A spotter plane pilot caught
him on camera, and there’s just no excuse for his actions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The resultant video clearly shows the jet ski
speeding in from open water toward two boats setting a purse seine, passing
dangerously close to one of the net boats before cutting in front of it and
into the closing circle of the net, before racing out, again dangerously
close to the boats, as the two ends of the seine came together</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The jet skier clearly engaged in reckless
behavior that could have easily injured, and perhaps killed, one or more of the
fishermen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Still, it’s hard to understand
why legislators would be so willing to support a bill increasing penalties for
harassing commercial fishermen, just because one jackass on a jet ski got out
of hand, while other legislators would vote to kill the bill for a
comprehensive menhaden study that was supported by just about every relevant
group in the state.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That just seems a bit odd, and also seems to demonstrate a bias toward the menhaden fleet, without a similar bias
toward protecting the health of the menhaden resource that is critical to the well-being of a host of predators, including the reduction fleet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To be clear, commercial fishermen
should not be harassed, and the existing law against their harassment is
completely appropriate, although it’s interesting to note that while <a href="https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title29.1/chapter5/section29.1-521.1/">Virginia
also criminalizes harassing hunters and trappers</a>, <a href="https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title29.1/chapter5/article5/">as
well as harassing anglers on the state’s <b><i>inland</i></b> waters</a>, it does not extend
such protections to its salt water recreational fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thus, although the proposed Virginia legislation would protect menhaden
fishermen from being harassed by anglers, no state law would protect <a href="https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/book/article/1002/&path_info=Frye_MenAllSinging.pdf">anglers
from being crowded, set around, or otherwise harassed by a purse seine crew, something
that has reportedly occurred</a> in the past.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That, too, is a little odd.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But then, it’s also a little
strange that some anglers feel entitled to harass menhaden fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The jerk on the jet ski seemed to feel that he had
the right to speed around purse seine boats, <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virginia-legislature-subcommittee-acts-favorably-001500683.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANcZtzQCSAVTHOezpXcTdl2GHc4i4RMwfPcEYmzSvA6bC82N8_Rk0hJ_WSFo5RRzf016-2wdyYy12rBu_OoiXzEFQNLGOJ_yH-WOUQIWIaHogOAwNGTV5vFrf_lW2_Wr62rMZ4b7EHufjDpecxr7woNwaCR5JNXNgtiGjzU6h3WA">while
allegedly yelling obscenities at and splashing water on the fishermen within</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virginia-legislature-subcommittee-acts-favorably-001500683.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANcZtzQCSAVTHOezpXcTdl2GHc4i4RMwfPcEYmzSvA6bC82N8_Rk0hJ_WSFo5RRzf016-2wdyYy12rBu_OoiXzEFQNLGOJ_yH-WOUQIWIaHogOAwNGTV5vFrf_lW2_Wr62rMZ4b7EHufjDpecxr7woNwaCR5JNXNgtiGjzU6h3WA">
if the Menhaden Coalition, a group including Omega Protein and other large
menhaden harvesters, is to be believed, such attitudes are fairly widespread.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Supposedly, the jet ski incident was only one
of three similar incidents last year, in which people aboard recreational
vessels harassed commercial menhaden fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Coalition claims that such harassers</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“are being instigated and fueled by the
participants in various sport fishing organizations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These groups monitor and report where
commercial boats are operating and where they are anchoring each evening, which
appears to have encouraged their membership to harass and disrupt fishing
operations.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Are they overstating the alleged connection?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Maybe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then again, maybe not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What is undoubtedly true is that
by taking such actions, those harassing the menhaden fishermen are handing the
reduction fleet the opportunity to cast themselves as innocent victims, and
gain the public’s sympathies as a bunch of blue-collar folks just trying to
make ends meet, who are being unjustly obstructed by a coterie of well-heeled,
boat-owning, abusive recreational fishermen. Such propaganda does neither the
menhaden nor the conservation community any good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps the final, and most
disturbing oddity, is that the responsible members of the recreational
community don’t publicly condemn such harassment, and make it clear that while
they may not approve of purse seining within the Chesapeake Bay, they also
disapprove of irresponsible anglers who operate outside the law. That they don't insist that the only way to solve existing menhaden conflicts is with deliberate and sober reason,
based on demonstrable facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Which brings us full circle, to
the need for more research, and the odd fact that legislators voted Virginia’s
study down.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-26188886685046004052024-02-11T15:44:00.000-05:002024-02-11T15:44:07.477-05:00THE STRIPED BASS AND THE FLOUNDER<p> </p><p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In
1984, New York’s <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">recreational fishermen took
home</span></a> about 14.5 million winter flounder, a harvest that totaled
about 13.9 million pounds and dwarfed the 1.35 million pounds of flounder that
was <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/f?p=215:200::::::" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">landed by the state’s
commercial fishermen</span></a> in the same year. Winter flounder made up
over one-third of the <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">nearly 40 million fish</span></a> landed
by New York anglers that season.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although New York’s 1984 flounder recreational landings were the <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">highest ever recorded</span></a>,
they weren’t particularly unusual. The state’s anglers harvested 12.4 million
winter flounder in 1981, and 11.9 million in 1985. At the time, the
recreational flounder fishery was completely unregulated; anglers could take as
many flounder as they wanted, of any size that they wanted, on every day of the
year.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fish was a key component of New York’s recreational fishery.
In 1984, New York’s saltwater anglers took about <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">9 million fishing trips</span></a>;
roughly 2.5 million of those trips—28 percent—primarily targeted winter
flounder.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The unrelenting fishing pressure, <a href="https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/sgcnwinterflounder.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">combined with changing
environmental conditions</span></a> within New York’s bays, proved
unsustainable. The winter flounder population entered into a decline that
fishery managers lacked the ability, and perhaps the political will, to
reverse. The decline became a collapse so deep that, by 2022, New York’s
recreational flounder landings fell to <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">a supposed 120 fish</span></a>,
although <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program#methods" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">shoreside catch surveys</span></a> contacted
too few anglers who had caught flounder to calculate a statistically meaningful
estimate.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Overfishing was an initial cause of the collapse. <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3881" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">The last benchmark stock assessment</span></a>, released in 2011,
reported that “fishing mortality…varied between 0.61 (1982) and 0.95 (1993) and
then decreased to 0.47 by 1999. Fishing mortality then increased to 0.70 in
2001, and has since decreased to 0.51 in 2010, generally tracking the decrease
in fishery catch.” Since a fishing mortality rate greater than 0.29 constituted
overfishing, the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNEMA) stock of winter
flounder experienced overfishing throughout that time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3881" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">same stock assessment</span></a> estimated the spawning stock
biomass of the SNEMA stock to be just 7,076 metric tons (MT), well below both
the biomass target of 43,661 MT and the biomass threshold of 21,831 MT, meaning
that the stock was badly overfished. Updates to the benchmark assessment
determined that spawning stock biomass continued to decline, first to <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/5293" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">6,151 MT in 2014</span></a>, then to <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16091" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">4,360 MT in 2016</span></a>, and finally to <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/39404" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">3,638 MT in 2019</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">3,638 MT equals a little over 8 million pounds. To put that
figure in context, New York’s recreational fishermen caught and took home about
75 percent </span><em style="font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><b><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #333333; padding: 0in;">more</span></b></em><span style="color: #333333;"> SNEMA stock flounder in 1984 than
were swimming in the entire ocean 35 years later.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/56ba1113winterFlounderBoardProceedings_Feb2014.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">In October 2014</span></a>,
despite the continuing decline of the SNEMA stock, the Winter Flounder
Management Board decided to quintuple the length of the recreational fishing
season.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Once the SNEMA stock began to decline, fisheries managers found
themselves caught between a recreational fishing industry that chafed at any
form of regulation and a changing marine environment that put new stress on the
stock.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3881" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">The 2011 benchmark assessment</span></a> advised,
“Recruitment at age 1 decreased nearly continuously from 71.6 million age-1
fish in 1981 (1980 year class) to 7.5 million fish in 2002 (2001 year class).
Recruitment has averaged 10.5 million during 2003-2010.” Such declining
recruitment has led biologists to <a href="https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3881" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">repeatedly reduce</span></a> the spawning stock biomass
target. <a href="https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/638e651b2022_FLW_SNEMA_RPT.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">In 2022, a stock assessment
update</span></a> slashed the biomass target from 12,322 to just 3,314 MT.
Although the SNEMA stock, at 3,353 MT, was less than half the size that it had
been 11 years earlier, when it was deemed overfished, the change to the biomass
target shifted the stock’s status to not overfished and above the target level;
rebuilding efforts were terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The decline in recruitment began to be felt in the mid-1980s,
but when New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation tried to respond,
proposing the first restrictions on recreational landings, it met with strong
resistance from the recreational fishing industry, and particularly from the
party boat fleet, which insisted that, in order to get customers to board their
boats, regulations must be lax enough to give such customers the “perception”
that they could still have a “big day” and bring a lot of flounder home, even
though declining abundance significantly reduced the likelihood of such a big
day ever occurring.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When regulations were finally issued in 1988, industry
opposition assured that they were not strong enough to halt the flounder’s
decline.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That pattern has continued to the present day.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At the <a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/a/1045/files/2015/06/MRAC-BulletinArchive1999-2011-20qx7fc.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">September 2009 meeting</span></a> of
New York’s Marine Resources Advisory Council (MRAC), in response to a stock
assessment that found the SNEMA stock biomass to be only 9 percent of its
biomass target, an MRAC member proposed shutting down the recreational and
commercial fisheries to best conserve the stock. The proposal was met with a
wave of industry opposition.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The MRAC bulletin reported one party boat captain opining that
“describing winter flounder as a collapsed stock may be inaccurate,” because
“when he speaks to fishermen, he hears that winter flounder are perhaps not
plentiful, but are definitely accessible.” An audience member, who introduced
himself as “Managing Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance and
President of the New York Sportfishing Federation,” argued that instead of
restricting fishermen, fishery managers should investigate the effects of
predation, while a representative of the fishing tackle industry “not[ed] that
the recreational fishing community is in trouble and they need to have the
opportunity to fish,” and that “They need to keep the [tackle] shops open.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fact that the flounder was in trouble did not seem to raise
many concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nearly five years later, at the <a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/a/1045/files/2015/06/MRACBulletin2014-03-18-23431p6.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">March 2014 MRAC meeting</span></a>,
members discussed liberalizing New York’s winter flounder regulations, despite
the poor health of the stock. As was true in 2009, members of both MRAC and the
audience discounted the role of fishing in the flounder’s demise, blaming water
quality, cormorants, and other predators for the decline in abundance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A decade after that, at MRAC’s January 2024 meeting, the
industry efforts to kill more flounder have still not abated, as two party boat
captains, one from the North Shore of Long Island, and one from Montauk, rose
to ask regulators to relax regulations on the collapsed SNEMA stock.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But now, most of the attention of anglers, regulators, and the
industry has switched to striped bass, which are probably the single most
important recreational species in the New England and mid-Atlantic regions.
That’s certainly true in New York, where, of the nearly 16.5 million fishing
trips taken by the state’s anglers in 2022, about 5.8 million—35.5
percent—primarily targeted the species, giving it an even more dominant role in
the fishery than winter flounder held four decades ago.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But like SNEMA winter flounder, the striped bass stock is not
doing well.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the bass are still in far better condition than the winter
flounder, the <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">striped bass population remains
overfished</span></a>, with spawning stock biomass falling from approximately
113,000 MT in 2003 to 55,100 MT in 2018, although it has risen somewhat since
then.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Like winter flounder, striped bass are now experiencing low
recruitment. The Chesapeake Bay produces <a href="https://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2023/11/29/maryland-department-of-natural-resources-presents-emergency-regulations-to-increase-protections-for-marylands-striped-bass-spawning-population/#:~:text=The%20emergency%20regulation%20is%20aimed,(ASMFC)%20in%20early%202024." style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">between 70 and 90 percent</span></a> of
the striped bass that migrate along the Atlantic coast. In the Maryland portion
of the Bay, the striped bass <a href="https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/pages/striped-bass/juvenile-index.aspx" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">juvenile abundance index</span></a> (JAI)
for the past five years recorded the lowest average juvenile abundance for any
five-year period in the 67-year history of the state’s juvenile abundance
survey. In Virginia, <a href="https://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/2023/sbss_2023.php" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">over the past three years</span></a>,
the JAI has been <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">below the 25th percentile</span></a> of
the entire time series recorded there, and thus meets the definition of
“recruitment failure;” if <a href="https://www.thefisherman.com/2023-hudson-river-yoy-striper-numbers-plummet/?fbclid=IwAR3qpiAfp0Idugvo20gsK5PTV3R_aMcxlTtQDtciYSrO2cq7ncH4TbPAGGg#close-modal" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">2023 preliminary data</span></a> for
the Delaware River proves accurate, the same situation will exist there. Only
the Hudson River is showing somewhat higher levels of juvenile abundance, and
even there, the <a href="https://www.thefisherman.com/2023-hudson-river-yoy-striper-numbers-plummet/?fbclid=IwAR3qpiAfp0Idugvo20gsK5PTV3R_aMcxlTtQDtciYSrO2cq7ncH4TbPAGGg#close-modal" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">2023 numbers are the worst</span></a> since
1985.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, as was the case with winter flounder, managers have been
slow to respond to the problem, <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/02/09/the-striped-bass-and-the-flounder/" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">ignoring biologists’ early
predictions</span></a> that the stock was heading for trouble and, <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/02/09/the-striped-bass-and-the-flounder/" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">for far too long, failing</span></a> to
adopt a rebuilding plan, even though the <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/02/09/the-striped-bass-and-the-flounder/" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">ASMFC’s striped bass management
plan</span></a> required them to do so. Now that the ASMFC is finally <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/02/09/the-striped-bass-and-the-flounder/" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">trying to rebuild</span></a> the
overfished stock, some members of the recreational fishing industry are trying
to deny that a problem exists.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At a December 5th hearing, held to obtain stakeholder comments
on the ASMFC’s latest management proposals, one Long Island charter boat
captain announced, “Our observation is that striped bass are as healthy and
strong as they have ever been,” and argued that biologists only believe the
striped bass stock is overfished because “something has changed,” and most of
the bass are now found in new places, where scientists aren’t looking for them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A Long Island Sound party boat captain built on that message,
claiming that the Hudson River, along with some Connecticut rivers, “produce
tons of bass,” are “where the bass are from,” and that not including bass
spawned in Connecticut’s Housatonic River “is like not including the Dallas
Cowboys when you’re looking at cheerleaders.” He apparently didn’t realize that
dams on the Housatonic River block all access to whatever spawning habitat the
river might otherwise provide.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead trying to avert the harm that a striped bass stock
collapse would do to their business, the captains railed against needed
regulations, with one whining that “We’re being persecuted…You’re already
crucifying us,” while another imagining “a very targeted war against the
for-hire industry” that was allegedly being waged by surfcasters and
private-boat fishermen.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/02/09/the-striped-bass-and-the-flounder/" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">written comments sent to the
ASMFC</span></a>, a charter boat captain from the South Shore of Long Island,
displaying a remarkable sense of entitlement, complained that “As a charter
captain I pay a State fee of $250 for my charter business. I pay for commercial
insurance. I have to maintain my captain’s license and renew it every 5 years.
I am subject to random drug testing. For all of these righteous requirements I
get no preferential treatment to help maintain my business and no consideration
of what I do for the tourist industry in my region.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Needless to say, he also wanted managers to adopt special
regulations that would allow his customers, and those of the rest of the
for-hire fleet, to kill bass that would remain off-limits to the vast majority
of anglers.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The recreational fishing industry managed to survive when the
SNEMA stock flounder disappeared, although the fishing season begins six or
seven weeks later now, and there’s little to fish for inside the bays once the
bass begin their southward migration. Both the shops and the boats that once
depended on flounder for much of their income are now making do with the other
remaining species although, as the comments at the January 2024 MRAC meeting
revealed, there are still those trying to squeeze the last drop of blood from a
sere and crumbling stone.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But if the bass stock collapses, many of those businesses
probably won’t survive.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/AtlStripedBass/AtlanticStripedBassManagementHistory_May2023.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">striped bass stock collapsed
once before</span></a>, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but when that
happened, SNEMA winter flounder abundance was still very high. Anglers were
catching big bluefish all along the coast, weakfish were widely available, and
the blackfish (tautog) population had not yet declined.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Today, bluefish biomass is just above the threshold, as <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/StatusOfTheStocks/StatusOfTheStocksOverview_December2023.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">managers continue to rebuild</span></a> the
recently overfished population. The <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/StatusOfTheStocks/StatusOfTheStocksOverview_December2023.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">weakfish stock is depleted</span></a>;
although numbers seem to be increasing, high levels of natural mortality
continue to hinder rebuilding. Summer flounder, one of the traditional standbys
of New York’s inshore fishery, are not overfished, but the spawning stock
biomass is already <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413117245682e2159efdd/1690571538553/Tab01_SF+2024-2025+Specs.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">below its target</span></a>,
and recruitment has been below average for more than ten years. The summer
flounder stock experienced <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413117245682e2159efdd/1690571538553/Tab01_SF+2024-2025+Specs.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">overfishing in 2022</span></a>,
and so is in no position to absorb much additional fishing effort.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Only the <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/656a3e1d3609cb3197f7e78b/1701461534373/Tab04_24-25+Scup+Rec+Measures_2023-12.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">scup</span></a> and <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/656a3e2129948f2d3d6f9286/1701461538047/Tab05_24+BSB+Rec+Measures_2023-12.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #1e96c9; padding: 0in;">black sea bass stocks</span></a> are
truly healthy, and they’re already under substantial fishing pressure. Although
the spawning stock biomass of both species is double their target levels, that
biomass is, nonetheless, slowly declining. Recreational landings of both scup
and black sea bass have exceeded the annual catch limits in 2020, 2021, and
2022, and there is no reason to believe that 2023 landings estimates, once they
are finalized, won’t continue that trend. It is unlikely that either stock will
be able to sustain the additional pressure that would result if anglers shifted
their attentions to them instead of striped bass.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is currently no fishery and, realistically, no combination
of inshore fisheries that could absorb a significant portion of the 5.8 million
annual fishing trips that would be lost in New York alone if the striped bass
stock collapsed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet many members of the fishing industry apparently haven’t
learned from the winter flounder’s collapse. They continue to contest the
striped bass data and ignore the stock assessments’ findings. They continue to
claim all is well, just as they did as the SNEMA flounder stock spiraled
downward toward unfishable scarcity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background: white; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">They don’t understand that if the striped bass collapses again,
their own businesses won’t be far behind.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">-----<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This
essay first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish
Conservation Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-14786616635094913542024-02-08T20:29:00.000-05:002024-02-08T20:29:04.828-05:00MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES: THE CLOSING WINDOW<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Last Tuesday, I attended a
meeting of New York’s Marine Resources Advisory Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The meeting was relatively brief, and
although it touched on other matters, its main focus was on possible 2024 regulations
for the recreational scup and summer flounder fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While everyone agreed on a single
set of scup regulations, three options for summer flounder had received serious
consideration from stakeholders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two
would include a 19-inch size limit and a three-fish bag, with seasons that
spanned either 126 or 132 days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
third would increase the minimum size to 19 ½ inches and, by doing so, also
allow a 4-fish bag and a 213-day season that ran from April 1 through October
31.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fact that increasing the size
limit by just one-half of an inch would permit an 81-day extension of the
season—perhaps, for practical purposes, closer to a 45- or 50-day extension, as
just about no fluke are caught through most of April and few in late October,
but still a significant increase—and add an additional fish to the bag is a
pretty good indication of how few fish exceeding 19 ½ inches are being caught
these days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Going to the larger fish
would undoubtedly lead to many more throwbacks, and a lot of unhappy
anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nonetheless, it was the option
preferred by most of the for-hire industry, by the tackle shops, and by quite a
few anglers, too, garnering about 450 first- and second-choice votes in a
survey that reflected the opinions of about 850 anglers and about 50 members of
the for-hire fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The two primary
19-inch options each attracted about 400 first- and second-choice votes each,
and a few other 19-inch options attracted far smaller shares of the angling population.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I was a little surprised by the
outcome, since <a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/a/1045/files/2024/01/MRAC-Bulletin-January-9-2024-e61324eef29900d7.pdf">just
a few weeks before, it seemed that a reluctant consensus was forming around one
of the 19-inch options, with the general sentiment being that the summer
flounder fishing didn’t really heat up until later in May, and that a 19 ½-inch
fluke might be hard to find along much of the New York coast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, many members of the for-hire fleet did
express a reluctance to sacrifice any days of the season, and asked the
Department of Environmental Conservation to consider other options that might
extend season length, perhaps by adopting a 2-fish bag in the earliest part of
the year</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It turned out that a split-season
bag limit didn’t achieve the required reduction in summer flounder landings,
and perhaps because of that, the industry—and, apparently, many anglers—decided
that a longer season was more important than a smaller size limit, and asked
the DEC to adopt the 19 ½-inch option, saying that a shortened season would
harm the state’s angling industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not yet clear that the state
will abide by their wishes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission has placed New York and Connecticut in a single
region for the purposes of managing summer flounder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both states must agree on a single set of
regulations, and it is not at all certain that Connecticut will agree to the
higher minimum size.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But whether or not Connecticut
ultimately concurs, it is difficult not to sympathize with the angling
industry, because if the boats can’t sail, and anglers can’t fish, for summer
flounder during much of the year, they have little else to fish for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s particularly true for boats and
anglers that fish in the bays, and don’t venture into the ocean.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It wasn’t always that way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My wife and I moved to Long
Island in December 1983; I’ve kept a boat of some sort in Long Island’s waters
for the past 40 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Back then, the
fishing season never really stopped.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If the season had a beginning, it
was around the first weekend in March, when a handful of party boats began fishing
for winter flounder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few private
boats, and a few anglers fishing from bulkheads and piers, also got early
starts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they usually didn’t catch
much at first, by St. Patrick’s Day, the unofficial first day of the flounder
season, just about all of the party boats sailed with good loads of anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fishing hit its stride in April,
continued strong through the end of May, and never really stopped altogether, with
a few flounder being picked all summer in the cooler water near the inlets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the fall, flounder fishing began to improve
late in September, and continued well into December.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">In
1984, the first year that I fished Great South Bay, New York’s recreational
fishermen caught and took home nearly 14.5 million winter flounder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By 2023, that number had dropped to an
estimated 535, although so few were landed, and there is so much uncertainty in
the estimate, that there is just as good a chance that the actual number was
anywhere between 0 and 1,680.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whatever it was, the flounder are
pretty much gone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Party boat passengers
no longer pursue them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor do most shore
or private-boat fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The revenues
that they generate for tackle shops is somewhere very close to nil—so close
that, when I tried to buy some bait last April for a quick offshore <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>cod trip, I couldn’t even find a pack of
frozen clams; the shops said that they wouldn’t stock any bait until May.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, with the loss of winter flounder,
a month and a half was chopped off the start of the fishing season.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More time was chopped off at its end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That was a big hit for the
industry to absorb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Winter flounder were
once one of the most important recreational species in New York’s waters, and
shops and for-hire boats took a hit when they disappeared.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If flounder were the only fish to decline, it
would have been bad enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
they weren’t alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By the winter of 1983-84, my
first winter spent on Long Island, another significant fishery was just about gone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.surfcastersjournal.com/the-midnight-rambler-remembering-frost-fish/">New
York’s waters had long hosted a good population of whiting (more properly
called “silver hake”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the winter,
they would come close to shore.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
East End, around Montauk, big “baseball bat” whiting could sometimes be caught
from the beach, and smaller fish could often be picked up on South Shore
beaches, after they chased small bait so aggressively during the night that
they found themselves on the sand, providing food for any person—or gull—that passed
by.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the real concentration of
whiting occurred around New York Harbor, where anglers caught them at night
from places like the Coney Island Pier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Party boats sailed at all hours, loaded with anglers who, through the
1970s, regularly brought home buckets of fish.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Today, <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">whiting
are so scarce inshore (they are still abundant in deep offshore waters) that
the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recreational landings data website
doesn’t even include them in the standard list of species; to find them, a
special inquiry must be made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you
take the time to do that, you’ll learn that some whiting are still caught off
New York in some years—perhaps 3,200 in 2021, but none the year after</a>—but there
are no longer enough to support a directed fishery, much less one the size of
the fishery that once existed in the New York Bight.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So another few weeks were chopped
off the fishing year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But whiting were mostly a West
End occurrence; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for most of Long Island,
back in those days, there were cod.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By
the 1980s, cod were starting to fade, but the fishery was still viable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some party boats regularly sailed throughout
the winter from South Shore ports as well as from Montauk, and some private boats
sailed as well—at least through November and early December.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I still recall fishing a tournament appropriately
called the “Codfish Chiller” sometime around Thanksgiving in 1984 or ’85.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was miserable fishing from a small boat at
that time of year, but it nonetheless kept the shops open selling clams and terminal
gear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The summer fishery, which was
concentrated on the East End, was more pleasant, and saw both private and
for-hire boats sail to wrecks and to Rhode Island’s Cox’s Ledge, where anglers
regularly caught quality cod—a very few would break 50 pounds, but 20s were
common—while fishing in shirtsleeve weather.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But the summer fishery died long
ago, and the winter fishery is on life support, taking away another important
species from the party boats and giving them little to fish for during the
season.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Tautog (“blackfish”), another
species once important to the saltwater angling industry, has seen its season
shrink as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once caught from late
April through late November along much of the coastline, and throughout the
winter in some deep-water spots, it is now targeted for only a couple months in
the fall; an April season exists, but produces few fish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What that all means is that the
window for successful sportfishing—and for making money in the sportfishing
industry—is steadily closing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was
once a year-round season now begins in early May and ends—for most people—at
some point in November, although the striped bass fishery on western Long
Island can continue into December, and the party boat fishery for black sea
bass and such runs through the end of the year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What may be more important is
that, as the season shrinks, the number of species available to anglers is
shrinking, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Forty years ago, striped bass
were in serious trouble, weakfish were beginning to wane, and the live-fish
market was beginning to impact the tautog, but otherwise, there was a wide
array of fish available to New York’s anglers, whether they fished from shore,
from their own boats, or from for-hire vessels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Today, that is no longer the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Winter flounder are gone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Summer flounder have experienced below-average
recruitment for well over a decade; although the stock is not overfished, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65c38bffSF_Management_Track_Assessment_2023.pdf">at
the end of 2022, spawning stock biomass stood at 83% of its target level</a>,
so neither are the fish abundant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/species/tautog">Tautog are mixed, with the New Jersey-New
York Bight population still overfished, but the Long Island Sound stock recovering
well, although still below the biomass target</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-mackerel">Atlantic
mackerel, once a private- and party boat favorite that flooded New York’s
waters during the spring, have declined below the biomass threshold, and are
now overfished</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of the inshore sportfish, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">striped
bass are overfished</a>, and <a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/10/17/poor-striped-bass-recruitment-continues-to-threaten-stock/">have
been experiencing poor recruitment in every spawning area</a> except <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2024/01/what-some-striped-bass-fishermen-know.html">the
Hudson River; even there, the 2023 juvenile abundance index was the lowest
since 1985</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65c38974BF_2023_Management_Track_Assessment.pdf">Bluefish
are no longer overfished, but remain in a rebuilding plan, with spawning stock
biomass at the end of 2022 just 60% of target</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/species/weakfish">Weakfish
are showing some slight signs of recovery and improved recruitment, but
spawning stock biomass remains far, far below the threshold that denotes an
overfished stock</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fish that once supported the
winter fishery are also in bad shape.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/saw/sasi.php">The newly-recognized
Southern New England stock of cod is overfished, and overfishing is still
occurring</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The whiting are gone from
the New York Bight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/saw/sasi.php">The status of mid-Atlantic
red hake is unknown, but the last stock assessment update indicated that
biomass was the lowest recorded in a time series going back to 2015</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63ceca552022AtlHerring_PeerReviewandManagementTrackAssessment.pdf">Atlantic
herring, that once drew a surprising number of anglers to local piers during
the cold months, are now overfished and not common inshore</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The only two species that are in
really good shape are <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413253896672a1ba657e6/1690571558687/Tab02_Scup+2024-2025+Specs.pdf">scup</a>
and <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c4133026bcba3002d5f5a9/1690571568534/Tab04_BSB+2024+Specs.pdf">black
sea bass</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, recreational
fishermen have <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/656a3e1d3609cb3197f7e78b/1701461534373/Tab04_24-25+Scup+Rec+Measures_2023-12.pdf">exceeded
their annual catch limit</a> for <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/656a3e2129948f2d3d6f9286/1701461538047/Tab05_24+BSB+Rec+Measures_2023-12.pdf">both
species</a> in each of the past three years, so there is no room for any
expansion of either fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And so fishermen, and the
recreational fishing industry, are trapped not only by a shrinking season, but
by a shrinking number of available species that limits their alternatives when
regulations shorten seasons or fish fail to show up in a particular location.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/a/1045/files/2024/01/MRAC-Bulletin-January-9-2024-e61324eef29900d7.pdf">Things
have gotten so bad in New York that some for-hire operators are now asking the
state to extend the winter flounder season, despite the collapsed state of the flounder
stock</a>, in order to provide more opportunities for their customers to take a
fish home.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Things aren’t much better
anywhere else; I only focus on New York because it’s the fishery that I know
best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/11/north-carolinas-striped-bass-taste-of.html">In
North Carolina, the local Albemarle-Roanoke stock of striped bass is in dismal
condition</a>, the <a href="https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/local/2023/07/24/struggling-flounder-numbers-mean-short-nc-recreational-fishing-season/70406411007/">recreational
southern flounder season runs for only two weeks</a>, and big bluefish are no
longer regular visitors to the late autumn beach. <a href="https://gulfcouncil.org/species/cobia-fishing-regulations/#:~:text=Cobia%20migrate%20seasonally%2C%20and%20can,73%2D82%20%C2%B0F)."><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Gulf of Mexico, overfishing is driving
down cobia numbers</a>, <a href="https://gulfcouncil.org/species/greater-amberjack-fishing-regulations/#:~:text=Recreational%20harvest%20of%20greater%20amberjack,begins%20on%20August%201%2C%202024.">greater
amberjack are overfished</a>, and <a href="https://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/gulf-gag-grouper-season-shortened/">the
season for overfished gag grouper was recently shortened by more than half</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/13f637e9157c443db10a1d168c2b1995">In
the Pacific, a warming ocean has pushed many salmon runs into a steep decline</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On every coast, the window of
angling opportunity, both for fishermen and for the businesses they support,
continues to narrow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In many cases, such
as that of New York’s summer flounder, angling businesses feel forced to choose
between unpalatable management alternatives, and continuously seek the suite of
rules that will minimize income loss.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Still, as bad as things seem to
be, most such businesses still fail to pursue the one course of action that
might offer some hope for things to get better. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Focused on minimizing their short-term pain,
they fail to embrace the sort of conservative management efforts that might
rebuild fish stocks in the long term, and begin to reopen the window of angling
opportunity that has been slowly sliding shut for three decades and more.</span><o:p></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-73803503658684918352024-02-04T15:02:00.001-05:002024-02-04T15:02:16.458-05:00IN PURSUIT OF IGNORANCE: VIRGINIA LEGISLATORS DELAY MENHADEN STUDY<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Menhaden, particularly Atlantic
menhaden, are one of my least-favorite subjects for this blog.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">They’re an important forage fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The resource has been abused in the past.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But thanks to a lot of good people doing a
lot of good work over the past quarter-century or so, menhaden management is now
at least on a par with management of other important species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/species/atlantic-menhaden">The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission’s current menhaden management plan employs ecological, rather than
single-species-based, reference points and, perhaps most important of all,
current biomass remains above the biomass target, and fishing mortality remains
below its target level.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite clear scientific advice
to the contrary, many people still believe that the Atlantic menhaden stock is
beset by problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such stubborn and
widespread belief might be attributable, at least in part, to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Bruce_Franklin">a book written over a
decade ago, <i>The Most Important Fish in the Sea</i>, which caught the public
imagination and is still widely accepted today a gospel, despite the fact that
its author, H. Bruce Franklin, was a cultural historian and professor of
English, rather than a fisheries scientist</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A symptom of such persistent beliefs
is the fact that, even though<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63d289bc2022AtlanticMenhadenStockAssessmentUpdate_TOR_Report.pdf">
the last stock assessment found that there are enough menhaden swimming all
along the coast to serve their ecological role, and even though that role was defined
by the needs of a fully-rebuilt striped bass stock</a>, <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">quite
a few people providing input on the ASMFC’s recently-adopted <i>Addendum II to
Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>
made comments such as</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Mismanagement of the Chesapeake Bays
striped bass harvest, along with the unsustainable commercial reduction fishery
targeting menhaden, has contributed significantly to the decline of striped
bass stocks in the Bay and coast-wide.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“[O]ne thing you can do [to help conserve
the striped bass] is to eliminate or reduce the number of menhaden that are
netted commercially in the Chesapeake Bay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Increasing the number of menhaden would be beneficial to stripers of all
sizes in the bay.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Strengthen protections for Menhaden, the
critically important forage fish on which Striped Bass depend for food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As is being increasingly documented—and sadly
apparent to me in simply viewing from my own home—the Menhaden population has
crashed.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Why is the ASMFC refusing to acknowledge
the effect of the menhaden reduction fishery on the ability of the striped bass
fishery to rebound?...Even a moratorium on recreational/commercial harvest won’t
make a difference though, the fish need forage to rebound and their forage is being
removed…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, while the plight of
the menhaden is badly overblown, and the fish is doing quite well on a
coastwide basis, there are still some important questions that need to be
answered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps first among them is
the question of whether menhaden can be locally depleted by the reduction
fishery in the Chesapeake Bay, and whether such depletion can or does cause
harm to populations of fish, piscivorous birds, and/or other animals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.mdsg.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2019-12/EBFM-Menhaden-Summary.pdf">A
2019 report from the University of Maryland/Maryland Sea Grant defines “localized
depletion” as a</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“reduction in menhaden population size or
density below the level of abundance that is sufficient to maintain its basic
ecological (e.g., forage base, grazer of plankton), economic, and
social/cultural functions.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It notes that such localized
depletion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“can occur as a result of fishing
pressure, environmental conditions, and predation pressures on a limited spatial
and temporal scale,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">while recognizing that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“it is an issue of concern because it
could lead to compromised predator-prey relationships, reduction in nutrient
cycling, and chronic low recruitment via larval ingress of menhaden to the
Chesapeake system.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But while the report says all of
those things, the one thing is doesn’t say is whether localized depletion of menhaden
actually occurs in the Chesapeake Bay and, more relevant to this discussion,
whether such depletion, if it occurs, is due to the activities of the reduction
fishing fleet in the Virginia portion of the Bay (Maryland waters already being
closed to such reduction fishing).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/52865780Feb05AtlMenhadenBoardProceedings.pdf">At
the February 2005 meeting of the ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board,
that Board decided to cap limit purse seine (which, for practical purposes,
primarily means the reduction fleet’s) menhaden landings in the Chesapeake Bay
to 110,400 metric tons per year, an amount that has been cut by more than half
since then, and also</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“to initiate a research program
immediately to determine the status of menhaden populations in the Chesapeake
Bay in order to conserve the species while more complete population information
is obtained to assess whether localized depletion is occurring in Chesapeake
Bay.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nearly two decades later,
research has yet to answer the latter question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.vims.edu/research/units/legacy/menhaden/faqs/">The Virginia
Institute of Marine Science states that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It is the general position of VIMS that
there is currently insufficient direct evidence to indicate that localized
depletion of menhaden from Chesapeake Bay has occurred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, we do not support the implementation
of drastic management regulations for the menhaden fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, sufficient ancillary information
regarding the possibility that menhaden abundance in Chesapeake Bay is quite
low exists and warrants serious consideration.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a while, it looked like VIMS
might get a chance to develop the data needed to finally determine whether
localized menhaden depletion occurred in the Chesapeake Bay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2023/RD528/PDF">The Virginia
legislature passed a bill directing VIMS to develop plans for a comprehensive
study of menhaden populations in Virginia waters, including the Chesapeake Bay</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/mid-atlantic/virginia-lawmakers-could-order-sweeping-study-of-menhaden">On
January 10 of this year, a bill to authorize and fund what was expected to be a
three-year research project headed by VIMS, but also involving Virginia fishery
managers and relevant stakeholders, including Omega Protein, the sole
participant in the East Coast reduction fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The possibility of localized depletion was
one of the topics that the researchers would have been tasked to investigate.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, that won’t be
happening this year, and perhaps not in the foreseeable future. <a href="https://www.virginiamercury.com/2024/01/31/house-committee-delays-action-on-study-of-menhaden-in-chesapeake-bay/"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Less than three weeks after the bill authorizing
the study was introduced, a subcommittee of the Virginia House Rules Committee
put off consideration of the bill until 2025, when it may or may not be moved
forward</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/disappointment-frustration-and-questions-after-virginia-lawmakers-delay-fish-study-bill-without-explanation/">There
is no clear explanation of why that occurred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>According to the website of WFXR, a local television station,</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“There was no testimony or debate [at the Rules
Committee meeting].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bill’s sponsor
Del. R. Lee Ware (R-VA 72<sup>nd</sup>), who is not a member of the
subcommittee, was allowed to give a brief explanation of the bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Immediately following that, there was a
motion to move the bill to the 2025 legislative session, and that motion
carried on a voice vote.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The action was somewhat
surprising, since there seemed to be wide stakeholder support for the
bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As WFXR noted,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Del. Ware said there was a meeting of
various stakeholders including conservation groups, sport and commercial
fishing groups, and Omega Protein several months ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ware says all parties came to a consensus to
move the research funding bill forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He also told the subcommittee that when he addressed the members.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“’As a result of that they came to a
unanimous agreement about how to proceed with the science,’ Ware told the
delegates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They suggested a three-year
longitudinal study that will really give us answers on this very important
fish.’”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But for some reason, despite all
the attention that menhaden have gotten in the Virginia legislature in recent
years, the motion to defer action until 2025 succeeded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although no one seems eager to
take credit for killing this year’s bill, and members of the responsible
subcommittee have not tried to explain their vote, some are blaming Omega
Protein for the legislation’s demise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.trcp.org/2024/01/31/conservation-community-responds-after-menhaden-study-bill-again-stalled-by-virginia-lawmakers/?fbclid=IwAR3Gtsx1t7BGkuwWpgEfT1WM3Dpr4zHCm_CG4dQ_WrhWfQXVYzNrRDEmKZE">Capt.
Chris Dollar, who serves as “Chesapeake conservation advisor” to the Coastal
Conservation Association, an anglers’ rights group, lamented that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It’s no surprise that Omega Protein flip-flopped
in their support of the study bill, but it’s extremely disheartening that that
a handful of elected officials agreed with them to again derail this vital
research.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.trcp.org/2024/01/31/conservation-community-responds-after-menhaden-study-bill-again-stalled-by-virginia-lawmakers/?fbclid=IwAR3Gtsx1t7BGkuwWpgEfT1WM3Dpr4zHCm_CG4dQ_WrhWfQXVYzNrRDEmKZE">Another
recreational representative, Steve Atkinson, president of the Virginia Saltwater
Sportfishing Association, concurred, saying</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The fact that the industry was involved
in designing this study, and then turned and lobbied against the bill, is yet
another breach of public trust.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2024/virginia/crucial-menhaden-study-delayed-by-virginia-house-subcommittee.html?fbclid=IwAR39v4pn3elhEHSmx4huLAECvxc4PdG4cPh_5vgUhqrrIQW8Z0qjNxvf0jM">A
press release issued by the respected Chesapeake Bay Foundation sounded a
similar theme, noting that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Omega Protein previously backed the
development of a scientific framework for a local menhaden population study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But as the 2024 legislative session progressed,
the company’s lobbying efforts paved the way for lawmakers to punt funding the
study into next year.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Foundations executive
director, Chris Moore, expressed his disappointment with the legislative
outcome, saying<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In the Virginia Way, representatives from
the conservation community, Omega Protein, and VIMS hammered out an agreement
last year on how to proceed to develop more science on menhaden in both a
timely and cost-effective manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Omega’s
lack of support for funding the study is unfortunately not the Virginia Way…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“By opposing funding for these important
research questions, Omega Protein once again proves that they are not acting in
good faith for the Chesapeake Bay, but rather only for their own pockets.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For its part, Omega denies any
effort to torpedo the bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a written
statement provided to WFXR, its spokesman, Ben Landry, said<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Despite our concern that these proposed
projects would not answer the primary question most people are after; i.e., ‘How
many menhaden are in the Bay? and what should the Bay menhaden harvest be?’ we
took no position on the bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can say
with certainty that no one from our team lobbied against Del [sic] Ware’s bill.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While it seems that everyone’s
statement cannot be right, and that someone must either be dishonest or
mistaken, it’s also quite possible that both are telling a version of the truth;
that is, it’s possible that by not actively supporting the funding bill, while
also not offering formal opposition, Omega effectively damned the legislation with
faint praise, making it clear to the legislators that the company would be
happier if the bill was sent off to some dark corner to die.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Certainly, given all the
attention that menhaden have been getting from both stakeholders and coastal
legislators, there was plenty of impetus to at least move the bill out of
committee, so that it could get the attention of the full legislature, attention
which it seems to have deserved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given
that, deferring the bill to the 2025 session, where it might or might not be
revived, would appear a conscious decision to choose willful ignorance over promoting
and developing scientific knowledge of the menhaden’s status in Virginia
waters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That makes the subcommittee’s
decision all the more puzzling.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet there is one reason why legislators might opt
for ignorance over expanded knowledge:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Someone</i></b>
must be afraid of what that knowledge—in this case, the menhaden study—might
reveal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-78907727234892825052024-02-01T16:12:00.001-05:002024-02-01T16:12:09.359-05:00FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: GENERATIONS<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nola.com/news/environment/louisiana-may-make-first-change-to-redfish-rules-in-decades/article_c38e1aca-bc8a-11ee-a1f0-2be2ed7309e9.html">It
struck me as I was reading an article in nola.com, a website dedicated to news
from the New Orleans region.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The article
discussed proposed changes in Louisiana’s recreational fishing regulations for
red drum, and included the following passage:</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“While the overall tone was civil, arguments broke out between
charter captains who pursue redfish in very different ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That often meant fly-fishing guides, who in
many cases catch redfish and then release them, were urging stricter
regulations, while other charter boat captains who aim to send their clients
home with supper pleaded for a slower approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The two groups even tended to sit on opposite sides of the
room, as if members of a different tribe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“’We’re on the water every day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can tell you what’s going on,’ said Venice
charter captain Ron Price, 54 and a guide since 1996.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“He argued that the proposal was too drastic, using a couple
of expletives to help punctuate his point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“’I don’t need some college kid with a seine net, throwing it
in the wrong spot, to tell me we’re in dire straits,’ he said of the research.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Ty Hibbs, 29 and a fishing guide for about a dozen years,
called it a ‘decision for the future,’ as he spoke in favor of the proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“’Why should my generation or the generations that follow me
have to deal with a subpar fishery in Louisiana just because there’s people who
don’t care about the future?’ he said.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Change the names, and a few of the details, and the description
of that Louisiana hearing could have applied described a striped bass hearing
here in New York or maybe New Jersey, a weakfish hearing on the mid-Atlantic
coast, a bluefish hearing in southern New England.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Because in so many of those cases, as in Louisiana, the core
conflict isn’t between two different opinions about whether a specific set of
regulations ought to be adopted to manage a particular species, but between two
outlooks of how—and why and even whether—fish stocks ought to be managed, and
whether the benefits of current exploitation outweigh the long-term benefits of
a healthy and sustainable stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most often, the people on each side of such debates are very
different, which those pushing for larger harvests in the short term generally
older folks who began to fish decades ago, when many species of fish were far
more abundant, and anglers far less abundant, than is the case today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They came to the sport when size and bag
limits were liberal, if they existed at all, and seasons commonly ran from New
Year’s Day to the very last day of December.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A few younger anglers, conditioned by their elders’ sensibilities, also
maintain a short-term outlook, but their numbers are relatively low.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those urging caution are usually young, who grew up in an
age when size limits, bag limits, and seasons were always a part of the scene,
when some fish, at least, could be hard to come by.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may have grown up with their elders’
stories about catching fish that now, hardly anyone catches at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you look closely, you’ll not a few
greybeards scattered around the younger anglers’ ranks, folks who remember the
fisheries that we once had, and grieve, decades later, for what we have lost.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But the debate typically breaks down along generational
lines, not only among anglers but, as in Louisiana, also among the for-hire
fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The old captains still focus on
killing fish; full coolers are used as the gauge of a good day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they might not quite see themselves as
selling fish to their clients, they certainly see customers’ opportunity to
catch and keep fish as their business’ primary appeal; piling dead fish on the
dock is nearly as important to them as it is to the captain of a longliner or trawler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And like such commercial captains, they see
themselves as part of the fishing industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many young captains see things differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They often run smaller boats—perhaps out of
preference, or perhaps out of financial necessity—and carry fewer passengers on
each trip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their focus is less on dead
fish, and more on recreation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
catching fish still matters, they sell the overall recreational experience, often
fishing with lighter tackle that emphasizes the challenge of the hookup and
fight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While that often means that their
clients take fewer fish home, it also allows them to actively target fish such
as false albacore that are fun to catch but aren’t valued as food, providing angling
opportunities that are closed to the harvest-oriented boats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They understand that they are mostly selling
entertainment, rather than food.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And because they’re young, they also understand that if they
plan to stay in the business for all of their lives, they need healthy fish
stocks not only today, but for another thirty, forty, or even fifty years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The two outlooks aren’t easy to reconcile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That came through loud and clear in <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">the
recent debate over the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s <i>Addendum
II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass</i>, which saw the latter group of for-hires submit comments similar
to those provided by Maryland’s Capt. Greg Shute, who noted</a>,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I also recommend that whatever action the board chooses in
ensuring abundance that they accept dead discards while reducing harvest as a
means of lowering overall mortality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
slot options presented [for the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery] reduce
harvest significantly and only increase release mortality minimally while
allowing participation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Participation
is what drives the socio-economic benefit to sport fishing.</i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis added]”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, the older, more traditional for-hires
echoed the sentiments expressed in a form letter used by a group of charter
boat captains, which argued that customers on for-hire boats should be governed
by a wider slot size limit than that imposed on all other anglers, because<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“This option is beneficial to charter boats who may be
struggling to find striped bass within the small 3” slot window for their
clients to bring home fish for food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Fish
for food is a very important aspect of the striped bass fishery</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The two views seem irreconcilable, and it might seem
impossible for both to be true at the same time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, I can easily argue that both positions
are equally valid, as they reflect the views not only of different factions
within the for-hire fleet, but also different factions within the larger
angling community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And I’ve lived long enough to understand why.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When I first started to fish in the late 1950s and early
1960s, fish of all kinds were very abundant and regulations were very few.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was only a 16-inch (fork length) size
limit for striped bass, and nothing else that a Connecticut angler need worry
about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most adult anglers had lived
through the Great Depression and many were World War II vets who approached
fishing in a no-nonsense way, enjoying what they did while very much fishing
for food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though the economy was
booming in the post-war years and employment was high, a “keeper” fish was
meant to be kept, and few recreational fishermen ventured out intending to
return “free” protein to the sea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the northeast and mid-Atlantic, things really didn’t
change much until the late 1970s, when the striped bass stock collapsed,
shattering many fishermen’s belief that the ocean was a limitless resource
(except for “Russian” trawlers, of course, and our own commercial fishermen who
they viewed as threats to the resource, a view that they never thought to
extend to anglers like themselves).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Then, beginning with striped bass, the 1980s began to usher
in the modern era of regulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/StripedBassAmendment3.pdf">Amendment 3 to
the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass<span style="font-style: normal;"> successfully rebuilt the striped bass stock by
severely restricting landings, imposing a 1-fish bag limit and an
ever-increasing size limit, intended to protect the relatively healthy 1982
year class</span></a></i>, which eventually topped out at 36 inches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Later in the decade, states began to require anglers who
sold all or part of their catch—back then, a not-uncommon practice among more
experienced and successful “recreational” fishermen—to buy licenses, something
that was never required before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And by
1988 or so, a decline in the numbers of winter flounder, once one of the most
common fish in the estuaries and bays, led to the first size and bag limits for
a species that <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/ACFCMA.pdf">was very
much taken for granted.<o:p></o:p></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/ACFCMA.pdf">Throughout the 1990s, and
particularly after the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
became law in 1993</a></span>, regulations began constraining the landings of
most other recreationally-important fish such as <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/bluefishFMP.pdf">bluefish</a>, summer
flounder, <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/57f6d6f6ScupFMP_Amendment8_1996.pdf">scup</a>,
<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/5751ecd6weakfishAmendment2_1994.pdf">weakfish</a>,
and <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/1996TautogFMP.pdf">tautog</a>
(apologies for limiting the listing to New England/mid-Atlantic species, but
that’s just the timeline that I know; other species, in other regions, were
also seeing their landings limited during this period).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By the time the 21<sup>st</sup> century dawned, a few things
were true:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many fish stocks had declined
to levels that anglers fishing in the 1970s would not have believed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The saltwater recreational fishery was
regulated to an extent that such anglers could not have imagined.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And because of such regulations, some
important recreational species, such as striped bass and summer flounder, were
recovering—or, in the case of bass, had recovered—from being very badly
overfished.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That pattern has continued to the present day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As a result, we see different generations responding very
differently to fisheries management and fisheries regulations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A large percentage of older anglers still pine for the Wild
West days of the ‘70s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remembering how
they once brought home bushels of winter flounder, burlap bags filled with
tautog or cod, and garbage cans (the old-time predecessor to today’s Yeti
coolers) stuffed solid with bluefish, they rail against restrictions on
landings and, contrary to common sense, try to force time to run backwards to
an era when unregulated recreational fishermen could take what they wanted, any
time that they wanted, without any limits or laws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For many, the striped bass’ collapse was a watershed that
forced them to confront their own attitudes toward fisheries regulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some became conservation advocates, many
became more mindful of how their actions impacted the bass fishery, if not
necessarily other species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some quickly
forgot the collapse and returned to their own way of thinking as soon as the bass
stock began to rebuild, and retain their ‘70s mindset unto today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, anglers who just started saltwater
fishing in the last 20 years have never experienced an unregulated fishery, nor
have they ever experienced the diverse and abundant fish stocks of the 1960s
and ‘70s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They have seen the striped bass
decline, and have also seen the bluefish, summer flounder, and weakfish stocks
wane.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many have never caught, or even
seen, a winter flounder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Abundance for them is defined by scup and black sea bass,
the only two species that, for the moment, still thrive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regulation is a normal part of the angling scene.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And thus we have generational conflict, as older anglers
remember what was, and try to recreate the past, while their younger
counterparts, born into a more limited fishery, think of what may yet be, and
look to the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One cannot reverse the flow of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-14131339065311830672024-01-28T15:24:00.000-05:002024-01-28T15:24:09.023-05:00STRIPED BASS: WHAT COMES AFTER ADDENDUM II<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/65b27f9aPR02AtlStripedBassAddendumII_Approved.pdf">Last
week, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass
Management Board approved <i>Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>. Addendum II incorporated the emergency
measure that the Management Board adopted last May—a 31-inch maximum size,
which effectively created a 28- to 31-inch slot limit in the recreational ocean
fishery—while also imposing a modest reduction in the recreational fishery in
the Chesapeake Bay and cutting commercial quotas—but not necessarily commercial
landings—by 7%.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2023AnnualMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardPresentations_Oct2023.pdf">While
those measures are certainly a step in the right direction, in themselves, they
will probably neither reduce fishing mortality to the target level nor fully
rebuild the spawning stock biomass by the 2029 rebuilding deadline.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Additional management measures will almost
certainly be needed, and now that Addendum II is behind us, it’s probably time
to start thinking about what such measures should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An update to the striped bass stock
assessment is scheduled for next fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Should that update suggest that there is less than a 50% probability
that the stock will rebuild pursuant to Addendum II’s management measures, some
sort of management action will be in order. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that proves to be the case, the new
Addendum grants the Management Board the authority to act without the need to
go through the long, time-consuming process of putting out a draft addendum for
public comment, holding public hearings, and finally settling on a suite of management
measures to be implemented by the states.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whether the Management Board will elect to exercise
such authority remains an unanswered question, for a number of Management Board
members expressed reservations about acting outside of the normal process, even
though public comment might be obtained through less formal means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The severity of the striped bass’ plight
might guide their final decision; if the assessment update finds that the
probability of timely rebuilding falls only a little bit short of 50%--say,
better than 45%, or perhaps even better than 40%--the Management Board might
well decide to embrace the formal addendum process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, if the probability falls
in the 25% to 30% range, expedited management action is more likely to occur.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At this point, any further management
measures will very probably include some sort of closed recreational season, if
only because the Management Board is unlikely to further narrow the current,
already narrow slot limits, either for the Bay or ocean recreational fisheries,
and the 1-fish bag limit is already as low as a bag limit can go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That makes a season the only remaining
option.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, the Devil is always in the
details, and figuring out what such season should look like is not an easy
task.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>About the only thing that we can
be sure of is that the same season—that is, closing the fishery at the same
time, for all states along the coast—is not a viable approach.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fishery peaks in different places at
different times; a midsummer closure would have a very different impact in Maine
than it would have in Virginia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Balancing the closures so that everyone shares the pain in a
more-or-less equitable matter will be no easy task.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even within a single state, different
interests will favor different closures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Using New York as an example, closing the season in May and November
would have a real, but less significant impact on Long Island’s East End than
it would have off New York City and western Long Island, where anglers enjoy
some of their best fishing during those two months and see very few bass during
the dog days of summer, when, anglers fishing from boats out at Montauk typically
do fairly well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It might seem that the simple solution to that
would be to set a target reduction—let’s say, solely for the purposes of
argument, that the Management Board decided to reduce fishing mortality by
20%--and call on the states to each decide on their own seasons, which the ASMFC’s
Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee would then review to determine
whether the proposed seasons would lower fishing mortality by the required amount.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, while such an approach would relieve the
Management Board of the duty to set a season acceptable to all, it creates the new
issue of adjacent states adopting widely differing seasons, which lead to
enforcement issues if boats from one state, where the season is open, venture
into another state’s closed waters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Setting up regional seasons could solve much
of that problem, although there would still be some conflicts around the edges
of such regions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, placing
Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts into a single region would probably make
sense, even if the bass fishery in southern Massachusetts is more like that of
Rhode Island.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, grouping Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and New York together would seem a good fit, as boats from
all three states often fish together in Long Island Sound, the edges of Block
Island Sound, and around Block Island Sound.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But then, what do you do with New Jersey,
which shares Raritan Bay with New York, and Delaware Bay with Delaware?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Grouping it with the latter state probably makes
the most sense, given that all striped bass fishing must be done in state
waters, and the greater expanse of shared water is to the south, but such a
split wouldn’t sit well with some New York anglers, who watch their New Jersey
counterparts prosecute the spring fishery in Raritan Bay, while they can only
sit on the sidelines and wait for the bluefish to show.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Which brings up another big question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If seasons are put in place, will such
seasons merely prohibit anglers from keeping striped bass, or would they also
prohibit targeting the fish?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">From a practical standpoint, no-harvest
seasons which still permit catch-and-release fishing, are the only viable
option, since no-target closures are not readily enforceable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63d80011AtlStripedBassBoardProceedingsAug2021.pdf">That
was made very clear</a> when <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63cb1c52AtlStripedBassAm7_May2022.pdf">Amendment
7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</a></i> was
being developed in 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is just about
impossible to prove to a court beyond a reasonable doubt—the standard that
enforcement would have to meet to convict someone for targeting bass out of
season--that that an angler who is fishing for striped bass during the closed
season is not actually targeting something else.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How can one prove that the angler casting a
chunk of menhaden from a Long Island beach isn’t really fishing for bluefish?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can one demonstrate that the angler
drifting eels near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel isn’t seeking cobia,
instead of striped bass?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So long as they
aren’t foolish enough to put a bass in the cooler, both anglers would almost
certainly escape a fine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No-harvest closures that allow catch-and-release
also make economic sense, as they allow tackle shops, marinas, charter boats, and
other angling-oriented enterprises to still benefit from an active fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some businesses argue that anglers won’t fish
if they can’t bring bass home, and so incomes will suffer, but <a href="https://conservefish.org/2024/01/25/real-world-striped-bass-part-i/">as
Capt. John McMurray wrote in a recent blog post for the Marine Fish Conservation
Network</a>, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Starting that first week of October here, there were an
increasing number of large striped bass targeting adult menhaden schools.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not unusual for this time of the year, although
the numbers certainly were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was
very different is that for most of October, in my region, you really couldn’t
find a ‘keeper’ (28 to 31” slot fish).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was, for all intents and purposes, a catch-and-release fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Yet, the daily crowds were undoubtedly the largest I’ve
ever seen them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the weather was nice,
you could honestly count 200+ boats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re
not gonna get into the ‘no one works anymore’ stuff here, but the point is,
there was a ton of traffic when it was really clear that no one was catching
any keepers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Sure, those folks could have been out there simply to <i>try</i>
and get a keeper, however low the chances were, but I don’t think so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More than likely, they were out there for
sport, and/or to get their hero pics (which was certainly why we were out
there).”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such commentary from a very successful,
experienced Long Island charter boat captain provides solid evidence that if
the Management Board imposed significant no-harvest closures, fishing-related
businesses could still survive. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some
bass would certainly be lost to release mortality, but the Management Board
could account for that simply by extending the length of the season when
harvest would not be allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The question then, of course, would be how long
the closed season should be extended to account for such mortality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That might be a more difficult question to
answer than one might think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For as
Capt. McMurray also noted,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“While sure there were guys throwing plugs or dropping
flutter-spoons, it was pretty clear that most of the fleet were ‘snag-and-drop’
fishing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, ripping a
weighted treble hook through a menhaden school, sticking one, letting it swim
and waiting for a striped bass to eat it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What do I mean by most?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I dunno,
I’d guess around 80-90%?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“If you’re up on your regs, which you should be, that’s
illegal in New York, and, well, everywhere else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, fishing any live or dead bait on a
treble is prohibited…Which I suppose makes sense, as it’s more likely you’re
going to gut-hook a striper on a treble…A solid regulation intended to reduce
dead discards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>IF…it were at all
enforceable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The problem is, it’s efficient, and unless there are
repercussions, there’s no reason for anglers NOT to do it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there were any boardings during the run—which
I may be wrong, but there sure didn’t appear to be, and if someone were to have
gotten called for snag-and-drop, well, all the angler had to say is that they
were targeting bluefish (even though there weren’t really bluefish around, but
enforcement officers don’t know that, nor could they prove it even if they
did).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Even before this ‘feel-good’ regulation went into place,
law enforcement reps were clear, on the record, about the enforcement and
compliance problems such regs cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many
folks, Commissioners specifically, claimed that regardless of the enforcement
issues, most anglers would be compliant just because it was the right thing to
do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From what I see though, that just
isn’t true.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In case you haven’t drawn the conclusion on your own, <b><i>there
were a LOT of dead discards this October.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Every day we’d see several floaters, plus a LOT of fish that came over
the boats’ gunnels pretty darn bloody</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such observations certainly cast doubt on the
9% release mortality rate generally used when calculating the impact of management
measures on striped bass; there is certainly reason to suspect that, at least
in the case of big bass, the mortality rate will be higher.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But such observations also lock us into a
perplexing conundrum when it comes to no-harvest versus no-target season
closures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No-harvest closures make sense because they
are far more enforceable, and still permit extensive recreational and economic
activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet if anglers frequently engage
in illegal activity to catch bass during those closed seasons, and so cause excessive
release mortality, while the regulations they’re violating are not practically
enforceable, no-target closures that just shut <b><i>all</i></b> bass fishing
down may seem the best way to ensure that fishing mortality remains within
acceptable bounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet if no-target closures aren’t enforceable…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That problem alone may be enough to dissuade
the Management Board from taking quick action in response to bad news in the
upcoming stock assessment update, in order to glean enough input from law
enforcement, state regulators, and stakeholders as to which path to take.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But eventually, unless something unexpectedly
happens that boosts the stock’s prospects, the seasons are going to come.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My guess is that, when it finally decides,
the Management Board will opt for no-harvest closures, and leave the enforceability
questions up to the states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that
happens, some states may decide that no-target closures are manageable, as
Maryland already has, and prohibit all striped bass fishing during some portion
of the year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Others will take the Board’s
actions at face value and just put no-harvest closures in place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Others might even attack the root of the problem
and, along with their choice of closures, ban the use of treble hooks while
fishing with bait, regardless of the target species, taking the “I’m fishing
for bluefish” excuse off the table.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, given the lack of remaining options,
maybe that’s the sort of thing we ought to be thinking about:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>management measures that are enforceable, but
go beyond the usual size limits, bag limits, and seasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that regard, two proposals that were briefly
considered bother proposals that were briefly considered but quickly discarded
during the development of Amendment 7 might deserve another look: requiring the
in-water release of larger striped bass and requiring anglers to stop fishing
once they but a striped bass in the cooler<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/recreational/tarpon/">Florida already
prohibits anglers from removing tarpon more than 40 inches long from the water
during the release process</a>, and such rule is apparently being observed by
most anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The objections to adopting
such rule for striped bass centered around the possible hazards of practicing
in-water release when waves are running high.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, whether releasing a large bass from surf or shore, such bass
are often exhausted by the fight, and require the angler to spend some time
reviving the fish <b><i>in the water</i></b>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the sea is too rough to allow in-water
release, it is also to rough for such revival, meaning that anglers would
probably be returning some number of exhausted fish to the water to die.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, in-water release is a viable option, so
long as anglers keep one thing in mind:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
the sea is rough enough to put either the bass or the angler at risk during the
release process, no one should be fishing there and then in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Requiring anglers to stop fishing after
keeping a bass is even more controversial, since it forecloses the opportunity
to fish for other available species once such bass is retained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, <a href="https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/PDFs/southcentral/2022sc_sfregs_kenai_river.pdf">such
regulations work well in Alaska’s Kenai River king salmon fishery (where
removing any salmon over 20 inches in length from the water prior to release is
also illegal), preventing anglers from mortally wounding a fish that they will
not be able to retain</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Granted, there are far more different species
of fish caught all along the striper coast than there are in the Kenai, but anglers
intent on a multi-species trip can always target striped bass later in the day,
when their fluke or sea bass or drum or croaker are already on ice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That might mean fishing when time and tide
make landing a legal bass far less likely, but given the current state of the
striped bass population, along with the threats that it faces, it might still
be a viable option.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For the ocean is a changeable place, and it
is possible that a successful spawn this year, if it occurs, could put a very
different spin on the bass’ immediate prospects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But until some good news emerges, the
Management Board would be wise to strike a precautionary stance, and to think
long and hard about any action that might better ensure the future health of
the striped bass stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-18233186612820488982024-01-25T20:49:00.001-05:002024-01-26T09:02:28.143-05:00ASMFC APPROVES STRIPED BASS ADDENDUM II: IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT BAD<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yesterday, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board approved the
final version of<i> <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/PublicInput/AtlStripedBassDraftAddendumII_PublicComment_Oct2023.pdf">Addendum
II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass</a></i>. While the Addendum
is far from perfect, and doesn’t do enough to protect or rebuild the striped
bass stock, the final version is nonetheless a better management document that
I expected it to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And that’s probably good enough, because Addendum
II was always intended to be an interim management measure, that constrains
fishing mortality to a reasonably low level through 2024, and then is replaced
by a new Addendum III, which will be guided by the results of the stock
assessment update that will be released next fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addendum II was intended to reduce overall
fishing mortality by 14.5%, which would get it down close to F<sub>target</sub>,
although the final measures adopted at yesterday’s meeting probably won’t quite
be enough to attain that goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Addendum II addressed four primary issues—constraining
fishing mortality in the ocean recreational fishery, constraining fishing
mortality in the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, constraining fishing
mortality in the commercial fishery, and providing the Management Board the
authority to respond quickly to the findings of upcoming stock assessments, in
the event such assessments suggest that, under existing management measures,
the striped bass stock is unlikely to rebuild by the 2029 deadline specified in
the management plan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, there were ancillary issues
primarily impacting the recreational fisheries that were also important to the
debate; another ancillary issue—the deadline for implementing the provisions of
Addendum II—also had very real implications for the commercial fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With one not-too-important exception, all of
the issues presented by the Addendum were resolved in a way that advanced both
the public interest and the health of the striped bass resource.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The first issue addressed was the ocean
recreational fishery, where <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">there
was very strong stakeholder support (2,289 comments), from individual anglers
as well as some charter boat and tackle shop owners, for formally adopting the
current emergency measure—a 28- to 31-inch slot limit applicable to all
anglers, whether they fished from private boats, for hire boats or from the
shore—into the striped bass management plan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, a much smaller contingent of party and charter boat owners (158
comments) supported a related option that would apply the current slot limit to
private boat and shore-based anglers, but grant special privileges to anglers
fishing from for-hire vessels, and allow them to take fish that fell within a
wider, 28- to 33-inch slot size.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The debate between the two options pitted
those who were primarily concerned with the health of the striped bass resource
and providing a fair angling environment for all anglers against those who
prioritized the economic well-being, and perhaps the survival, of the for-hire
fleet above other concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, as in most debates, things were
not that black and white; many folks supporting the former option were very
sympathetic to the problems besetting the for-hire operators, while many of
those who supported the latter option were concerned with the state of the
striped bass stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, everyone
was forced to pick a position based on what they believed was the most important
priority at this point in time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The ocean recreational fishery<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dr. Michael Armstrong, a Massachusetts
fishery manager, started off the debate by moving that Option B, the universal 28-
to 31-inch slot limit, be adopted; his motion was seconded by Dennis Abbot, New
Hampshire’s Legislative Proxy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
supporting his motion, Dr. Armstrong declared that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“There’s a whole ton of reasons why this is the right way
to go.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He noted that maintaining the current slot
limit for all anglers, regardless of platform, is the best way to maintain the fishing
mortality reduction achieved by this year’s emergency measure, and observed,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Now is not the time, with a looming disaster, to start
carving out exceptions for special fisheries.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his view, carving out special regulations
for the for-hire fleet represented a “paradigm shift” in the fishery, although
he wouldn’t say whether he might support such action under other, more typical
circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Abbott noted that the original purpose of
both the emergency action and Addendum II was to reduce fishing mortality, and
that any relaxing of that size limit<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“marks a setback from what we were trying to do.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Immediately after Mr. Abbott spoke, Dr.
Justin Davis, Connecticut’s fishery manager, rose to amend Dr. Armstrong’s
motion by replacing “Option B” with “Option C,” which would create the special,
28- to 33-inch slot limit for for-hire anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>His motion to amend was quickly seconded by Emerson Hasbrouck, the
Governor’s Appointee from New York.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While Dr. Davis recognized that both sides of
the debate made valid arguments, he admitted that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I’ve been swayed by the outpouring of comments that I’ve
gotten from the for-hire sector in Connecticut.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He said that the comments he heard from
for-hire operators exceeded the number of comments that he’d ever received on
any other issue, and expressed concern for the future of the industry,
particularly because of recent restrictions on all six inshore fisheries
important to the for-hire fleet, and, for charter boats that venture offshore, the
closure of the mako shark fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr.
Hasbrouck noted that Option C would lead to a fishing mortality reduction only
0.1% less than that provided by Option B, and said such option would help the
for-hire fleet while having a minimal impact the striped bass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Similar sentiments were expressed by Dr. Jason
McNamee, Rhode Island’s fishery manager, who admitted that he was worried about
the future of his state’s for-hire fleet, and wished that mode splits had been
considered earlier in the management process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But David Sikorski, the Legislative Proxy
from Maryland, spoke against the proposed amendment, arguing that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“This motion is chasing the 2015 year class as they grow,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and is contrary to the purpose behind
Addendum II.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Another member of the Maryland delegation,
fishery manager Michael Luisi, disagreed, arguing that both the emergency
action and Addendum II were proposed and put in place quickly, with no
consideration for the needs of the for-hire businesses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At that point, Max Appelman of NOAA Fisheries
noted that he had difficulty supporting Option C not because of the mode splits
per se, but because of the uncertainty inherent in the effects of the change on
fishing mortality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He observed that
successful rebuilding depends on successfully limiting fishing mortality,
something that managers have so far been unable to do for any extended period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He was followed by, Mr. Abbott, who said that he opposed
Option C for multiple reasons, and that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I see a basic unfairness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are millions of people who fish for
striped bass, and only a few in the for-hire sector.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He felt it was wrong for an angler who fishes
from a private boat to be limited to the current slot, while someone who can
afford to pay for a for-hire trip can take advantage of a more permissive size
limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Abbott said that he had been
on the Management Board for 28 years, and made an impassioned comment in which
he noted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We are not paying attention to the canary in
the coal mine…We continue to do the things that I called ‘death by a thousand
cuts’…We always tend to take the easy path, and the easy path has taken us to
where we are today.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He said that it was time to stop making
exceptions to the management measures in order to please special interests in
the various states, and instead<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“do what’s right for the resource,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">finally observing that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We tend not to do what we should be doing.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Abbott’s comments were challenged by Adam
Nowalsky, Legislative Proxy from New Jersey and probably the most aggressive
advocate of recreational catch-and-kill fishing on the Management Board, who claimed
that the “easy path” was placing more restrictions on anglers, and that the
harder route was finding a way to conserve the fish while still maximizing the economic
benefits from the fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also
claimed that the true inequity in the striped bass fishery was emphasizing the
sport fishery over recreational harvest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With that, it was time for a vote.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Going into the meeting, I suspected that Option
C would pass on a fairly narrow vote, but in the end, the opposite
happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While seven jurisdictions—Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission—supported Option C, nine—Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Virginia, North
Carolina, NOAA Fisheries, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service—opposed
it, so the motion failed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Once that occurred, Option B was adopted on a
vote of 14 to 2, with only New York and New Jersey opposing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The debate over recreational management
measures in the Chesapeake Bay followed similar lines, but had its own unique
twists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It began when Michael Luisi made
a motion to adopt Option C2, which would establish a slot size limit of 19 to
24 inches, with a 1-fish bag limit for shore and private boat anglers and a
2-fish bag for those fishing from for-hire boats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ingrid Braun-Ricks, executive director for
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, provided a second.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Luisi attempted to justify his motion by
noting that the 2-fish bag for for-hire vessels had already been adopted for
Maryland through the conservation equivalency process, and that for-hire vessels
participated in an electronic data program that provided much information which
he deemed to be “incredibly valuable.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He also argued that the “sport fishery” (<i>i.e.</i>, shore and private
boat anglers) and the for-hire fishery were “not one in the same,” and so
shouldn’t be governed by the same rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Virginia fishery manager Pat Geer disagreed
with the motion, saying that while he was happy to support consistent
recreational rules throughout the Bay, Virginia’s Finfish Advisory Panel
strongly opposes any sort of mode split, and has for many years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also noted that Virginia’s for-hire fleet,
many of which fish in the Chesapeake Bay, were already subject to a 1-fish bag
limit and had no problem with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dr. Armstrong noted that stock assessments
benefit from uniform regulations, and that when biologists try to analyze data where
different modes have different rules, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We’re slicing the [Marine Recreational Information
Program] baloney awful thin.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At that point, Mr. Sikorski again split with
his state’s fishery manager, moving to substitute Option B2 for Option C2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The two options were the same except for one
very big difference:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Option B2
established a 1-fish bag limit for everyone, including for-hire anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Geer seconded the motion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In support of his motion, Mr. Sikorski
explained that most of the 2018 year class will be larger than 24 inches in the
upcoming season, and that Option B2 would thus help protect the last strong
year class produced in the Bay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He noted
the problems besetting the Bay’s bass fishery, emphasized the need for
consistent regulations, and then argued that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Chesapeake Bay regulations have done a disservice to this
resource…One fish for all could have been how we prosecuted our fishery for the
past four years”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">instead of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“chasing a snowball downhill.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He acknowledged his concern for the impact a
1-fish bag limit might have on the for-hire fishery, but also noted that because
Maryland had closed its traditional April striped bass fishery so that it might
have a 2-fish for-hire bag, other businesses have suffered, including an
Annapolis tackle shop that saw revenues decline by 23%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of breaking the recreational sector
into pieces, Sikorsky said that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I prefer to define us as the general public,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">while warning that if current trends persist,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“the dark days are coming.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When a vote was finally taken on the motion
to amend, it passed 13 to 3, with New Jersey, Maryland, and the Potomac River
fisheries commission dissenting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The lopsided vote didn’t stop Michael Luisi
from trying again, this time proposing that the Management Board approve Option
C2 only for 2024, and adopting Option B2 for 2025 and beyond; once more, his
motion was seconded by Ms. Braun-Ricks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This time, he argued that retaining the 2-fish
for-hire bag limit in 2024 would give the for-hire fleet time to adjust their
business plans to account for a smaller bag, while also giving Maryland a
chance to figure out how to maintain the data being accrued through electronic
for-hire reporting, before such data was lost to “retribution” from an upset
for-hire fleet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Jersey’s Nowalsky supported the motion,
noting that for-hire boats often book trips well ahead of the season, when
customers believe that fishing rules will not change, and so already have
commitments to customers; more restrictive rules, he claimed, would lead to
cancelled trips, while Doug Grout, proxy for New Hampshire’s Governor’s
Appointee, opposed it, arguing that Addendum II was intended to reduce fishing
mortality in 2024, not in 2025.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Other comments were made, but when the vote
was taken, Michael Luisi’s motion was defeated, this time by a vote of 4 to 14,
with New Jersey, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia
its only supporters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Still, Luisi tried one more time, making a
motion to substitute Option C1, which would reduce the slot size to 19 to 23
inches, achieving a greater fishing mortality reduction while still giving the
for-hires a second fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This time, Dr.
Davis seconded the motion, calling it “a reasonable compromise.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nowalsky challenged the Management Board to
choose between Option C1, which achieved an even greater fishing mortality than
Option B2 did, and their opposition to mode splits, which would allow more fish
to be killed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In response, Mr. Sikorsky
noted that the narrower slot would increase release mortality, disagreed with
those who sought special privileges for a “small group,” and plead,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Let’s stop trying to divide people by how they
participate in the fishery.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With that said, a vote was taken, and Mr.
Luisi lost again, this time on a vote of 6 in favor, 9 opposed, and a single
abstention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland were among the supporters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With no new motions put on the table, Option
B2 was adopted by a vote of 14-2, with only New Jersey and Maryland voting
against.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Recreational law enforcement<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Before moving away from the recreational
fishery, the Management Board also needed to consider a measure intended to
assist law enforcement, which would require anyone who filleted a bass at sea
or at a shoreside location to retain the rack—that is, the carcass—so that law
enforcement agents could determine whether the filleted bass complied with the
relevant slot limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same provision
would require skin to remain on the fillet to facilitate species
identification, and would set a possession limit of two fillets for every rack
retained.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A motion to remove the requirement to leave
the fillet unskinned passed with little opposition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The amended motion found wide support, with
14 in favor, no opposition, and the two federal agencies abstaining.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The commercial fishery<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The next agenda item called for the
Management Board to decide whether the commercial quota should be reduced and,
if so, by what amount.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addendum II
contemplated quota reductions that might range from 0 to 14.5%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dr. Armstrong put a motion on the table for a
14% reduction, saying that Addendum II should include commercial reductions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Because we need to be moving in that direction,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and that the commercial reduction ought to approximate
that taken in the recreational fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Cheri Patterson, New Hampshire’s Legislative Appointee, seconded the
motion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Delaware fisheries manager John
Clark quickly responded by making a motion to substitute Option A, which called
for status quo commercial landings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr.
Hasbrouck seconded his motion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Clark argued that excessive recreational
landings made Addendum II necessary, and that recreationally-related fishing
mortality comprised the largest part of overall fishing mortality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said that a quota reduction would “make
life very difficult” for Delaware’s commercial fishermen, who had experienced
an aggregate 40% quota cut since 2014, and claimed that at some point, such
reductions would no longer allow them to make a living as commercial
fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also opined that cutting
the commercial harvest did a disservice to seafood consumers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Other Management Board members supported Mr.
Clark’s statement, but Mr. Appelman disagreed, saying that NOAA Fisheries
supported some level of reduction, although not necessarily 14%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, Rhode Island’s Legislative
Proxy, Eric Reid, expressed concerns that any cut could destroy the commercial
striped bass fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He called striped
bass “a seasonal specialty,” produced by a “boutique fishery” for a “boutique
market,” and believed that if the fish was not available to restaurants when
they wanted it, they would substitute another species and, having moved on,
would not buy the bass when it came on the market again.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Sikorski addressed the question from a
Chesapeake Bay perspective, noting that the Bay produced about 80% of all
commercial landings, when measured in numbers of fish, that fishing mortality
is not only currently too high, but also focused on fish needed to rebuild, and
that Addendum II was all about rebuilding the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He thus opposed the motion for status quo
quota.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Luisi, his colleague from the
Maryland delegation, said that he wouldn’t support the substitute motion or a 14%
cut, but would support a reduction that fell between the two.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the last comment before the vote on the
substitute motion, Joseph Cimino, New Jersey’s fisheries manager, noted that
the Management Board was making “huge assumptions” about the effectiveness of
the recreational measures, and that imposing recreational restrictions while
leaving the commercial quota at status quo would be inequitable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The final vote found only New York, Delaware,
and Virginia supporting the motion, which failed 3-13.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At that point, Mr. Luisi moved to substitute
a 7% reduction for the 14% in Dr. Armstrong’s original motion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jeff Kaelin, Governor’s Appointee from New
Jersey, seconded the motion, which only received comment from Chris Batsavage,
a North Carolina fisheries manager, who argued that 7% was too small of a
reduction to promote rebuilding, and noted that when different levels of
reduction are mandated for different sectors, the fish that aren’t caught by
the more restricted sector often end up being caught by the sector with less
stringent restrictions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite that comment, the motion to
substitute a 7% commercial quota reduction passed on a vote of 8 jurisdictions—Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission and Virginia—in favor, 6 opposed, and the federal agencies
abstaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the final motion came
up for a vote, it passed 13 to 1, again with two abstentions, and only North
Carolina voting against.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Management response to stock assessments<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Because the formal addendum process typically
takes at least a year between the time a new addendum is proposed and the time
when its management measures become effective, the draft Addendum II contained
a provision that would allow the Management Board to fast-track management
action, without going through the formal process, should a stock assessment
indicate that there was less than a 50% probability that the stock would
rebuild by the 2029 deadline if management measures were left unchanged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Absent such power, the Management Board would
be unable to quickly respond to any new threats to the rebuilding process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dr. Davis moved to grant such authority, a
motion that was seconded by David Borden, Rhode Island’s Governor’s Appointee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Little opposition was voiced, although
Maryland’s Luisi was an exception, saying that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“This Board shouldn’t be acting fast, in my opinion,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and expressing support for the addendum
process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, multiple Management Board members
expressed concern that the fast-track process didn’t provide sufficient
opportunity for stakeholder input, and made it clear that they hoped that such
input be provided by alternate means, if the Board chose to fast-track an
addendum—something that it was not compelled to do, even if it had the
authority to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite such misgivings, the motion passed on
a vote of 11-5, with New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia taking the minority view.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Implementation dates<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the critical aspects of any Addendum,
and particularly of Addendum II, is when such Addendum’s measures will have to
be implemented by the states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addendum
II, after all, was intended to govern the 2024 fishery, so there would be
little use implementing its measures when the year was nearly over.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Dr. Armstrong moved that the states
would have to present their implementation plans to the Management Board by
sometime in March, and make such measures effective no later than May 1, 2024.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Borden seconded the motion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dr. Armstrong noted that the Management Board
decided to reduce the commercial quota by only 7%, rather than the 14%
originally suggested, and advised compounding the problem by delaying the
implementation of even that small reduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He recognized that fisheries had already begun in such states, but noted
that such states had the ability to hold back a portion of their quota from
fishermen, knowing that their quotas might be reduced, and that if they chose
not to do so, and exceeded the reduced quota in 2024, they could always pay
back the excess with a smaller quota in 2025.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Sikorski supported the motion, agreeing
that the smaller reduction in commercial quota justified a quick
implementation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He noted that, although
the Maryland and PRFC fishing seasons had already begun, they would close on January
31 and February 29, respectively, and wouldn’t restart until June, providing an
opportunity to call back excess commercial striped bass tags.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That drew an immediate response from Luisi,
who said that recalling tags would be like giving someone $1,000, and then
asking for $70 back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He maintained that
Maryland was unable to recalculate the number of tags to be issued under the
reduced quota, and observed that some fishermen might have already used their
entire tag allocation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With respect to
calling back 7% of the already issued tags, he said that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It can’t and will not happen…We’re not able to do that
administratively.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Geer made similar comments, saying that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We’re in the same situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our season started on the 16<sup>th</sup>,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">while reminding the Management Board that it
had been warned by the Bay states that such issues would arise if Addendum II
wasn’t adopted at the October 2023 Board meeting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He then moved to amend the motion, to require
all recreational management measures to be adopted by the states no later than
May 1, 2024, but giving the states until January 1, 2025 to adopt commercial
measures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The motion was seconded by Mr.
Clark.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mr. Nowalsky made the only comment on the
motion to amend, saying that while he was sympathetic to the administrative
concerns, the originally proposed commercial reduction was nonetheless cut in
half, and if implementation of that reduction was delayed until 2025, it had
the effect of cutting the reduction in half again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He warned that if Mr. Geer’s motion passed,
he would seek to reopen the vote on the commercial quota, and seek an increased
reduction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With that, Mr. Geer’s motion was put to a
vote, in which seven jurisdictions—Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland,
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Virginia, and North Carolina—voted in
favor, seven voted against, the federal agencies abstained, and the motion
narrowly failed, because it did not win a simple majority.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With that, Dr. Armstrong’s motion was back on
the table, and passed ten in favor, four against, and the federal agencies abstaining,
with Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Virginia
casting the dissenting votes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Final approval of the entire Amendment II
came on a 12-4 vote, with the same four jurisdictions voting against adoption.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thoughts and observations<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Addendum II, standing on its own, will probably
not be enough to rebuild the striped bass spawning stock biomass by the 2029
deadline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it marks an important
step on the way to rebuilding, particularly since it gave the Management Board
authority to fast-track some future management measures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
remain steadfast supporters of striped bass conservation, while
Pennsylvania and North Carolina--and to a surprising degree, the District of Columbia--are also proving themselves to be good and
responsible stewards of the striped bass resource.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Jersey and Delaware, on the other hand, consistently
elevate short-term exploitation over long-term stock health.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, that duo has now been joined by
New York, which had previously been a champion of striped bass conservation; while New York’s state fisheries management agency continues to care
for the resource and tries to consider all stakeholders when making decisions,
both New York’s Governor’s Appointee and its new Legislative Appointee have
strong biases in favor of the commercial and for-hire sectors, and give short
shrift to private recreational fisherman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That bias was made extremely clear by Mr. Hasbrouck’s efforts to
discount recreational comments early in the meeting, when he asked whether most
public comments were made by recreational fishermen, and asked whether the Advisory
Panel, which presented contrary recommendations far more favorable to the
commercial and for-hire sectors, had “more balanced” representation between the
three sectors. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I suppose “balance” is in the eye of the
beholder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given that the recreational
sector accounts for at least 85% of striped bass fishing mortality, with the precise
percentage varying from year to year, and given that surf and private boat
anglers are responsible for about 98.5% of all recreational striped bass trips,
and thus the lion’s share of the economic contributions from the fishery, it’s not
hard to argue that true “balance” would weigh the responses according to each
sector’s participation in the fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But that wouldn’t fit Mr. Hasbrouck’s aims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With respect to the tension between the
for-hire fleet and the rest of the recreational fishery, it’s becoming clear
that both New Jersey’s Nowalsky and Maryland’s Luisi have a particular disdain
for anglers who tend to emphasize recreation, and release most of their catch,
and favor the catch-and-kill segment of the recreational fishery championed by the for-hire fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While that disdain doesn’t appear to be
shared by any other state managers, nor any of the other recreational
representatives, it is something to monitor as time goes on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Also with respect to such tensions, it seems
that the idea of “mode splits,” or “sector separation,” is gaining some support
among Management Board members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While,
speaking personally, I don’t believe that fisheries managers should create an
aristocracy within the recreational sector, members of which are granted
privileges not available to the general public, I am also not entirely opposed
to true “sector separation,” if it is done correctly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, if the for-hire fleet is given
special consideration because it represents businesses, then managers should focus on
the for-hire businesses themselves, and not on their customers, by giving the
sector a separate quota reflecting its recent historical share of
recreational landings, issuing tags to be attached to all for-hire fish, and
then shutting down the fishery when the quota is reached, with paybacks
required if the quota is exceeded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such
a management approach would be similar to the commercial management system, and
would take advantage of the electronic reporting systems already in use by
for-hire boats along much of the coast, which make real-time management and, if
needed, in-season closures a realistic possibility not available to the rest of
the recreational sector.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My final observation may, in the end, be the
most sobering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While Addendum II may help
make it possible to rebuild the striped bass stock by 2029, it cannot maintain
the stock at its target level. Only
nature, assisted by fisheries managers, can achieve that goal. <a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/10/17/poor-striped-bass-recruitment-continues-to-threaten-stock/" target="_blank"> </a><a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/10/17/poor-striped-bass-recruitment-continues-to-threaten-stock/" target="_blank">In recent years, we have seen unusually low
striped bass recruitment, presumably due to unfavorable spawning
conditions</a>. Unless such conditions
improve—we can only hope that this winter’s cool and wet conditions extend through
the spring, and possibly lead to higher juvenile abundance in the coming year—the
health of the bass stock will inevitably decline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Should that occur, the best that managers can
do is try to preserve the spawning stock through the hard times—what Dr. Armstrong
called a “looming disaster” and Mr. Sikorski “dark days”—until favorable
conditions recur.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While we can hope for the best for the bass, but
until such conditions return, such hope is mere wishful thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-89505068604898131352024-01-21T20:28:00.003-05:002024-01-21T20:28:45.953-05:00A CONCERTED ATTACK ON CATCH-AND-RELEASE<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the more interesting things about
writing this blog is that in doing my research for one post, I often come
across things that are new, fascinating, sometimes maddening, and sometimes
just weird.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That happened last week, for as I was looking
over <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">the
comments on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s pending striped
bass management measures</a> in advance of writing last Thursday’s piece, I
found a link to a website called “fish4food.com.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">It’s
a very odd website, that announces to the world</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Fish are not a game, but the game is getting Personal
[sic].”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whatever that means.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The website looks like it belongs to an
organization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It includes the motto<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Keep Them On The Dinner Plate,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">declares its mission as<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Preserving Sustainable Fish Harvest”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and bears a logo consisting of a whole
striped bass lying on a dinner plate lying atop a crossed knife and fork.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It has the usual links an organization’s
website would have: “About Us,” “Join Us,” “Sign Petition” and, of course, “DONATE”
(the group also sells a boat decal for the not insignificant sum of $150.00).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But who, and what, would someone be donating <b>to</b>?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the most curious aspects of the
website is that <b><i>nowhere</i></b>, neither on its home page nor on its
other pages, does it list a single name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Most organizations will provide a list of board members, officers, or at
least a press contact to let people know who is running the show.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish4dinner.com seems to be an exception to
that rule.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Its home page includes three purported
testimonials, all supporting catch-and-kill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One allegedly comes from a shore-based fisherman in Massachusetts, one from
a Connecticut charter boat captain, the third from a private-boat fisherman in
Rhode Island.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wording of each is
different, but one feature of each is the same:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The testimonials are all anonymous, lending a reader to wonder who
provided them and, perhaps, if the reader is as cynical and suspicious as I am,
whether such people really even exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But those are just the cosmetic aspects of
the site.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its core message is real and it’s
troubling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “About Us” page reads<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“For far too long the voice of those who wish to harvest
fish for dinner has been an afterthought in the regulatory process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our mission is to help regulators understand
the cultural, social and economic importance of the recreational food
fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Killing more than half of the
recreationally caught fish through discarding them to die is not the
answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can do better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“To date the deciding voice in fishery management has
been driven by an [sic] small, elite, well off, [sic] segment of the
recreational fishing community who have pushed for management practices that
demand abundance at the expense of harvest, never considering the mortality
caused by releasing millions of fish, never offering to help contribute to a
single rebuilding effort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This needs to change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The fish we catch recreationally are as important on the
dinner table as they are in the water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Healthy stocks are a good thing, sustainably harvested fish is a good
thing, the thrill you feel when you catch your own dinner is a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The economic benefits created by your pursuit
of dinner is a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We work to
make sure these simple concepts are not forgotten.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Please join us in our mission to preserve your ability
to bring a few fish home to eat.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It sounds like a coherent message, but let’s
take it apart one paragraph—even, at times, one sentence—at a time, to see how
it misleads the reader and tries to push emotional buttons in order to obscure
the facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s begin with the very first line, which
asserts that “the voice of those who want to harvest fish for dinner has been
an afterthought in the regulatory process,” for nothing can be farther from the
truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saltwater fishery management is
all about harvest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in most cases
based on the concept of<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustainable_yield"> maximum sustainable
yield—the greatest number of fish that can be removed from the population on a
long-term basis without causing the stock to decline</a>—and <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e6826bFIRST_PAGE_StripedBassBenchmarkStockAssessment_SAW66.pdf">when
it isn’t, as in the case of striped bass, it’s because the model used in the
stock assessment does not provide a reliable estimate of MSY and/or, as is also
the case with striped bass, because the stock is overfished</a>, and lower
landings are temporarily needed to allow the stock to rebuild to a point where MSY
can, again, be achieved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, there is always some uncertainty
inherent in fishery management, so calculating regulations to achieve MSY,
expressed as <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-04/2022-SOS-Additional-Information-V2.pdf">the
fishing mortality threshold</a>, could easily lead to overfishing, so most <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/09/harvest-strategies-reference-points">regulations
are calculated to achieve a slightly lower fishing mortality target, and
provide a buffer that makes overfishing less likely</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But despite that buffer being in place, maximizing
the number of fish that may be killed and taken home is a constantly recurring
theme in saltwater fisheries management.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s why so <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/PublicInput/AtlStripedBassDraftAddendumII_PublicComment_Oct2023.pdf">many
management proposals, including the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
pending<i> Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>, only seek a 50% probability of achieving their
goals</a>; a higher probability of success would necessarily reduce the number
of fish that are landed, and so managers disfavor that path.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, at least in the case of
striped bass, catch-and-release fishing <i>does</i> produce a substantial number
of discards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">In
2022, striped bass anglers took home, and hopefully ate (although that,
unfortunately, is not a given) slightly less than 3.5 million striped bass,
while releasing about 29.6 million</a> which, applying<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e6826bFIRST_PAGE_StripedBassBenchmarkStockAssessment_SAW66.pdf">
the accepted release mortality rate of 9%,</a> would lead to somewhat under 2.7
million fish that didn’t survive release which, although well below the claimed
“more than half of recreationally caught fish” (it’s a lot closer to 40%) is
still a substantial amount.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But where the fish4dinner folks fall short is
when they start talking about the “cultural, social and economic importance of
the recreational food fishery.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes,
those things do matter, but with anglers killing and taking home 3.5 million
bass in 2022, there’s still plenty of catching and killing going on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the catch-and-release fishery also
has cultural, social, and economic importance, and when one realizes that such
fishery is about 8 ½ times larger than the catch-and-kill fishery, and that
while each bass caught by a catch-and-kill fisherman can only be enjoyed once, a
released bass, if not harvested somewhere else along the way, can provide cultural,
social, and economic benefits not just once, to a single angler, but 11 times
on average, to multiple people, before it is removed from the population, it
becomes clear that the value of each individual fish that is released is far greater
than one which is killed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://owaa.org/owaa-legends/a-hero-of-mine-remembering-lee-wulff/">As
the late angler and writer Lee Wulff once noted,</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Game fish are too valuable to be caught only once.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But the fish4dinner folks, whoever they may
be, don’t seem to care about the value of a released gamefish or the benefits
that accrue from the catch-and-release fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Instead, they make the allegation that “an [sic] small, elite, well-off,
[sic] segment of the recreational fishery” is “the deciding voice in fisheries
management.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Trying to play on feelings of economic envy
and what might be deemed “class warfare” is a ploy that demagogues often employ,
hoping that emotion will serve them better than fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the plain fact is that the angling
community as a whole strongly supports fisheries conservation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is particularly true in the case of
striped bass management, where, <a href="https://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2021SpringMeetingWebinar/StripedBassAm7PID_PublicCommentsAndSummary.pdf">in
the period leading up to adoption of Amendment 7 to the ASMFC’s management
plan, stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on whether they wished to
change the reference points used to calculate regulations, in order to increase
landings while necessarily decreasing striped bass abundance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thousands of stakeholders responded, and their
sentiments were very clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>98.7% of the
comments received opposed changing the goals and objectives of the plan away
from abundance and toward larger harvests, while an even larger proportion,
99.6%, opposed any change in the reference points</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, it was not the views of a “small, elite…segment
of the recreational fishery” that was the deciding voice” in striped bass
management; instead, it was the collective views of the vast majority of striped
bass fishermen from every state between Maine and Virginia that decided the
issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s fish4dinner that represents the minority
view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That doesn’t mean that a lot of bass
fishermen don’t want to occasionally bring a fish home; most of those whom I
know—and I know a lot of them—will keep a fish from time to time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what the majority will <b><i>not</i></b>
do, as demonstrated by their comments on Amendment 7, is subordinate their
desire for a healthy bass stock to the opportunity for larger short-term
landings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And we can only laugh at the claim that catch-and-release
anglers never offer to contribute to striped bass rebuilding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every fish that they return to the water has
a 91% chance of surviving and contributing to the next season’s spawn, while a
fish tossed in a cooler is lost to the stock, and to the future of the
fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, some fish are lost to
release mortality, and we still have some way to go before all anglers release
fish the right way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I have yet to
hear the catch-and-kill crowd speak up at a hearing—and I attend every hearing
held here on Long Island—<b><i>even once</i></b>, ask for their harvest to be
cut for the good of the stock. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, they
always sing the same song as the fish4dinner crowd, and its chorus is “We want
more dead fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More!”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ll end this analysis by addressing the
ludicrous claim that fish “are as important on the dinner table as they are in
the water.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, if there are no—or
at least far too few—fish in the water, the chances of catching one, much less putting
one on the dinner table, are going to be close to nil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Abundance is a prerequisite to maximizing the
long-term social, ecological, and economic benefits that accrue from a
resource, whether those benefits come in the form of food or recreational
opportunity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2014/04/if-you-want-fishing-industry-it-helps.html">As
I have noted before, if you want a recreational fishing industry, it helps to
have fish</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anglers don’t like to
fish in an empty ocean, and even a cursory review of angler effort shows that such
effort follows fish abundance; when fish are abundant, people do more fishing,
and generate more economic activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Correlating
striped bass abundance with <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">angling
effort, from 1995 until now</a>, shows that to be true.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, with that said, just who are the fish4dinner
folks, and what do they want?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And why
should anyone donate hard-earned cash to folks who won’t even disclose who they
are?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Answering the easy question first, the fish4dinner
folks seem to want weaker regulations, that allow a larger recreational harvest
at the expense of the long-term health of the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three statements on their website’s home page
make that perfectly clear:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Advocates for ‘Catch and Release’ Fisheries, and ‘Game
Fish’ status’s [sic] have been preached for so long it’s become household
terminology amongst the public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must
educate the public as to why this has been preached and also why it is wrong.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Our current method of collecting data is flawed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those that wish to see our fisheries shut
down enjoy this method as it highlights only statistics that align with their
goals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However what we see on the water
just does not match up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We believe a better
way is out there.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We all believe in regulations and see the value they
provide to sustain healthy fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However blindly agreeing to stricter regulations based on bad data does
not make them appropriate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We want the
regulations to align with the science and the different ways we each fish.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The parties behind the website seem to be
part of a relatively new organization called the “East Coast Fisheries
Coalition,” which claims to represent charter boat associations between Massachusetts
and Maryland.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That makes sense, given that
I found the site by clicking on a link included in comments submitted by that
organization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.bizapedia.com/ri/east-coast-fishing-coalition.html">According
to the best information I can find, the Coalition is a Rhode Island not-for-profit
corporation, organized as a trade association that would qualify under section
501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its
registered agent for service of process is Richard Bellavance, a Rhode Island charter
boat captain and president of the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat
Association.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “specific purpose” of
the group is declared to be</a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“we intend to advocate for the ability to sustainably
harvest fish for dinner,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-right: .5in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">which is fine, and
would seem to be just what the ASMFC also wants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/64529753pr10AtlSripedBassEmergencyAction.pdf">2023
landings are likely to be lower than those of 2022 (which is intentional, as
2022 landings were too high to represent a <b><i>sustainable</i></b> harvest</a>),
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/recreational-fisheries-statistics-queries">about
1.7 million striped bass were landed through October 31 of last year.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While landings through December 31 won’t be
available until the middle of February, the active fishery that New York and
New Jersey enjoyed during the last two months of 2023 will almost certainly
push landings well over two million fish, and demonstrate that plenty of people
had “the ability to sustainably harvest fish for dinner” last year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The interesting thing in the fish4dinner
comments was the disparaging reference to “Gamefish Status’s.” <a href="https://www.onthewater.com/ask-an-expert-what-is-gamefish-status">“Gamefish
status” is usually understood to mean outlawing commercial harvest and sale of s
species, so it not only shouldn’t impact an angler’s ability to take a bass
home, it should actually make it <b><i>easier</i></b> for a recreational angler
to take home a fish, as the current commercial quota would probably be
reallocated to anglers</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact
that the reference is there suggests some input from the commercial sector, which
might also feel threatened by conservation-minded anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, those commercial fishermen might
take the form of party and charter boat operators who also hold commercial
licenses, as many do, and thus have an inherent conflict of interest if they
claim to speak for the recreational sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Which finally gets us to the last question: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why should anyone donate to fish4dinner?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The answer is that, if they’re a surfcaster
or private-boat angler, they probably shouldn’t, particularly if they want to
see fisheries that are fully rebuilt and sustainable in the long term, because
what fish4dinner really represents is not the typical angler but—ironically,
given some of its statements—a small, elite group of for-hire operators, who appear
ready to hide their objections to fisheries data and fisheries science, and
their opposition to conservative, science-based fisheries management, behind a
seeming defense of anglers fishing for food.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But anglers should not be fooled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although fish4dinner makes fatuous,
self-serving arguments, it is nonetheless a serious threat.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://risos-apa-production-public.s3.amazonaws.com/DEM/12912/PBC_12912_20230407141803292.pdf">Capt.
Rick Bellavance and the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat Association are
unapologetic supporters of “mode splits,” or “sector separation,” the notion
that passengers on for-hire vessels should be granted special privileges not
available to the great majority of recreational fishermen</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/62ed5e9e9b45b826cd35879b/1659723425362/Tab01_Bluefish-2023-Specs_2022-08.pdf">sector
separation policies have already given bluefish anglers on for-hire boats a
5-fish bag limit, as opposed to a 3-fish limit for everyone else</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/656a3e1d3609cb3197f7e78b/1701461534373/Tab04_24-25+Scup+Rec+Measures_2023-12.pdf">In
the scup fishery, they have created a special “bonus season” which allows
for-hire anglers a larger bag limit than those in the shore and private-boat
sectors</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, in Addendum II, they
are again seeking special privileges, in the form of a 28- to 33-inch bag limit,
as opposed to the 28- to 31-inch slot that governs the other sectors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although, in 2022, shore and private-boat
anglers accounted for 98.5% of all recreational fishing trips taken the northeast
and mid-Atlantic regions, and so undoubtedly also accounted for the lion’s
share of the economic benefits accruing from the recreational fishery, the
fish4dinner folks seem intent on creating a small, elite group of for-hire
vessels, that will be governed by special rules less restrictive than those
that govern everyone else who, despite their economic contributions, will be
relegated into a sort of fishing-related peasantry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The aspersions cast on catch-and-release
anglers also demeans the many forward-looking for-hire captains who have
embraced conservation and fishing for the pure joy that the sport provides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They merely provides cover for those in the
for-hire fleet who refuse to change with the times, and continue to believe
that the only proper gauge of a good day at sea is the number of dead fish tossed
on the dock at the end of the trip.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the desperation shown by such tactics
is clear, fish4dinner may well prevail, unless anglers don’t tell fisheries
managers at the state, ASMFC, and federal levels, that while taking fish home
for dinner is a worthy and laudable goal that almost all of us, at some point,
pursue, the primary goal of the fishery management system must be to sustain
the long-term health of fish stocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For if they fail at that task, there will, in
time, be nothing left to take home.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-27178036067826135732024-01-18T22:50:00.000-05:002024-01-18T22:50:08.542-05:00STRIPED BASS ADDENDUM II: STAKEHOLDER COMMENT (PARTICULARLY ON THE RECREATIONAL OPTIONS) AND WHAT COMES NEXT<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.asmfc.org/home/2024-winter-meeting">At 1:15 p.m. on January
24, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management
Board will meet to decide what the final version of <i>Addendum II to Amendment
7 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i> will
look like</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
Management Board’s decisions will help to determine whether the ASMFC meets its
obligations to rebuild the still-overfished striped bass stock by 2029, and
whether the Board will put itself in a position to quickly respond to any new
obstacles to rebuilding the stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s
often difficult to predict what the Management Board will do although, given
that <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2023AnnualMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardPresentations_Oct2023.pdf" target="_blank">even the best-case scenario only gives Addendum II a 51% chance ofrebuilding the stock by the deadline, while the worst case is a 64% probabilityof failure</a>, it’s probably fair to say that the more the Board does at next week’s
meeting, the less it will have to do between now and 2029—beginning, most
likely, next October, after the release of a scheduled update to the stock
assessment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yesterday,
<a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2024WinterMeeting/AtlStripedBassBoardSupp_Jan2024.pdf">Emilie
Franke, the ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass,
released a comprehensive summary of stakeholder comment received on Addendum II,
along with each written comment received.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although none of the comment was particularly surprising, some
interesting patterns emerged which ought to be noted by the Management Board</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Stakeholders
submitted a total of 3,525 comments, which broke down into 2,832 written
comments (1,062 comments from individuals, 1,723 form letters, and 47 comments
from organizations) along with 693 comments provided at the various hearings
held between Maine and Virginia.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
ocean recreational fishery<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Not
surprisingly, 2,448 of those comments, the most addressing any individual
issue, addressed the ocean recreational fishery, and as Ms. Franke noted in
here memorandum to the Management Board,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The
vast majority of commenters favored ocean <u>Option B (28-31” all modes)</u>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Commenters noted this option is the most
conservative option with the highest estimated reduction, which is needed to
support stock rebuilding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This option
would best protect the 2015-year class…<b><i>Most commenters noted specific,
strong opposition to any mode split options.</i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They noted the entire recreational sector
should have the same regulations and participate equally in rebuilding the
stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They also noted that all
recreational anglers should have the same fishing opportunity.,.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Option
B was supported by 93.5% of the people who commented on the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Option
C, which would grant special privileges to anglers fishing from for-hire
vessels, was preferred by slightly less than 6.5% of the commenters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ms. Franke noted that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The
second most-supported ocean option was Option B (28-31” private/shore; 28-33”
for-hires).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Support for this
option was primarily from the for-hire industry</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments noted the…for-hire did not see the
same level of harvest increase in 2022 as private vessels/shore anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments highlighted that allowing the wider
slot has a negligible impact (0.1%) on the estimated reduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Stakeholders noted the narrow 28-31”
slot has had negative economic impacts on for-hire businesses with fewer
bookings this year</i></b>, as customers do not feel the trip is worth it with
such a narrow slot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments noted a
wider slot would attract customers and would support anglers who value bringing
fish home for food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments also noted
a wider slot would decrease release mortality, and that many dead fish in water
have been observed this year with the narrow slot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While
Ms. Franke provides a fair and accurate review of the comments provided, there
are nuances in the comments that couldn’t be captured in a single paragraph.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The supporters of Options B and C did not
neatly break down into anglers on one side and for-hires on the other; some
anglers supported Option C, while a surprising number of for-hire operators and
other angling-related business supported Option B.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A
more accurate breakdown of the comments might be made by the commenters’
focus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While
not everyone provided a rationale for their choices, among those who did, Option
B’s supporters typically emphasized their concerns for the long-term health of
the stock, along with a sentiment that all anglers, regardless of whether they
fished from shore, from a boat, or from a for-hire vessel, had an equal
obligation to contribute to the recovery of the striped bass stock, and that
shifting some portion of that burden from for-hire anglers to the shoulders of
shore-based and private boat anglers was manifestly unfair.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A
perhaps surprising number of for-hire operators also supported Option B.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the most part, they fell into two
groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many were concentrated in northern
New England, while most—but not all—of the others had stopped trying to promote
their business by selling dead fish, and instead owned successful charter
operations that sold a quality angling experience, and didn’t depend on putting
bass in the cooler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>It’s probably
important to note that the American Saltwater Guides Association, the only for-hire
organization that represents charter operators in every state between Maine and North
Carolina, supported Option B, and stated that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“<b><i>ASGA
strongly opposes the idea of mode-splits</i></b>…and implores the Striped Bass Board
to not consider these options at this time…the primary goal of Addendum II is
to reduce fishing mortality to target levels; this is NOT the time to consider,
let alone approve, such a fundamental shift in striped bass management
exclusively designed to let one group harvest more fish than others in the same
sector and further threaten the long-term sustainability of the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>The Striped Bass board should remain
focused on rebuilding the stock and not create conflict and controversy within
the recreational sector</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[emphasis
added]” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Option
C’s supporters, when they commented at all, often gave lip service to maintaining
the health of the stock, but then focused their comments on personal economic
concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They made it clear that their
customer base wanted to take fish home, and many of their comments seemed to
reflect an attitude of entitlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While such entitlement was generally muffled, as it was in the comments
provided by a group calling itself the “East Coast Fishing Coalition,” that
seems to be composed of charter boat operators from New York and southern New
England, which said that Option C<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“balances
the need for conservation with the socio-economic needs of the for-hire fleet,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">(as
if, when managing an overfished stock experiencing recruitment failure in
multiple nursery areas, such balancing should even be considered), it was fully
displayed in the comments of one Long Island, New York charter boat operator,
who brazenly asserted that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
have been a charter Captain for over 40 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As a charter captain I pay a State fee of $250 for my charter
business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I pay for commercial
insurance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have to maintain my captain’s
license and renew it every 5 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am
subject to random drug testing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“For
all of these righteous requirements I get no preferential treatment to help
maintain my business and no consideration of what I do for the tourist industry
in my region.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“This
is draconian bullying at its best based on somewhat shaky science.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Charter
catch should be 28 to 35 inch or 36 and over.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although
it’s unlikely that most for-hire operators feel quite that entitled, none who
supported Option C ever really explained why their customers ought to get
special privileges that are denied to anyone else, other than it would put more
money in the for-hire folks’ pockets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But,
as I noted, not all for-hire operators support Option C.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Capt. Randy Siegler of Marblehead,
Massachusetts commented that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
am writing as the owner of (what I believe is) the largest/busiest guide
service in the country that targets Striped Bass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With 10 (+/-) boats running one or two trips
a day, virtually every day of the season June-Sept.), [sic] we typically run
1,000-1,400 Striped Bass trips a season…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“With
that as a frame of reference, I want to express how pleased we were with this past
year’s size & bag limits (1 fish 28” to less than 31”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We saw first hand the surge of fish entering
the legal slot in 2022 and (previous legal slot) in 2023.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are absolutely thrilled that these fish
from the 2015 year class, critical to the long term success of the population,
are being protected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Our
business is successful if we have fish to catch…<b>it is not dependent</b> on
sending every client home with a ‘keeper’ striped bass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, we probably average about one legal
fish retained for every four of five trips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We certainly catch ‘legal’ fish frequently, but when customers
understand the science behind the population, they are more than happy to
release fish that could otherwise be kept.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
suspect that you will hear from some charter operators that they need better
access to legal/keeper striped bass in order to attract customers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am writing to tell you <b>that is absolutely
not the case</b> for us…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s
quite a difference between the comments made by two different charter boat
captains.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Certainly,
some of the difference is attributable to their different business models,
which attract different sorts of customers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are certainly quite a few for-hire customers who want to take a
fish home, particularly those who patronize the party boat fleet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the same time, one has to wonder how much
customer attitudes are shaped by the attitudes of the captains themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone emphasizes “full boat limits” in
their advertising, and fills such ads with photos of dead striped bass, it’s not
surprising if their customers become conditioned to believe that a full cooler is
the best evidence of a good day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
other hand, if a boat’s business model emphasizes a quality angling experience,
and allows but downplays taking fish home, angler views of a “good day on the
water” might be tempered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><b>How</b></i> a boat catches its bass also affects
that perception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s a big
difference in the customer experience between boats that drag umbrella rigs on wire
line, never taking the boat out of gear when a fish is hooked, and those that give customers a chance to cast to structure or to breaking fish with gear that actually lets the
angler feel the fish fight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Last June, a
friend told me about what he saw while fishing from the rocks at Montauk, New
York:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
thought I’d seen it all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yesterday
Montauk with fish pushing tiny sand eels tight to the beach in a blitz a well
known charter boat insisted on running parallel to the shore trying to pull
wire thru 7 feet of water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This despite
clear signs all you needed to do was lob an Ava jig and make a few cranks.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As
anyone who has done it can tell you (and in the old days, I did it a lot),
pulling wire for bass can be very effective, but it’s not a lot of fun, using
broomstick-stiff rods and keeping the boat moving forward as the angler cranks
the hooked fish to the boat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s more
like work than recreation, with only the largest fish able to pull back against
the heavy gear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s easy to see why
charter boats fishing that way have to emphasize taking fish home, because the
mere act of catching those fish isn’t particularly entertaining.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It's easy to believe that if more for-hire boats emphasized just <b><i>catching</i></b>
the fish on gear that makes fishing fun—basically, as my friend suggested,
lobbing a diamond jig or other lure into blitzing bass—so that the angler can
feel the fish strike and has to struggle a bit to bring the bass to hand, the
thrill of the catching can become as or more important than the food from the
keeping, and fewer customers would be upset if they don’t bring a fish home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we look at other inshore sport fisheries
in other places, for bonefish, or permit, or tarpon down South, or for
freshwater fish like bass and muskellunge—or, in many cases, for false albacore and bluefish right
here off Long Island—anglers are more than happy to hire boats to fish for fish that
they have no intention of keeping, just so long as the action is good.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There appears to be no reason why the for-hire striped bass
fishery can’t evolve along similar lines.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately,
too many captains are too set in their ways to try something new.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, much of that may be because, in
many cases, a for-hire captain is also a commercial striped bass fisherman,
and is imbued with the commercial fisherman’s desire to put bass in the boat using
the quickest and most efficient means available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As one New York angler noted,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“It
would seem that the only meaningful change we are considering at this point is
a possible split in the regulations (different regs for For-Hire).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As far as New York is considered, the public
would require much more transparency on the overlap of those who are licensed
to take recreational fishermen for-hire, but also hold permits to harvest
striped bass commercially.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We appear to
have a population of commercial fishermen who essentially want to be the voice
of recreational fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We simply
need better disclosure (data that New York has) to understand the extent to
which we have conflicts of interest here.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyone
who might question that statement need only look to the votes of New York’s
Marine Resources Advisory Council, which routinely sees representatives of the
for-hire fleet ally with commercial representatives to defeat proposed
conservation measures that might restrict either commercial or recreational
landings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More times than not,
particularly when striped bass measures are being considered, the outcome of
such votes can be predicted before voting even begins.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nick
Montefusco, an angler from New Jersey, added another twist to the mode split
issue, saying<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">"any
option which grants for-hire vessels less restrictive regulations as compared
to shore-based private anglers is inherently incompatible with the concept of
maintaining fairness in regulations across economic classes (i.e., people should
not be able to pay for the privilege of retaining fish that couldn’t be
retained otherwise), irrespective of the minimal impact on the projected
mortality reduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also opens the
possibility of undermining enforcement, since it will not be immediately obvious
if possession of a fish that is 31”-33” constitutes a violation…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
ASMFC’s Law Enforcement Committee expressed similar concerns, noting that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Consistent
compliance requirements across all modes within a sector leads to enhanced
voluntary compliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Compliance is
complicated when there are varied sizes, seasons and possession limits for
recreational fishers who fish in different modes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The [Law Enforcement Committee] recognizes
and respects the desires by fishers to advocate and pursue management options
for their respective modes of fishing for striped bass, however when specific management
options intended to safeguard the stock of a species are complicated by
different regulations for different modes of fishing, voluntary compliance and
enforceability decrease.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In
other words, when anglers perceive regulations to be unfair, because they grant
special privileges to others and not to them, some anglers will try to rectify
the situation by taking unilateral actions that may be illegal, but satisfy
their sense of fairness in the fishery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some
of the largest recreational fishing organizations in the country, including the
American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Center for
Sportfishing Policy, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership recognized that truth in a joint comment
letter, which stated,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“We
are adamantly opposed to mode splits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
ASMFC hands out conservation passes to the for-hire mode, what incentive does
any one individual angler have with a mentality that if you’re a small percentage
of the overall pie your slice doesn’t need to bear the burden of conservation?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although
the ocean recreational fishery drew the most comments, the Chesapeake Bay
recreational fishery options generated 2,399 written comments, only a few dozen
less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once again, stakeholders were
asked to pick the most appropriate slot limit, and also asked to choose whether
for-hire anglers should get special treatment not enjoyed by the rest of the
angling community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And once again, the
responses broke down among similar lines.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As
Ms. Franke reported, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The
majority of comments noted support for Chesapeake Bay <u>Option B1 (19-23” fish
all modes)</u> and <u>Option B2 (19-24” fish all modes)</u>, noting either
option is estimated to meet the 14.5% reduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most other comments supported Option B1 specifically,
noting this is the most conservative option with the highest estimated
reduction to support stock rebuilding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Comments also noted the need to protect the 2018-year class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>Many comments noted specific opposition
to mode split options, noting the entire recreational sector should have the
same regulations, should contribute to rebuilding, and should have the same
fishing opportunity</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many
comments also noted the need for conservative Bay regulations considering
recent poor recruitment in the Bay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With
regard to commenters supporting mode splits, Ms. Franke reported that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Those
in favor of Chesapeake Bay Option C2 (19-24” 1 fish private/shore; 2 fish
for-hire) noted that charter businesses in the Bay could not survive with a
1-fish bag limit, and that for-hire trips have already decreased.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maryland stakeholders noted that Maryland
charter vessels participate in the state’s electronic reporting program and
provide detailed information on trips and catch.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Stakeholders
preferences with respect to the Chesapeake fishery were even more one-sided
than they were with respect to the ocean fishery, with slightly over 95% of the
comments supporting Options B1 or B2, and less than 2.5% supporting Options C1
or C2, the two mode-split options.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Comments
were similar to those submitted on the recreational ocean fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anglers and some for-hire operators expressed
concern for the health and the future of the striped bass stock, and supported
the “B” options, while supporters of the “C” options were primarily concerned
with business issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But at least one
tackle shop operator was also concerned with business issues, and he didn’t care
for the “C” options at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He wrote,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“My
business, Anglers Sportscenter, which employs between 20 to 40 people at any
given time, depends to a large degree on recreational sport fishing for striped
bass on the Chesapeake Bay.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“As
striped bass regulations have become more restrictive it has had a negative
impact on my business.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Shifting
part of the allowable catch from one sector of recreational anglers to another
is a case of the government picking economic winners and losers, as tightening
restrictions on my customer base hurts my business while giving more of the
share to other forms of business benefits theirs.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One
of the more poignant comments came from a high school student, James Ronayne,
from Annapolis, Maryland, who does his striped bass fishing from a 12-foot tin
boat called the “Pork Chop.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“…When
I think about regulations, I think about the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think about what a fishery will look like
not only for my future, but for my kids and grandkids.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
fully recognize that shutting down or restricting a fishery has massive
implications for a lot of people and their livelihoods today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>BUT what I keep thinking about is
tomorrow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we kill all the fish now,
what does our livelihood look like next year or 5 years down the road?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What does it look like for future generations?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“While
the past 5 years of a poor spawn can be partially attributed to poor weather
conditions, it is also due to overharvesting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It does not seem fair that charter boats that that possess decades of
fishing knowledge, and thousands of dollars of fish-finding equipment can go
out and keep upwards of 60 fish per day while I am limited to 1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The effort per catch on their boat vs my boat
is not comparable…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If
more adults felt the same way that teen does, our bass might well be in much
better shape.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On
the other hand, many of the Maryland charter boats commenting on the proposal
insist that they will lose so many customers that they could go out of business
if their bag limit is reduced to just one bass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That
may well be true, but one must then ask whether that problem is entirely due to
the bag limit, or the charter boats’ usual practice of returning to the dock
once a limit of bass has been caught, even if anglers only fished for a portion of their originally allotted time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After all, there are other fish in the bay that the boats could also
target for their customers to bring home, in addition to the one striper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As John Billings, a former mate on various Maryland
for-hire boats observed,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I
understand the Captain’s [sic] concerns that they may have a reduction in
clientele if they can only keep one striped bass, but there are other fish in
the water for harvest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, they may
have to adapt to the changing times, but we all do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speckled sea trout, white perch, redfish, bluefish,
Spanish mackerel and sea bass are all available to catch as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They can supplement any client’s desire for
meat with most of these options, and nearly all can be caught using the same or
very similar techniques and equipment they currently employ.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Once
again, as in the ocean fishery, an aversion to change may be the for-hire fleet’s
biggest problem.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Other
recreational measures<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
draft Addendum II addressed two other issues directly related to the
recreational fishery, but which attracted far fewer comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One
asked whether, if mode splits were allowed, the captain and crew of for-hire
vessels would be allowed to keep fish falling within the wider, 28- to 33-inch
slot, or whether they should be restricted to the narrower 28- to 31-inch slot
that applied to everyone else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only 303
comments were received on this question, with 247—81.5%--recommending that
captain and crew be restricted to the same slot as private boat and shore-based
anglers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
other issue, which gave rise to 648 comments, asked whether, if states allowed
bass to be filleted at sea or at shoreside locations, anglers/for-hire vessels
should be required to 1) keep the racks from the filleted fish so that law
enforcement could determine if the fish were of legal size, 2) keep the skin on
the fillets to facilitate identification of the species that they came from,
and 3) only possess two fillets for every rack retained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the people who commented on the issue,
555, or 85.5%, favored such requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most
of the opposition to this requirement came from the for-hire fleet which, as
Ms. Franke reported,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“noted
that fillet requirements would delay the turnaround time between charter
trips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Charter vessels need to
transition as quickly as possible between trips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Commenters noted questions and concerns about
where the racks would be disposed of, and noted that state/local rules would
limit where racks could be disposed of.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Reducing
the commercial quota<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
draft Addendum II also proposed reducing the commercial quota by up to
14.5%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This option drew 2,407 comments,
with 2,249 of them, or just under 93.5%, supporting such reduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ms. Franke reported that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The
majority of comments support <u>Option B (up to 14.5% quota reduction)</u>, with
most comments supporting the full 14.5% reduction for both the ocean and
Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Comments noted that all sectors should take an equal reduction to
rebuild the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some comments noted
the reduction should be taken from landings, not from the quota.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Those
in favor of <u>Option A (status quo commercial quotas)</u>, primarily the
commercial industry, noted the commercial sector should not be penalized for
the increase in recreational harvest…Comments noted that unlike the
recreational sector, the commercial sector is heavily monitored with
accountability through tagging and quota paybacks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments noted there have been multiple quota
reductions the past several years, and additional reductions would be
detrimental to the industry with negative economic impacts.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Response
to stock assessments<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally,
the draft Addendum II asked whether the Management Board should be allowed to
adopt new management measures in response to upcoming stock assessments, without
the need to first put proposals out for public hearing, if the assessments
suggested that, without such additional measures, the stock was unlikely to rebuild
by the 2029 deadline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
ASMFC received 2,240 comments on the issue, with the vast majority—2,150, or
nearly 96%, the greatest percentage in favor of any proposal in the draft
Addendum—favoring such grant of authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As Ms. Franke noted,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The
majority of comments support <u>Option B (Board action process)</u> noting the
need for quick, decisive action by the Board following stock assessments to
rebuild the stock and quickly implement new measures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some commenters noted that while they support
a fast process, opportunities for public comment should be clearly
communicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Those
in favor of <u>Option A (Addendum/Amendment process)</u> noted the need for a
full public comment process during the development of management actions to
make informed management decisions.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>A
complication</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Based
solely on public comment, one might expect the Management Board to maintain the
current 28- to 31-inch slot limit in the ocean recreational fishery, adopt a
1-fish bag limit and either an 18- to 23-inch or 18- to 24-inch slot in the
Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, require racks to be retained, etc. if fish
are filleted at sea, reduce the commercial quota by 14.5%, and give the
Management Board the authority to fast-track management measures if a stock
assessment or assessment update suggests such measures are needed to timely
rebuild the stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However,
it is likely that one or more of those things will not happen as, for whatever
reason, the ASMFC’s Striped Bass Advisory Panel seemed out of touch with the
desires of its constituents, and recommended far different actions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Only
four out of 13 Advisory Panel members supported the commenters’ clear choice in
the ocean recreational fishery, a 28- to 31-inch slot for all anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, eight Panel members supported the
for-hire fleet, and recommended Option C, which would hold shore-based and
private-boat anglers to such 3-inch slot, but allow anglers fishing from
for-hire vessels to enjoy a broader, 28- to 33-inch slot limit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Reasons
given for such decision included claims that the larger slot would reduce
discards on for-hire trips, that it would have roughly the same effect on
reducing recreational landings, and that it would support the for-hire
business.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
Advisory Panel reached a similar conclusion with respect to the Chesapeake Bay
recreational fishery, with only five supporting any of the “B” options, which
would create a 1-fish bag limit and the same slot limit for all anglers fishing
within the Bay, while six supported Option C1, which would create an 18- to
23-inch slot limit, accompanied by a 2-fish bag for for-hires and a 1-fish bag
for everyone else.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again
similar to the ocean recreational fishery, the majority of the Panel supported
such option because it believed that the 2-fish bag was essential to the
for-hire fleet’s survival, that the fleet had little to fish for besides striped
bass, that the for-hire fleet was required to report its fish electronically,
and because such a limit would discourage the release of small fish in the
hopes of catching a larger one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With
respect to the other recreational measures, the Advisory Panel disfavored
holding for-hire captain and crew to the same limits as private boat and
shore-based anglers, with only one member supporting the proposal and four
opposing it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nine members opposed rack
retention requirements when fish are filleted at sea, with none supporting the
proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The
majority of the Advisory Panel also opposed reducing the commercial quota, with
seven opposing such reduction, and only four supporting it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reasons given for the opposition included the
fact that Addendum II was initiated because recreational, and not commercial,
landings spiked in 2022, because quota cuts would cause economic losses, because
the commercial industry is “highly regulated” and landings are capped by
quotas, because quotas are rarely caught, because most landings are now
recreational, and because commercial gear has generally been adapted to avoid
spawning-sized fish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally,
ten Panel members opposed giving the Management Board fast-track authority to
adopt management measures, while only two supported the proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The opposition claimed that it was concerned
about losing the opportunity for public comment, that emergency actions could
still be taken, that there was frustration over the last emergency action, that
“faster is not always better,” that the Addendum/Amendment process is designed
to address management issues, and that they wanted to avoid “knee-jerk”
reactions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus,
<b><i>the Advisory Panel was out of step with the public comment on every single
issue</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Neither
public comment nor Advisory Panel recommendations dictate Board action, which
lies solely within the discretion of the Management Board.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the Advisory Panel recommendations
will provide Management Board members who might be looking for an excuse not to
go along with public opinion an easy way out, and a justification for supporting the
views of a very small minority of stakeholders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus,
the future of Addendum II is very much in doubt. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On
January 24, we will learn whether a majority of the Management Board will yield
to the calls of the minority, and support narrow economic interests, or whether
it will choose to represent the public and the needs of the bass, and support
the majority view.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Right
now, I can’t predict which path it will choose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-62799021610524366582024-01-14T09:46:00.002-05:002024-01-14T09:46:52.161-05:00WHAT SOME STRIPED BASS FISHERMEN KNOW TO BE TRUE<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> <a href="https://www.churchoffreethought.org/sermons_knowing_what_aint_so.php">Mark
Twain reportedly noted</a>,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The trouble with the world is not that people know too
little, but that they know so many things that ain’t so.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the author was undoubtedly thinking of
the world as a whole when he uttered that statement, it applies to the narrow
world of fisheries management equally well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Fisheries science is far from
cut-and-dried. Every new stock
assessment typically brings new information; some of the data merely builds on
existing knowledge, but other <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/population-assessments/research-track-stock-assessments">information,
particularly that which comes from so-called “research track” assessments, can
forge new ground</a>. We often spend too
much time guessing at what an assessment might say; often, our guesses are
right, but at other times, we’re surprised by something unexpected and new.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, fishermen tend to be a
conservative bunch, who feel most comfortable when the future resembles the
past. To them, new information and ideas
are often suspect, particularly when it leads to restrictions on landings and
fishing effort. When that sort of thing
happens—and sometimes, even when it doesn’t—fishermen tend to believe whatever
makes them comfortable, even if such beliefs are untrue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That sort of thinking was showcased at an Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission hearing held in Kings Park, New York last
December 4, to hear stakeholders’ thoughts on the <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/files/PublicInput/AtlStripedBassDraftAddendumII_PublicComment_Oct2023.pdf">Draft
Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass</a></i>. Addendum II is
intended to put management measures in place for the 2024 season, which will
reduce fishing mortality to its target level and provide the bass some interim
relief until a stock assessment update, scheduled for release next October, can
provide a better understanding of what managers must do to rebuild the stock by
the 2029 rebuilding deadline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, many of those who attended the
December 4 hearing represented the for-hire fleet, which typically opposes any
management measure, no matter how badly needed, that might have even a
short-term negative impact on their businesses.
Thus, those attending the hearing heard repeated comments to the effect
that the bass stock <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“is as healthy and strong as [it has] ever been,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">but that the fish are merely changing their
behavior and so not showing up in the various surveys used to monitor the
population.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the recurring themes that appeared in the
for-hire fleet’s testimony was that the recruitment failure observed in the <a href="https://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2023/11/29/maryland-department-of-natural-resources-presents-emergency-regulations-to-increase-protections-for-marylands-striped-bass-spawning-population/#:~:text=The%20emergency%20regulation%20is%20aimed,(ASMFC)%20in%20early%202024.">Chesapeake
Bay, which has historically produced between 70 and 90 percent of all striped
bass on the East Coast</a>, doesn’t mean that the striped bass stock is in
trouble, because warming waters are causing the fish to move farther north, and
to concentrate their spawning in New York’s Hudson River, as well as
Connecticut’s Housatonic and Connecticut rivers. One party boat captain said that those rivers
are “where the fish are from,” and that, collectively, they “produce tons of
striped bass.” After a biologist explained
that the striped bass stock assessment didn’t include bass that spawned in the
Housatonic River, the captain commented that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Not having the Housatonic River in the stock assessment
is like not having the Dallas Cowboys when you’re looking at cheerleaders.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, while the for-hire operators could
provide plenty of comment suggesting that the center of striped bass spawning
has moved northward, they could not supply an iota of data to support that
contention; it turns out that they lacked such data for a very good reason—what
they were claiming is simply not true.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I honestly think that the for-hire
representatives believed what they were saying.
Striped bass fishing was very good in some places, particularly in the
ocean between western Long Island and northern New Jersey, during 2023, and the
folks who operate party and charter boats in that vicinity were unable to
square their observations of locally abundant striped bass with <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">the
stock assessment’s finding that the stock is overfished and that, because of
poor recruitment, could be headed for even worse problems</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By deciding to believe that, contrary to the
assessment’s findings, the striped bass stock was actually healthy and
abundant, but merely shifting north, such stakeholders could both explain their
observations and create a story that justified their opposition to proposed
conservation measures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although I do most of my striped bass fishing
along the western Connecticut shore, and my experiences didn’t support what the
for-hire people were saying, I didn’t want to dismiss their contentions out of
hand; I wanted to make a few inquiries, and see whether what they were saying
might, in fact, be the truth. So I
contacted the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection,
seeking a local scientist’s thoughts on whether there was any merit in the
for-hires’ assertions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The biologist confirmed my suspicions. There was no wholesale shift of striped bass
spawning into Connecticut rivers. I was
told that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“I think its pretty easy to dismiss that striped bass
spawn in the Housatonic or Thames Rivers.
The head of tide extends almost to the most downstream dam in both
systems—there’s very little freshwater habitat available below those dams—just not
suitable spawning habitat for striped bass.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it would seem that leaving the Housatonic
River out of the stock assessment is less like omitting the Dallas Cowboys when
looking at cheerleaders, and more like omitting the Cowboys when looking for the
next winner of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cup">the National
Hockey League’s Stanley Cup</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And while some bass are spawned in the
Connecticut River—the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection conducts regular surveys of river herring there, which have found
both young-of-the-year and Age 1 striped bass, as well as ripe, egg-bearing
females and males with flowing milt—the river’s contribution to the coastal
migratory striped bass population is probably not very large.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“While there is enough collective evidence to suggest
there is some level of striped bass spawning happening in the CT River, I don’t
think the body of evidence suggests there is a large cohort of striped bass
reliably produced on an annual basis.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But the most significant point of the Connecticut
biologist’s comments were not his thoughts about striped bass spawning in
specific rivers, but rather the impact of any and all spawning outside of the
major spawning areas.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .4in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“While I agree that there are coastal rivers where
striped bass spawn where no one is doing a scientific survey to produce annual
indices of [young-of-the-year] <u>relative</u> abundance in those rivers, and
therefore <u>trends</u> in YOY production in those rivers are not incorporated
in the assessment—<u>but</u>—<b><i>it is not then a logical step to assume
there is some body of striped bass out there on the coast that is somehow “invisible”
to the assessment and therefore the management process</i></b>. The striped bass spawned in those rivers will
leave those rivers and recruit to the coastal stock—and when they do—they will
be caught by recreational anglers, they will be harvested by commercial
harvesters, and they will be captured by the many scientific surveys operating
along the coast—and all of this information feeds into the assessment to
produce estimates of [spawning stock biomass], fishing mortality, relative
strength of various year classes, etc. <b><i>It’s
a fallacy to assume that just because we don’t have a YOY survey in a given
river, that somehow the fish produced in that river are never “counted” in the
stock assessment over the course of their lifetime.</i></b> [emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, as much as some people would like to
believe otherwise, there is no cryptic mass of striped bass swimming somewhere
beyond fisheries managers’ ken. If they are
spawned, and survive long enough to leave their natal rivers, they are counted
and considered in the stock assessment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As far as the northernmost producer river
that <b><i>is</i></b> subject to regular surveys—that is, the Hudson—it isn’t showing
any indication of increased productivity.
Over the past five years, one year—2020—appears to have produced a very
strong year class, while a slightly above-average class was produced in
2022. The other three years were below-average,
with both 2019 and 2023 falling below the 25<sup>th</sup> percentile of all
recorded spawns; 2023 produced the smallest year class of striped bass since
1985.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUyl1LglTlBOpC3pCQRyImpXTr-7dcFLm6O192LAEzfouyqIrSxmDpOXlQ3309qHBeHcacId-bnOOF_0U0MDoHIwrWb5YoXsFjkvTA1a6L9e1u20V_uocprR62UYkMLxfpMMkgq1oz-WY_2KKDQHDo4rNjumGIXU87kdVWsELF_YfqbQ8K3OszvfGxdY0/s1170/Screenshot%202023-12-18%20183556.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="671" data-original-width="1170" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUyl1LglTlBOpC3pCQRyImpXTr-7dcFLm6O192LAEzfouyqIrSxmDpOXlQ3309qHBeHcacId-bnOOF_0U0MDoHIwrWb5YoXsFjkvTA1a6L9e1u20V_uocprR62UYkMLxfpMMkgq1oz-WY_2KKDQHDo4rNjumGIXU87kdVWsELF_YfqbQ8K3OszvfGxdY0/s320/Screenshot%202023-12-18%20183556.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even so, the belief that the center of
striped bass abundance, as well as the bulk of the striped bass spawning, is
shifting north remains a popular legend among some in the striped bass fishery,
and particularly among those in the for-hire fleet. I don’t expect that to change<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not because there are any facts
supporting the notion, but because people nonetheless know that it’s true.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even though it ain’t so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-33596105026290616092024-01-11T21:26:00.000-05:002024-01-11T21:26:01.815-05:00UNLESS IT PUTS MORE DEAD FISH ON THE DOCK, NMFS DATA IS FATALLY FLAWED<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many recreational fishermen, and many members
of the recreational fishing industry, are very quick to criticize catch,
landings, and effort data produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s
Marine Recreational Information Program. The criticism always follows the same basic
path: MRIP data is wrong, anglers aren’t
catching as many fish as NMFS says, and so recreational management measures are
more restrictive than they really need to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The fact that <a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/08/15/nmfs-finds-errors-in-recreational-fishing-data/">NMFS
discovered, last August, that the Fishing Effort Survey underpinning such
data might be inflating effort, and so catch and landings estimates, by as much
as 30 or 40 percent</a> only added fuel to the flames.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, as I have noted in the past, MRIP data
isn’t always disdained by its recreational critics. On those occasions when it finds recreational
landings to have been lower than expected, and leads to more relaxed
regulations, the same people and organizations that might have damned it in the
past embrace MRIP findings without and qualms or concerns that the data might
be <b><i>under</i></b>estimating the number of fish removed from the ocean.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet error cuts both ways, and the uncertainty
surrounding recreational data makes it just as likely that an estimate understates,
rather than overstates, angling’s impact on a fish stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">MRIP estimates are also incorporated into
stock assessments, where a high level of landings often imply a larger population,
since a smaller stock could not support such removals without falling into
decline. Thus, <a href="https://www.atlantisanglers.com/assets/docs/April_Newsletter.98140229.pdf">here
in the northeast, we have seen members of the recreational fishing community condemn
MRIP data that leads to more restrictive black sea bass regulations while, in
the same breath, arguing that the black sea bass stock assessment, which
includes the same MRIP data, found that the spawning stock biomass stood at 240
percent of its target level, and justifies more liberal management measures</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It seems like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#:~:text=In%20the%20thought%20experiment%2C%20a,may%20or%20may%20not%20occur.">Schrödinger’s
cat, which might be both dead and alive at the same time, its state depending
on when an observer makes their observation</a>, MRIP estimates may
simultaneously represent the best available data or be fatally flawed,
depending on whether they provide more fish to, or take fish away from, the
recreational sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the more outrageous examples of such
behavior is now playing out in the Gulf of Mexico, where one anglers’ rights
group, the Coastal Conservation Association, is both praising NMFS’ use of the
Fishing Effort Survey to increase the recreational allocation of Gulf red grouper and <a href="https://www.sportfishingmag.com/game-fish/errors-in-noaa-fishing-data/">condemning
NMFS’ use of the very same survey to constrain anglers’ red snapper landings</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The timeline goes something like this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/02/2022-09300/fisheries-of-the-caribbean-gulf-of-mexico-and-south-atlantic-reef-fish-fishery-of-the-gulf-of-mexico">On
May 2, 2022, NMFS adopted <i>Amendment 53 to the Fishery Management Plan for
the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico</i>, which changed the allocation
of Gulf of Mexico red grouper from 76 percent commercial/24 percent
recreational to 59.3 percent commercial/40.7 percent recreational. The basis for such reallocation was data derived
from NMFS’ Fishing Effort Survey, which led managers to conclude that the
original allocation resulted from an underestimate of recreational red grouper
landings between 1986 and 2005, the base years used to determine the proportion of landings
attributable to each sector. When the
base year data was reanalyzed using the Fishing Effort Survey methodology, it
appeared that anglers had caught far more red grouper than originally thought.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Amendment 53 reallocation, then, was less
a true reallocation than it was a correction, which merely adjusted the sector
allocations to what they should have been all along, if accurate data had been
available when the allocation was first set.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Still, the allocation was controversial, with
four members of the Gulf Council filing a minority report which argued that its
adoption violated <a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/msa-amended-2007.pdf">two
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
including National Standard 4, which deals with the fair allocation of fishery
resources, and National Standard 9, which requires that bycatch in fisheries be
prevented “to the extent practicable.”</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Similar, related arguments were made by
stakeholders during the comment period that preceded Amendment 53’s adoption,
but they were rejected by NMFS, which argued that the Fishing Effort Survey
represented the best available scientific information, and provided adequate
grounds for changing the sectors’ allocations.
<a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-09/RF-AM-53-Red-Grouper_9_24_2021_Final.pdf">Most
of the Gulf’s red grouper are caught off the Florida coast, and the Gulf Council
had the opportunity to include catch and landings estimates from Florida’s Gulf
Reef Fish Survey, which were far lower than those produced by MRIP, in its
calculation of the new allocation.
However, it chose not to do so, as such data was not included in the
most recent stock assessment. Texas and
Louisiana also have state recreational data programs which collect information on
red grouper landings, which information was also not used to calculate the new
allocation</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/red-grouper-could-set-precedent-for-new-gulf-catch-reallocations">A
group of commercial fishermen sued NMFS, seeking judicial review of Amendment 53</a>. <a href="https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/court-upholds-gulf-of-mexico-red-grouper-reallocation">They
lost at the trial court level</a>, but have since appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has
a lot of experience reviewing federal regulations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although the Secretary of Commerce, the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and NMFS were the only
named defendants-appelees in the suit, the Coastal Conservation Association
petitioned the court, successfully seeking permission to intervene as an
additional appellee. In its appellate
brief, filed in May 2023, the CCA noted that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The Fishing Effort Survey underwent ‘rigorous peer
review’ and was certified as a ‘scientifically sound and suitable replacement’
for the [survey used to set the original 78 percent commercial/24 percent
recreational allocation].”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> It
went onto argue that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Alternative 3 [of the draft Amendment 53, which
supported the 59.3 percent commercial/40.7 percent recreational allocation] was
deemed an appropriate allocation because it uses and reflects ‘the best
scientific information available’ and ‘best reflects the landings from each
sector from 1986-2005.’ Alternative 3
updates the historical data <b><i>based on the best available evidence of what
was actually caught</i></b>… [emphasis
added, footnote omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It's important to note that CCA argued that
the Fishing Effort Survey was “the best available evidence of what was actually
caught,” even though state survey data was apparently available, at least for
the states of Louisiana, Texas and, most importantly, Florida, where the lion’s
share of the red grouper are caught.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s probably also important to note that <a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-09/RF-AM-53-Red-Grouper_9_24_2021_Final.pdf">Amendment
53 includes a table of data from both the Fishing Effort Survey and from Florida’s Gulf
Reef Fish Survey for the years 2016 through 2019, and that such data indicates
that, according to the former survey, the recreational catch of red grouper
varied between 1,377,751 and 3,273,809 pounds during those years, while the
latter survey records landings for the same years that range between
497,239 and 907,291 pounds—a far smaller amount. Yet CCA is adamant that the Fishing Effort
Survey data remains “the best available evidence</a>.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And that’s probably not surprising, given
that using the Fishing Effort Survey data would yield a much higher
recreational allocation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But when it comes to the Fishing Effort
Survey’s role in estimating Gulf red snapper landings, which results in
recreational snapper landings being constrained, CCA suddenly begins singing a
much different tune.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://ccatexas.org/sportfishing-community-reacts-to-noaas-announcement-on-data-program-failure/">CCA’s
Texas chapter posted a piece on its website that quoted Ted Venker, CCA’s so-called
“conservation director,” who said</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Yet another major revision to the federal data
collection system is upon us, and it should bring a realization that NOAA is just
not capable of doing this job. At best
we are looking at several more years of questionable revisions, recalculations,
and recalibrations based on <b><i>a suspect data system that has never proven it
can produce accurate information</i></b>.
This is no way to manage a public resource. It would be irresponsible to continue down
this road rather than exploring and supporting state-based options to better
manage the recreational sector wherever feasible. [emphasis added]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, over the course of just a few months,
we see the CCA arguing in its legal brief that the Fishing Effort Survey data
represents “the best available evidence of what was actually caught,” while
arguing on a chapter web page that other recreational data was generated by “a
suspect data system that has never proven that it can produce accurate
information.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those aren’t easy positions to reconcile. It would seem that one would have to be
knowingly false.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.joincca.org/federal-regulators-seek-to-undermine-state-management-of-red-snapper/">As
early as September 2020, <b><i>three years</i></b> before NMFS discovered that the
Fishing Effort Survey was probably overstating
the number of trips taken by recreational fishermen, Venker was already calling
the federal landings data “flawed,”</a> even though CCA claimed that MRIP data represented the “best available
evidence” of recreational catch at the time it filed the brief in the red
grouper lawsuit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.ccaalabama.org/news/clock-ticking-for-snapper-anglers">Another
official CCA statement, published on the website of its Alabama chapter in February
2021, stated that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“managers and anglers alike lost faith in NOAA’s Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP),”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">a statement that is completely inconsistent
with CCA’s unqualified support for MRIP in the brief that it filed in the red
grouper matter. Furthering the
inconsistency, in the same piece Venker argued that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“As long as NOAA insists on tying future management to a
history of mistakes and bad data in [the red snapper] fishery,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">even though CCA certainly encouraged the court
to support NMFS’ decision to tie the red grouper allocation—which would grant anglers a
greater share of red grouper landings—to the same “history of mistakes and bad
data” that it condemns when applied to red snapper.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the interesting artifacts of CCA’s anti-MRIP
ravings, and its recent harping on NMFS’ announcement that the Fishing Effort
Survey might have overestimated angler effort by 30 to 40 percent is that, if
you assume that recreational landings really have been overstated by 30 to 40
percent and reduce the estimates of recreational landings underlying the new
red grouper allocation accordingly, the current 40.7 percent recreational
allocation, that resulted from the use of “flawed” estimates produced by a “suspect
data system,” is reduced to somewhere between 24.4 and 28.5 percent of overall
landings, a figure not all that different from the pre-Amendment 53 allocation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In all honesty, I have no idea what recreational
red grouper landings really were in the years between 1986 and 2005. I don’t know whether the
commercial/recreational split, based upon those landings, ought to be 76/24,
59.3/40.7, something in-between, or something completely outside of that range.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I don’t know how many red snapper were recreationally
landed in the Gulf of Mexico, whether we’re talking about last year or in any
year since the recreational fishery began.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And while I believe that NMFS’
Fishing Effort Survey overstated the number of trips taken by anglers, and
caused MRIP to overstate catch and landings, neither I, NMFS, nor anyone else
knows with any sort of certainty whether the initial indications that landings
were overstated by 30 to 40 percent extend across all species, all states, and
all fisheries, or whether the actual extent of the error varies from place to
place and from species to species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But what I do know is that there are far too
many members of the angling community who speak from both sides of their
mouths, eager to condemn federal fisheries data and the management program that
it informs when management measures grow more restrictive, while willing and
eager to endorse the same management program when it lets them pile more dead
fish on the dock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the end, even in this cynical age, things
like credibility and integrity still matter.
Sadly, as the fight over fisheries data shows time and again, those are the
two things that many engaged in that fight lost a long time ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-54597829895207891412024-01-07T14:18:00.000-05:002024-01-07T14:18:16.901-05:00MID-ATLANTIC "HARVEST CONTROL RULE": ONE YEAR LATER<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At its June 2022 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC) adopted the so-called “<a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/637ccdd7d4a4120a2b516698/1669123544408/SFSBSB_BF_HCR_EA_submission2.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Percent Change Approach</span></a>”
(PCA) for managing the recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
fisheries; the PCA will also be used to manage the recreational bluefish
fishery, once the bluefish stock is no longer subject to its current <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/613104477cc5457c839fe04c/1630602830744/Bluefish+Amendment+7+EA.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">rebuilding plan</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unlike previous management approaches, the PCA does not
constrain recreational landings to a recreational harvest limit (RHL) or even
to an annual catch limit (ACL); instead, it <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/62a790313537284dee967d85/1655148593447/HCR-Percent-Change-Table.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">employs a table</span></a> that
dictates whether recreational landings should be increased, decreased, or left
unchanged, depending on the most recent estimate of spawning stock biomass
(SSB) and whether future landings are calculated to be above, below, or
approximately equal to a theoretical RHL.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When the PCA was proposed, some <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/09/2023-04588/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act-provisions-fisheries-of-the-northeastern"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">individuals and
organizations argued</span></a> that it didn’t comply with the <a href="https://conservefish.org/healthy-oceans/magnuson-stevens-act-upholding-a-legacy-of-success/"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act</span></a>‘s (Magnuson-Stevens) statutory
requirements and so made overfishing more likely; <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6290ffa57eb8c068dbbb7062/1653669816270/Tab07_Recreational-HCR-FW_2022-06.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">MAFMC staff also argued
against</span></a> its approval. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) nonetheless approved <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/09/2023-04588/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act-provisions-fisheries-of-the-northeastern"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">final regulations</span></a> adopting
the PCA on March 9, 2023.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/04/mid-altantic-harvest-control-rule-faces.html"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">seeking judicial review</span></a> of
such regulations, but until that lawsuit is decided, the PCA will determine how
recreational fisheries are managed in the mid-Atlantic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In December 2022, <a href="https://www.mafmc.org/briefing/december-2022"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">the PCA was employed</span></a> for
the first time. Now, managers and stakeholders have their first opportunity to
evaluate whether the PCA is living up to <a href="https://www.mafmc.org/newsfeed/2022/mafmc-amp-asmfc-take-first-step-toward-recreational-management-reform-for-bluefish-sumer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">its supposed promise</span></a> of
providing “greater stability and predictability in recreational measures from
year-to-year while accounting for uncertainty in recreational catch estimates.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It may be too soon to draw any conclusions. For the 2024
fishing year, the PCA is calling for recreational summer flounder landings to
be reduced by 28% and scup landings to be reduced by 10%. It is also calling
for black sea bass landings to be reduced by 10%, but the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) advised
the MAFMC to leave those landings unchanged, although though nothing in the PCA
permits such an outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 3; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #1e96c9;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Summer Flounder<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The 28% reduction in recreational summer flounder landings
was a response to <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413117245682e2159efdd/1690571538553/Tab01_SF+2024-2025+Specs.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">an unexpected finding</span></a> that
the summer flounder stock experienced overfishing in 2022, after the <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413117245682e2159efdd/1690571538553/Tab01_SF+2024-2025+Specs.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">2023 management track
stock assessment determined</span></a> that fishing mortality had slightly
exceeded the threshold.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While such overfishing was unrelated to the PCA, the MAFMC
did fail to follow the PCA’s direction with respect to 2023 summer flounder
management measures. Because it was faced with two different calculations of
2023 RHL, one based on a single year’s data, which called for a 10% <b><i><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">increase</span></i></b> in landings and another, more
accurate estimate based on multiple years’ data, which called for a 10% <b><i><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">decrease</span></i></b>, the MAFMC decided to leave landings
unchanged, although such status quo outcome was not authorized by the PCA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Had the MAFMC imposed a 10% reduction in 2023 landings,
effectively phasing in the 28% over two years, it might have blunted the impact
of the unanticipated landings cut. Now, the entire reduction must be taken in a
single year, angering stakeholders. <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/657214d59e531f74bdb715f7/1701975253648/SFSBSB+AP+Summary+12-4-23.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The summary</span></a> of
the December 4, 2023 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel
meeting (Advisory Panel Summary) reported that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Multiple advisors expressed frustration with the 28%
reduction in harvest needed for summer flounder under the Percent Change
Approach. One advisor noted that this reduction will be devastating…Another
advisor noted that this is particularly going to hurt the for hire industry
that is already severely suffering, and it will also hurt tackle shops and
shoreside suppliers of fuel…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One advisor stated that fishery management should come with
a warning label that “harvesting and releasing fish may result in severe
management decisions…” He stated that the 28% reduction was going to put party
boats out of business…Summer flounder has gone from a 16% liberalization a few
years ago to a 28% reduction this year, which is “feast or famine” management…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Their only solace is that, since the PCA sets management
measures for two-year periods, the landings target should remain unchanged in
2025; to that extent, at least, the PCA is providing some level of stability
and predictability.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 3; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #1e96c9;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Scup<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although scup landings need only be reduced by 10% in 2024,
the <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/657214d59e531f74bdb715f7/1701975253648/SFSBSB+AP+Summary+12-4-23.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Advisory Panel Summary</span></a> reported
that “Multiple advisors expressed frustration with the 10% reduction in harvest
required for scup under the Percent Change Approach. Several advisors said
reductions are not necessary given biomass is so high. Instead, measures should
be liberalized.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Because recreational scup landings for 2019-2022 <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6578a41c98875272dd122b21/1702405149385/04+-+Scup_2024-2025+rec+measures_CouncilBoard_Dec2023.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">exceeded the recreational
sector’s ACL</span></a> by an average of 126%, the fishery management plan
required the MAFMC to consider imposing additional restrictions on the fishery,
to comply with Magnuson-Stevens’s requirement that management measures “ensure
accountability” for excessive harvest. However, NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Region
Fisheries Office (GARFO) <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6578a41c98875272dd122b21/1702405149385/04+-+Scup_2024-2025+rec+measures_CouncilBoard_Dec2023.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">informed the MAFMC</span></a> that
no such measures were needed, as the combination of the 10 percent reduction in
2023 landings and improvements made to the Recreational Demand Model (RDM) used
to predict future landings adequately addressed the “conditions that
precipitated the overage.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 3; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #1e96c9;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Black Sea Bass<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Black sea bass landings will not be reduced in 2024,
despite the PCA’s direction to do so, because of the Monitoring Committee’s
creative interpretation of the PCA. The Monitoring Committee advised the MAFMC
that the PCA assumes stocks will be assessed every two years, and that the
theoretical RHL, as well as the recreational landings limit for each stock,
will only change in response to an assessment. Since the black sea bass stock
assessment was delayed until 2024, and since the PCA is meant to promote management
stability, the Monitoring Committee suggested that leaving the landings target
unchanged was consistent with the intent of the PCA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such argument was not illogical, yet it remains flawed, for
nothing in the explicit language of the PCA supports such status quo outcome.
Under the conditions prevailing for black sea bass—an SSB more than twice the
target level, and anglers predicted to exceed the RHL in 2024—a 10% reduction
was the <b><i><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">only</span></i></b> action permitted by
the PCA. The Monitoring Committee’s advice, and the MAFMC’s ultimate decision,
to leave landings unchanged relied on an interpretation of fishery regulations
that elevated the expressed purpose of the PCA—providing stable and predictable
management measures—above the clear language of such regulations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As was the case with scup, the average of recreational
black sea bass landings for the past three years <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6579bb592278be7d5ef7e799/1702476634277/05-BSB-Council-Board-Dec2023.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">exceeded the recreational
ACL</span></a>, requiring the MAFMC to consider accountability measures. And,
as was the case with scup, <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6579bb592278be7d5ef7e799/1702476634277/05-BSB-Council-Board-Dec2023.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">GARFO cited</span></a> a
10 percent reduction imposed on 2023 landings, combined with the improvements
in the RDM, as reasons why no additional measures need be imposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Given the unambiguous language of the regulations, the
decision to not reduce black sea bass landings was, at best, legally
questionable. It also failed to mollify stakeholders. The <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/657214d59e531f74bdb715f7/1701975253648/SFSBSB+AP+Summary+12-4-23.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Advisory Panel Summary</span></a> noted
that<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One advisor said the black sea bass fishery is poorly
managed and there is little support among the recreational fishing community
for management. He said the measures for both scup and black sea bass should be
liberalized because biomass is so high. It feels as if the recreational fishery
is penalized each year, even for rebuilt stocks…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Another advisor from Connecticut agreed with the previous
comments…He said the Monitoring Committee’s justification for status quo
measures in 2024 should instead be used to justify a liberalization…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A third advisor expressed agreement with the previous two
speakers and questioned why management is considering cuts for very abundant
species like scup and black sea bass…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One advisor from New York said he would have previously
thought status quo was a good outcome. However, the current black sea bass
measures are problematic, including the 16.5 inch minimum size limit in New
York. Discard mortality is very high. Regulations should be liberalized to
reduce discards…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 3; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #1e96c9;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Lessons Learned?<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What, then, are the lessons of the PCA’s first year?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s probably too early to consider how the PCA impacts
fish stocks, since final recreational landings data for 2023, the first year
affected by the PCA, will not be available until April 2024. But we did get
some insight into how the PCA influences people.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The PCA has relieved fisheries managers, including members
of the MAFMC, of the discipline imposed by earlier management approaches. Prior
to the PCA, past fishery performance was used to predict future landings.
Management measures for the upcoming year were adjusted, becoming more or less
restrictive, depending on whether past landings were above or below the next
year’s RHL.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It was an imperfect system. Uncertainty in recreational
landings estimates often led to management measures that were either more
restrictive than they needed to be or not restrictive enough to keep landings
at or below the RHL. The seeming impossibility of accurately predicting
anglers’ response to new management measures, and to other factors affecting
the fishery, also made it difficult to predict management outcomes. Yet because
the former approach was focused on the RHL, it presented a disciplined, systematic
methodology that almost always prevented overfishing and led to the recovery of
overfished fish stocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In theory, the PCA brought even more discipline to the
process by establishing a series of predetermined management actions that the
MAFMC would be <b><i><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">required</span></i></b> to take,
depending on the whether the SSB was above or below the biomass target and
whether future landings were predicted to be above or below the RHL. The PCA
made allowances for the uncertainty inherent in recreational fishing data,
while the RDM provided a more accurate prediction of how anglers would respond
to management measures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, nothing in the PCA prevents anglers from
exceeding not only the RHL, but also the ACL. Nothing in the PCA prevents
combined recreational and commercial landings from leading to overfishing.
Changes to recreational landings are made mechanically, with no consideration
of the impact from commercial landings and no provision to cap recreational
landings at a level that would prevent either the ACL or the overfishing limit
(OFL) from being exceeded. <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/637ccdd7d4a4120a2b516698/1669123544408/SFSBSB_BF_HCR_EA_submission2.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">NMFS has admitted</span></a> that
the PCA “would allow for some level of RHL overages in some circumstances. RHL
overages carry a risk of ACL overages, which in turn risk [acceptable
biological catch] and OFL overages and therefore risk resulting in
overfishing.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although Magnuson-Stevens requires that fishermen be held
accountable for exceeding the ACL, the accountability measures adopted by NMFS
pursuant to the PCA can be toothless. It is difficult to successfully argue
that a one-time 10% reduction in landings truly holds the recreational scup
fishery accountable for overages that exceeded the ACL by an average of 126
percent for three consecutive years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the MAFMC has <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/639243903a83a32932de9ac7/1670529939066/Tab06_Scup2023RecMeasures_2022-12.pdf"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">demonstrated a
willingness</span></a> to apply the PCA’s provisions mechanically to
increase landings, even if such increase would cause landings to exceed the
ACL, it has also demonstrated a willingness to ignore the PCA’s requirements to
decrease landings in the case of both the 2023 summer flounder management
measures and the 2024 black sea bass measures, although nothing in the PCA or
related regulations justified such action.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The PCA is also notable for its impact or, more accurately,
its lack of impact on stakeholder attitudes toward fisheries management. While
the <a href="https://www.mafmc.org/actions/recreational-reform-initiative"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #1e96c9; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">MAFMC states</span></a> that
its so-called “Recreational Reform Initiative,” including the PCA, “aims to
address a range of challenges,” which include “widespread angler
dissatisfaction with some recreational management measures, stakeholder
perceptions that measures are not reflective of stock status, and concerns
about how Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) data are used to
manage these fisheries,” nothing in the Advisory Panel Summary suggests that
stakeholders are any less dissatisfied with recreational management measures
today than they were before the PCA was adopted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If the comments expressed in the Advisory Panel Summary
make anything clear, it is that most panel members are only interested in
harvesting more fish, and not in the fisheries management process; any
management measure that leads to reduced or, in the case of black sea bass,
even status quo landings, is simply unacceptable to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such attitude ought to cause both MAFMC members and GARFO
to ask whether they gave too much weight to stakeholder comments when
considering the PCA, and whether stakeholder support of the PCA was motivated
by nothing more than a hope that it would provide a means to evade the
strictures of Magnuson-Stevens and put more dead fish on the dock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, both MAFMC and GARFO now have so much
institutional prestige invested in the PCA that neither is likely to admit it
is flawed. Instead, unless NRDC’s lawsuit succeeds, and a court invalidates the
PCA, it is likely to survive in its present form until 2025 when, absent
further action by the MAFMC, it may no longer be used.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin-bottom: .25in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When that time comes, we can only hope that it is replaced
by something better designed to prevent overfishing and sustain the long-term
health of fish stocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">-----<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This essay first
appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish Conservation
Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-88267492167618268432024-01-04T20:54:00.003-05:002024-01-04T20:54:36.041-05:00MARINE FISHERIES CHALLENGES OF THE NEW YEAR<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As I noted last Sunday, 2023 was a
disappointing year for conservation-oriented marine fisheries management. While we can’t know everything that 2024 will
bring, some themes are already beginning to emerge. Some will undoubtedly fizzle out, while some
unexpected issues will likely move to the forefront. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Given that this is an election year, with the
presidency, the House, and one-third of the Senate—including control of the
latter two bodies—to be decided, we probably can’t expect a lot of fisheries
matters to be decided by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/12/29/1222245114/congress-wasnt-very-productive-in-2023-here-are-the-27-bills-it-passed">a
Congress that only managed to pass 27 bills in a <b><i>non</i></b>-election
year, which already low number included fluff such as naming Veterans
Administration clinics and commissioning a 250<sup>th</sup> Anniversary commemorative
coin for the Marine Corps</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead,
we’re more likely to see a lot of so-called “messaging” bills, where various
legislators try to show constituents that they care about certain issues, while
knowing that any legislation introduced is likely to die without ever being
seriously considered—although it’s never completely impossible that something meaningful
could be passed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most of the meaningful action is likely to
take place at the state, regional, and federal agency levels, where some issues
have already gained some momentum.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Striped bass: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addendum II and beyond<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Later this month, <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/PublicInput/AtlStripedBassDraftAddendumII_PublicComment_Oct2023.pdf">the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will decide on which provisions to
include in the final version of <i>Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addendum II is intended to be an interim
measure</a>, to keep fishing mortality at tolerable levels until a stock
assessment update is released in October, which can form the basis for
additional management measures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Addendum II, standing alone, is unlikely to
rebuild the stock by 2029, the deadline set by the rebuilding plan; <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2023AnnualMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardPresentations_Oct2023.pdf">a
presentation made at the October meeting of ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass
Management Board estimated that it had between a 33% and a 51% chance of achieving
that goal, although there was very substantial uncertainty surrounding such
estimate</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Addendum II will
hopefully include a provision that will allow the Management Board to respond
to upcoming stock assessments and updates, and take whatever actions it deems
necessary to achieve timely rebuilding, without going through the time-consuming
process of taking such proposals out to public hearing, etc., if the
assessments indicate that such actions are needed to make rebuilding probable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, because Addendum II won’t be
approved until this month—the original plan was to adopt it in October, but
that adoption was delayed—there is a very good chance that some of its
provisions won’t impact the 2024 season, rendering the Addendum that much less
effective.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But perhaps the biggest question for striped
bass in 2024 is what happens after the stock assessment update is released.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hopefully, the final version of Addendum II
will give the Management Board the authority to take immediate action in response
to the assessment update if it advises that the chances of rebuilding by 2029
are less than 50%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Assuming that occurs,
there are a few possible outcomes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->The
assessment update reveals that the chances of timely rebuilding are
significantly less than<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>50%, leading the
Management Board to adopt additional management measures in order to meet the
rebuilding deadline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the commercial
side, such measures are likely to be just a further reduction in quota
although, should the obstacle to timely rebuilding be excessive recreational
landings, it isn’t impossible—although I think that it’s unlikely—that the
Management Board will require the recreational sector to shoulder the entire
burden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the recreational side, anglers
have already gone to a 1-fish limit and a 28- to 31-inch slot, so as a
practical matter, bag limits are already off the table, and a more restrictive
size limit will probably be difficult to achieve (although there may be some
sentiment in favor of going to a smaller slot limit, say—just to throw out
numbers for purposes of example, and not to suggest they might be seriously considered,
perhaps something like 22 to 26 inches—on the theory that because of recent
poor spawning success, there will be few legal fish caught, and even fewer
landed), so imposing closed seasons will be the most likely management
option.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such seasons could either be
no-take, which would allow catch-and-release fishing, or no-target, which would
theoretically avoid release mortality, but would be impossible to enforce
effectively, as anglers could always claim that they were targeting bluefish,
weakfish, false albacore or just about anything else if questioned by law
enforcement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some Management Board
members, with strong ties to the for-hire fishery, may nonetheless argue for
no-target seasons, arguing that if the catch-and-keep anglers are barred from
the fishery, the catch-and-release anglers ought to be too, but at this point,
the difficulties of enforcing no-target closures should prevent the Management
Board, although perhaps not some states, from adopting them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->The
assessment update reveals that the stock has at least a 50% chance of
rebuilding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although this might seem an unlikely
possibility, the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee did find
that, at least in part because of<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/64529753pr10AtlSripedBassEmergencyAction.pdf">
the emergency regulations adopted last May</a>, recreational striped bass
landings were successfully reduced to something close to 2021 levels for the
first eight months of 2023.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While it’s
not clear that such reduction extended through the fall run—reports coming out
of New York and New Jersey late in the season suggest that landings might have
been high toward the end of the year—it is at least possible that landings will
be low enough to allow a 50% probability of successful rebuilding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need only remember that <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">the
2022 stock assessment found nearly an 80% chance of rebuilding if fishing
mortality remained at the 2021 level to realize that this is not an impossible
scenario</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, should it prove
to be the case, managers will have to worry that another unexpected spike in
fishing mortality could again make recovery unlikely.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->The
assessment update reveals that the stock has less than a 50% probability of
rebuilding, but the Management Board declines to take action to rebuild by
2029.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to remember that even if
the Management Board has the authority to adopt needed rebuilding measures
pursuant to an assessment update, it is not legally bound to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It isn’t difficult to see the Management
Board deciding not to act, particularly in two very different scenarios.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, it is possible that the assessment
update finds that, under current regulations, the stock has something like a
48% probability of rebuilding by 2029.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In such case, there is a very good chance that, instead of taking action
immediately, the Management Board will decide that the difference between 48% and
50% isn’t great enough to justify initiating a new addendum, and instead waits until
the 2026 update to decide whether action is needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other possibility is that the assessment
update reveals that stock is in poorer condition than previously believed, and
that very restrictive measures will be needed to meet the 2029 deadline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In such case, the Management Board might
decide that 2029 is no longer a realistic deadline, and that rebuilding could
be extended out another few years, perhaps with additional rebuilding measures
to make such rebuilding, by the later date, more likely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the Management Board lacks the
authority to unilaterally shift the rebuilding deadline, such decision would
have to be made pursuant to a new addendum that went through the public hearing
process, and would not impact the fishery until 2026. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We won’t know which of those outcomes will
actually occur until next fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
whatever the Management Board decides to do, it will only be addressing rebuilding,
which is just one, and perhaps the lesser, problem impacting the striped bass
stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/10/17/poor-striped-bass-recruitment-continues-to-threaten-stock/">Striped
bass spawning has been well below average in both the Maryland and Virginia
portions of the Chesapeake Bay, as well as in the Delaware River</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://dec.ny.gov/nature/animals-fish-plants/hudson-delaware-marine-fisheries/striped-bass">Only
the Hudson River has experienced relatively good spawning success, and even
there, juvenile abundance has been below average for three out of the last five
years,</a> with 2023 juvenile abundance the lowest since 1985.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless that turns around, and spawning returns
to more typical levels, the striped bass stock is facing serious trouble,
regardless of managers’ efforts to rebuild the stock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Management Board will probably have the
Maryland, and very possibly the Virginia, young-of-the-year figures for 2024
before its October meeting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If the Maryland juvenile abundance index is
significantly below average again in 2024—say, less than half of the long-term
average—with the Management Board take preemptive action, and initiate an
addendum to conserve the existing spawning stock, in order to reduce the odds
of a future stock collapse?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or will it
merely focus on rebuilding, and address poor recruitment, if it continues, at
some later date?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The answer to that question will tell us a
lot about the health of the stock through the 2030s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mode splits, a/k/a “sector separation”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In most cases, all anglers, or at least all
anglers in a particular state, are managed alike.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, sometimes managers decide that, for
whatever reason, one group of anglers should be treated differently from others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-uneasy-armistice-red-snapper-and.html">A
few years ago, the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico adopted much more
liberal red snapper regulations than those prevailing in federal waters, allowing
anglers to kill more state-waters fish, forcing federal fisheries managers to
compensate by adopting ever more restrictive red snapper regulations in federal
waters in order to prevent overfishing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The states’ actions caused real harm to federally-permitted party and
charter boats, which were required to abide by federal regulations even when
fishing in state waters, and to anglers fishing for such boats, who faced far
greater restrictions than those fishing from private vessels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to provide some relief to the
for-hire fleet and its customers, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
separated the recreational and for-hire sectors, allowing the for-hire sector
to fish under regulations that provided it more equitable access to the
resource, and not at a great disadvantage compared to the private boat fleet.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now, on the East Coast, and particularly in
the mid-Atlantic, we’re seeing the for-hire sector attempting to turn that
approach upside-down, and seek special privileges for its customers that aren’t
available to any other anglers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That issue is currently being debated in the
ASMFC’s Draft Addendum II to Amendment 7 of its striped bass management plan, which
is considering allowing anglers aboard for-hire vessels to keep bass that fall
within a 28- to 33-inch slot, while all other anglers are limited to a 28- to
31-inch limit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the impact on the
bass stock would be extremely small, the policy implications of singling out a
particular subset of anglers for privileges not enjoyed by the majority of
recreational fishermen are significant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We see <a href="https://www.mafmc.org/actions/recreational-reform-initiative">the same
sort of special privileges for for-hire anglers being considered in the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s “Recreational Reform Initiative,”</a>
which is perhaps not surprising given the dearth of recreational fishermen, and
the strong for-hire representation, among such council’s members.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Private-boat and shore-based anglers, who represent
the lion’s share of recreational trips and thus almost certainly also a
substantial majority of the economic contributions made by the recreational
fishery, should be ready to either provide input on this issue as the
opportunities arise or being relegated to second-class status if the for-hire
fleet is awarded special privileges without special, offsetting obligations to
remain within its own sector-specific harvest limit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Recreational fishing data<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As noted in last Sunday’s post, NMFS unexpectedly
announced last August that it found errors in its Fishing Effort Survey that
could result in effort, catch, and landings to be overstated by 30% and 49%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2024 will see NMFS engage in a year-long
study to determine whether such errors exist in all regions and all fisheries,
or are limited in their effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once
that study is complete, the data will be analyzed and the results incorporated
into the recreational fishing data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
going to take a few years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While we’re not likely to see a resolution
this year, <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/12/gulf-of-mexico-red-snapper-managemet.html">we
probably will see some angling industry and anglers’ rights organizations
capitalize on the issue, using it in their efforts to impeach federal fisheries
managers and the federal Marine Recreational Information Program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have already seen editorials criticizing
MRIP and suggesting state-based remedies appear in newspapers in at least two
Gulf Coast states.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whether that criticism results in additional
Gulf states emulating Texas and Louisiana’s decisions not to participate in
MRIP, or whether it results in legislation impacting MRIP to be introduced in
Congress, remains an open question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While standalone federal legislation is unlikely to make its way to the
President’s desk this year, there is always the risk that a rider will be
attached to some “must-pass” bill, likely affecting government spending, that could
have a negative impact on the federal data-gathering process that currently
underlies both stock assessments and year-to-year regulations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It is impractical to manage state and federal
fisheries—as well as most other aspects of day-to-day life—legislatively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, both Congress and state legislatures
have passed legislation which delegates various duties to regulatory agencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of the key benefits of such delegation is
that the employees of such administrative agencies remain in their posts for
many years—sometimes for the entire durations of their careers—and so develop far
greater knowledge of particular topics than do elected legislators who must, by
the very nature of their jobs, have far more superficial knowledge of a greater
variety of subjects, and often serve for a far shorter period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As a result, when bills delegating
legislative authority are passed, they often fail to address many important
details relevant to the regulated activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In such cases, administrative agencies generally exercise their discretion
to fill in the blanks that the legislators created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14437597860792759765&q=Chevron+v.+natuiral+resources+defense+council&hl=en&as_sdt=3,33">Such
exercise of discretion was validated by the United States Supreme Court in 1984,
when it decided <i>Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council</i> and stated
that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“an agency to which Congress has delegated policymaking responsibilities
may, within the limits of that delegation, properly rely upon the incumbent administration’s
views of wise policy to inform its judgments…When a challenge to an agency construction
of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom
of the agency’s policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice given the
gap left open by Congress, that challenge must fail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In such a case, federal judges—who have no
constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who
do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The responsibilities for assessing
the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing
views of the public interest are not judicial ones.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Various legal commentors, along with organizations
critical of the government’s regulatory authority, have long chafed at that
decision, yet it has remained binding law for the past 40 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">the
Supreme Court appears ready to reconsider its decision this year in a matter
titled <i>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</i>.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The plaintiffs in the matter, which will be
heard on January 17, seek to either completely overturn <i>Chevron</i>, or at
least limit its application by convincing the Court that statutory silence
concerning agency powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the
statute does not create an ambiguity that requires court deference to the
agency’s exercise of discretion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The matter began as a challenge to a National
Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring the fishing industry to pay for the
cost of fisheries observers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it
is now focused on the so-called “Chevron doctrine,” and in doing so, could
threaten the ability of not only NMFS, but all federal agencies, to issue rules
addressing topics not specifically authorized in federal statutes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Should the plaintiffs prevail in<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Loper Bright, which is not unlikely given the
makeup of the Court, NMFS may find it very difficult to issue the rules needed
to maintain healthy and sustainable fisheries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bycatch<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The problem of bycatch is not new; the
incidental capture and subsequent discarding of non-target species has long
been a problem in many commercial and some recreational fisheries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">NMFS has a statutory obligation to minimize bycatch,
although its willingness to do so has been questioned over the years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bycatch has become particularly problematic
in a few fisheries, including the New England multispecies groundfish fishery
and some Alaskan fisheries, which see huge factory trawlers producing
substantial bycatch, in some cases killing more fish than may be legally
harvested in directed fisheries for the same species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Efforts to rein in bycatch have been made in
the past, and a recent effort to do so in Alaskan waters has been gaining
momentum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/groundfish-forum-sues-noaa-fisheries-over-halibut-bycatch-rule">NMFS
recently placed more stringent halibut bycatch restrictions on the Alaskan
groundfish fleet; as a result, it has been sued by The Groundfish Forum, a
trade association representing the trawler fleet</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The decision in that matter could have a meaningful
impact on NMFS’ ability to adopt measures intended to reduce bycatch levels.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In that regard, NMFS has also taken the first
steps toward amending its guidelines on National Standard 9, the provision of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which requires that
bycatch be minimized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agency has
sought public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing such
guidelines, such comment will now be analyzed, and proposed changes to the
guidelines will almost certainly be released later this year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Legislation addressing the bycatch issue may
also be introduced in Congress during the current session.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The public may well get a chance to make
additional comments on the bycatch issue later this year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Other issues<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While the above are the issues likely to have
the greatest impact on marine fisheries, a number of other issues will have
local impact. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stock assessments for both
the northern (that is, north of Cape Hatteras) stock of black sea bass and the
Gulf of Mexico stock of red snapper will be released this year; as both
fisheries have fueled substantial management disputes in recent years, the
results of such stock assessments, when they’re released, will likely lead to
additional controversy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Legal challenges
to NMFS and to state regulatory actions, unrelated to the Looper Bright matter,
will continue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/03/maine-lobstermen-file-lawsuit-against-state-for-new-requirements-to-track-boats/">Just
this week, five Maine lobstermen sued the Maine Department of Marine Resources,
challenging a rule that requires them to install tracking devices on their
boats in order to better understand fishing patterns that might threaten
endangered right whales, claiming that such devices create an unconstitutional
violation of their right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments
to the U.S. Constitution</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Louisiana
red drum regulations remain in flux, and efforts to relax red snapper
regulations will continue in the South Atlantic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the West Coast, the plight of threatened
and endangered salmon runs will continue to cause disputes over dam removal and
the impacts of fish hatcheries on native fish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ve probably failed to mention more pending
issues than I have listed, and we can never be sure what new things will be
crop up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The one thing that we can be
sure of is that 2024 will be a busy year, when both the threats to fish stocks,
and opportunities to conserve them, will keep everyone busy through the end of
the year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-18400393486141460992023-12-31T22:24:00.002-05:002023-12-31T22:24:56.464-05:002023: A FRUSTRATING YEAR FOR MARINE FISHERIES<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ever since this blog began, I have made it a
habit to review the past year in fisheries management, before making some
predictions about what the big issues in the next year will be. Last year, my review of the past 12 months
was relatively upbeat.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That was last year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2023, on the other hand, probably didn’t see
a single unqualified management success.
Instead, we had one or two “it could have been worse” situations, and a
few others where “worse” is just what we got.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ll begin the review with the species that
probably generated the most debate, at least on the East Coast—the striped bass—then
move on from there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Striped bass<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The striped bass was definitely one of those “it
could have been worse” situations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e6826bFIRST_PAGE_StripedBassBenchmarkStockAssessment_SAW66.pdf">A
stock assessment accepted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board in 2019 found the striped bass stock to
be both overfished and experiencing overfishing</a>. While <i><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e678c5StripedBassAddendumVI_Am6_RevisedMay2021.pdf">Addendum
VI to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management
Plan</a></i> got overfishing under control in 2020, the stock remained
overfished. I<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">n
October 2022, the Management Board received a stock assessment update which found
that the striped bass stock had a 78.6% chance to be fully rebuilt by the 2029 deadline
established by the fishery management plan</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, the stock assessment update failed
to consider the impact that the big 2015 year class, which was entering the 28-
to 35-inch slot size limit, would have on recreational landings. <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/646d15d5AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2022_SuppMay2023.pdf">The
influx of legal-sized bass caused recreational landings to spike in 2022, with
2022 landings approximately 90% higher than they were in 2021; when commercial
landings and a slight increase in recreational releases were added to the
calculation, biologists found that the number of striped bass removed from the
population had increased by about 33%</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Management Board had not planned to
revisit striped bass management measures until after a stock assessment update
was released in 2024, and had no legal obligation to do so. However, the combination of sharply increased
recreational landings, poor recruitment in key spawning areas, and a 2015 year
class that was largely encompassed within the slot limit caused managers to
take preemptive action. <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/6542756cAtlStripedBassDraftAddendumII_PublicComment_Oct2023.pdf"> At the May 2023 Management Board meeting, motion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“to initiate an Addendum to implement commercial and
recreational measures for the ocean and Chesapeake Bay fisheries in 2024 that in
aggregate are projected to achieve F-target from the 2022 stock assessment
update (F=0.17). Potential measures for
the ocean recreational fishery should include modifications to the Addendum VI standard
slot limit of 28-35” with harvest season closures as well as a secondary
non-preferred option. Potential measures
for Chesapeake Bay recreational fisheries, as well as ocean and Bay commercial
fisheries should include maximum size limits.
The addendum will include an option for a provision enabling the Board
to respond via Board action to the results of the upcoming stock assessment
updates (e.g., currently scheduled for 2004, 2006) if the stock is not
projected to rebuild by 2029 with a probability greater than or equal to 50%,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/65206fdaAtlStripedBassBoardProceedings_May2023.pdf">passed
unanimously, and the Management Board went on to adopt an emergency action that
required all states (with the exception of Maryland’s “trophy” fishery) to
adopt a 31-inch maximum size by July 2, 2023 with only New Jersey dissenting</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The May meeting marked the high point of 2023
striped bass management. After that,
things began to flow slowly downhill.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Management Board was supposed to approve a
draft of the new addendum, <i>Draft Addendum II to Amendment 7 of the
Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass</i>, at its August
meeting, when it would select the management options that would go out for
public comment. Such approval would let
the ASMFC schedule hearings on the Draft Addendum in late summer and early
fall, and allow the Management Board to consider such comments, and approve a
final version of Addendum II, at its October meeting. States would then have to adopt new
regulations in time for the 2024 season.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That didn’t happen. <a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/653fd9f2AtlStripedBassBoardProceedings_Aug2023.pdf">Because
the Management Board didn’t have enough information on how some commercial
options might impact states’ landings, it decided to defer final action until
its October meeting, which had the effect of delaying final adoption of
Addendum II until, at best, late January 2024.
Such late adoption will mean that regulations will not be in place for
the start of some states’ commercial fishing seasons, and any changes to
commercial regulations might have to be deferred until 2025</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The version of the Draft Addendum that was
finally released for public comment was a pitifully weak management document
that was more likely to fail than to succeed in achieving its goals. <a href="https://asmfc.org/files/2023AnnualMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoardPresentations_Oct2023.pdf">The
ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee found that, depending on
which options were ultimately included in the final version of Addendum II,
such Addendum had between a 33% and 56% of reducing fishing mortality to the
target level, and that, if fishing mortality was reduced to Ftarget, there would
still only be a 48% chance that the stock would be rebuilt by the 2029
deadline; when all options in the Draft Addendum were considered, there was
only a 33% to 51% chance that timely rebuilding would be achieved</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Technical Committee warned against putting
too much faith in such estimates, saying that the uncertainty around the
projected percentages was very, very large, and that any percentages provided
were far more useful for determining the relative value of competing proposals,
rather than determining their actual effect.
At the same time, providing such low estimates of probable success, in
the face of substantial uncertainty, should breed discomfort, as the level of
precaution embodied in regulations should be directly proportional to the level
of uncertainty in the data underlying such rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By that standard, Draft Addendum II is a
badly flawed management effort.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At the same time, it at least represents some
effort to preemptively avert a decline in the striped bass population, for
which the Management Board should be commended, as<a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/nov2011SBBoardProceedings.pdf"> they could
have simply decided to sit on their hands and do nothing until the stock
assessment came out, as a different Management Board, largely composed of
different people, did in November 2011</a>, arguably setting off the chain of
events that led the striped bass down the path that it travels today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Politics trumps science in Louisiana<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A little earlier, while discussing the Fishing
Effort Survey, I mentioned how many angling industry and anglers’ rights
organizations prefer state management over the federal fishery management
system, because state systems can usually be manipulated more easily, and
political pressure more easily brought to bear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No state illustrates that more clearly than
Louisiana.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2023 saw Louisiana’s state fisheries managers
try to implement more restrictive regulations for both speckled trout (more
properly, spotted seatrout) and red drum, and saw their efforts stymied in both
cases by recreational organizations, particularly the Coastal Conservation
Association, that used their political clout to stymie science-based fisheries
management.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/08/speckled-trout-louisiana-makes-one-more.html">In
the case of speckled trout, the stock had been fished so heavily by
recreational fishermen—the commercial fishery accounts for well under 1% of all
landings—that few fish grew past the states tiny 12-inch size limit, and 95% of
the population was made up of fish no more than two years old, and its spawning
potential was the lowest ever recorded. State
fisheries managers, after long and diligent work, decided to reduce the bag
limit from 25 to 15 fish, and increase the size limit from 12 to 13 ½ inches.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://ccalouisiana.com/news/speckled-trout-cca-louisiana-statement-on-pending-changes/">But
the Louisiana chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association didn’t want anything
to do with such conservation measures. Making
the absurd claim that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“In our experience, changes in recreational regulations
have rarely, if ever, resulted in a direct fishery recovery,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and declaring that <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Moving to a 13 or 13.5-inch minimum size seems drastic and
unnecessary,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">CCA Louisiana opposed Louisiana’s fishery
management efforts. Its opposition helped
to convince a legislative oversight committee to override the state’s
professional fisheries managers, forcing them to come up with alternative
management measures. Fortunately, their
second proposal, which called for a 15 fish bag and a 13- to 20-inch slot
limit, and allowed anglers to keep two above-slot fish each day, still provided
the speckled trout with a reasonable opportunity to rebuild, and made it past
the legislative committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Red drum are now running the same gauntlet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/11/same-story-different-fish-in-louisiana.html">Red
drum aren’t yet in a badly depleted condition.
While they’re experiencing overfishing, with too few fish escaping the
slot limit and joining the spawning stock, they are not overfished. Louisiana’s fishery managers are trying to end
overfishing and return the stock to health.
Once again, overfishing is the sole province of the recreational sector,
as Louisiana outlawed commercial fishing for red drum a long time ago.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Current regulations allow anglers to keep
five red drum per day. Such fish must be
between 16 and 27 inches long, although one drum per day may exceed the 27-inch
maximum size. Louisiana’s regulators
determined that by dropping the bag limit to three red drum per day, narrowing
the slot limit to 18 to 24 inches, and prohibiting the retention of any
over-slot fish, they could reduce landings by 55% and rebuild the stock within
about 10 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/article_4e056dac-7e6a-11ee-8fa5-2b78f951e147.html">But
once again, Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana opposed any such
conservation measures, with its executive director, David Cresson, stating at a
public hearing that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The majority of our members believe the [Notice of
Intent to adopt the proposed regulations] goes a step too far.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And once again, the politicians on the
oversight committee vetoed the professional managers’ proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So far, the red drum’s saga doesn’t end as
well as the speckled trout’s. <a href="https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/lwf-commission-amends-notice-of-intent-to-modify-red-drum-size-and-bag-limits">Louisiana’s
managers have proposed a new set of rules, which would drop the bag limit from
five fish to three and adopt an 18- to 27-inch slot limit, while prohibiting
the retention of over-slot fish and prohibiting captains and crew from keeping
fish on trips carrying passengers for hire</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such regulations will result in a much
smaller reduction in recreational landings, and lead to a significantly longer
rebuilding time. As of now, it is not
clear that they will pass oversight committee review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mid-Atlantic “Harvest Control Rule”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This topic, too, could fall into the “it
could have been worse” column, although the outcome was already pretty
bad. T</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">he Mid-Atlantic “Harvest Control
Rule” (<a href="https://conservefish.org/2022/06/02/council-staff-scientists-caution-against-mid-atlantic-harvest-control-rule/">quotation
marks needed as, from a strictly technical perspective, it isn’t</a>) was
adopted at a joint meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and
the ASMFC’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass and Bluefish management
boards in June 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2022/06/mid-atlantic-council-asmfc-adopt.html">It
represents the culmination, or at least a substantial mid-course victory, of
the fishing industry’s efforts to evade the strict, data-based requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and replace them
with a set of management actions largely decoupled from the recreational
harvest limits and annual catch limits previously used to constrain
recreational landings, and even from the allowable biological catch and overfishing
limits</a> used to prevent overfishing.
Such <a href="https://asafishing.org/uploads/Marine_Visioning_Report_January_2014.pdf">decoupling
will, in many instances, allow recreational fishermen to kill substantially
more fish than they were able to before, an outcome that the recreational
industry views with considerable favor.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/09/2023-04588/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act-provisions-fisheries-of-the-northeastern">The
National Marine Fisheries Service adopted final regulations incorporating the
Harvest Control Rule on March 9, 2023, despite stakeholder comments noting that
the Rule appears to conflict with key provisions of Magnuson-Stevens</a>. In response, <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/04/mid-altantic-harvest-control-rule-faces.html">the
Natural Resources Defense Council filed a suit in federal district court,
requesting judicial review of such regulations</a>. That challenge is still pending, with <a href="https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/48466488/NATURAL_RESOURCES_DEFENSE_COUNCIL,_INC_v_RAIMONDO_et_al">memorandums
of law filed and oral arguments yet to be heard</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the meantime, at the December 2023 joint
meeting of the Council and the ASMFC’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Management Board, the Control Rule was used to set 2024 recreational
specifications for the summer flounder and scup fisheries, which are respectively
facing 28% and 10% landings reductions, and was<b><i> not</i></b> used to set
recreational specifications for black sea bass which, according to the clear
and unambiguous language of the Rule, should have also been facing a 10%
landings reduction. However, the 2024
black sea bass landings target will remain unchanged because, thanks to <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/6579bb592278be7d5ef7e799/1702476634277/05-BSB-Council-Board-Dec2023.pdf">advice
from the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee, which
elevated the Committee’s view of the Rule’s intent above its clear language</a>,
both the Council and the Management Board decided that status quo was OK.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Marine Recreational Information
Program/Fishing Effort Survey<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://conservefish.org/2023/08/15/nmfs-finds-errors-in-recreational-fishing-data/">In
August, NMFS announced that it had found an error in the Fishing Effort Survey component
of MRIP, which may have caused angler effort, and recreational catch and
landings, to have been overstated by as much as 30% to 40%.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The problem was completely unexpected, and
was only discovered because NMFS was engaged in quality control research
intended to assure the integrity of MRIP data.
It came from an unexpected source.
The Fishing Effort Survey followed best practices in survey design, in
that it asked the respondent a simple question—How often did you go fishing in
the past two months?—before asking the supposedly more difficult question of
how often an angler fished over the past year.
However, the researchers found that about 16% of respondents stated that
they made more trips in the past two months than they made in the past twelve,
which is an obviously impossible result.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Apparently, surveyed anglers were so willing
to help NMFS out that they were overstating the number of recent trips, compressing
their activity to include trips made over a longer period of time into a
two-month window. Researchers discovered
that if they broke from the usual protocol, and asked how many trips were taken
in the past year before asking about the last two months, the initial question
provided a bound which limited responses to the two-month question to a more
believable number.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">NMFS is now engaged in a year-long study to
determine whether the overstatement is limited to certain states and particular
fisheries, or whether it occurs more widely.
The agency expects to be able to adjust MRIP data to better reflect the
actual number of trips taken by 2026.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Predictably, the chronic critics of the
federal fishery management system were quick to use NMFS’ announcement as new
grounds to attack MRIP and resultant management decisions. <a href="https://www.thefisherman.com/article/noaa-bombshell-angler-effort-surveys-still-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR1FbK13knDaxhzFMPLAzqHVDiePqQm6wwOS4Oiydef-EPrbdj9Y5ZEyJQ4#close-modal">A
September editorial in <i>The Fisherman</i> magazine was titled “NOAA Bombshell! Angler Effort Surveys Still Flawed,” and criticized
then-recent management actions to reduce the annual catch limit for summer flounder
and impose an emergency, 31-inch maximum size limit on striped bass</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Farther south, the Center for Sportfishing
Policy and its affiliated organizations, which have long tried to shift management
of popular recreational species to <a href="https://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2023/08/speckled-trout-louisiana-makes-one-more.html">more
easily manipulated state management bodies</a> which are not bound by the
strictures of Magnuson-Stevens, <a href="https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MjAwNzcwMDU3NjU0MDUyMjI2/noaa-data.pdf">issued
a press release calling on NMFS</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“to stop making the same mistakes, stop wasting taxpayer
money, and stop causing chaos in recreational fisheries management and coastal
communities. It’s time for all parties
to work together to properly fund state efforts to manage recreational
fisheries.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, the critics fail to mention that
the same sort of problems that affected the Fishing Effort Survey might lurk
somewhere in state surveys too, but no one really knows because, unlike NMFS,
no one is really trying to find them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The critics also fail to understand that the
Fishing Effort Survey’s problems, although not insignificant, have less of an
impact on recreational fisheries management than they might choose to believe. As Dr. Evan Howell, Director of NMFS’ Office
of Science and Technology, announced when describing the Fishing Effort Survey
issue on an August 7 conference call, the issue creates an error in the
magnitude of recreational landings estimates, but does not impact trends in
those estimates. So if estimates show that
landings were 25% higher in one year than they were in the previous season, the
percent increase is still essentially accurate, even if the absolute size of
the landings in both years was overestimated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But some people just can’t help trying to
spin the story to suit their own needs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Summer flounder experience overfishing<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63e3be39FIRST_PAGE__SFlounderBenchmarkAssmt_SAW_SARC.pdf">The
last benchmark assessment for summer flounder wasn’t filled with good
news. While the stock wasn’t overfished
or, at the time, experiencing overfishing, recent surveys suggested that the
fish were growing more slowly, being smaller at any given age, and producing
fewer eggs per individual. The biomass
target was reset downward as a result.
In addition, recruitment had been below average since 2010, resulting in
a spawning stock biomass that was below the target level.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://asmfc.org/uploads/file/63ed4d3c2021_summer_flounder_MTA_report.pdf">A
2021 stock assessment update continued in the same vein, finding that spawning
stock biomass was at about 86% of the biomass target. The one bit of good news was that recruitment
in 2018 seemed to have been significantly above average, providing some hope
that both the population and the harvest were on the rebound.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/64c413117245682e2159efdd/1690571538553/Tab01_SF+2024-2025+Specs.pdf">The
good news didn’t last long. A 2023
assessment update determined that the size of the 2018 year class had
originally been underestimated, and that summer flounder biomass had been
overestimated. As a result, recent
annual catch limits, commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits had
been set too high, so that fishing mortality exceeded the fishing mortality
threshold in 2022, meaning that overfishing had occurred.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As a result, the 2024 annual catch limit was
reduced by about 40%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Summer flounder recruitment has been below
average for more than a decade, and it is possible that the current low
recruitment, which has largely remained stable, represents a new normal for the
species. If that is the case, returning
to higher levels of summer flounder landings may not be possible, at least in
the near term. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And those are some of the more significant fisheries issues that we faced in 2023. On Thursday, I'll make some predictions about what we'll see in 2024.</span></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-33206899083016278922023-12-28T16:38:00.003-05:002023-12-28T16:38:37.741-05:00THE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM OF SHIFTING FISH STOCKS<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The ocean is warming, and fish are taking
notice. <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/feeling-the-heat-warming-oceans-drive-fish-into-cooler-waters" target="_blank"> Instead of continuing to swim inthe latitudes where their ancestors have lived for the past few thousand years,many species are pulling up stakes and following the warmer waters poleward</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, in recent years here on Long Island,
dolphin have gone from a target of opportunity caught while chumming
for sharks or trolling for tuna to a fish abundant enough to support directed
trips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cobia are also becoming more and more
common, to the point where they, too, are supporting directed trips, as well as
bumbling into baits set out for other fish; although most cobia are caught
inshore, I even had one wolf down a mackerel that was drifting in my shark
slick last summer, a fish so intent on eating that it ignored an #18/0 hook and
#14 wire.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even the sharks themselves are getting more
interesting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Blacktip and spinner
sharks, which were once rarely seen north of Delaware Bay, are now ripping
through schools of menhaden within sight of Long Island’s coast, while the
occasional bull shark is now being reported off Long Island’s beaches.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Less exotic species, such as black sea bass and summer flounder, have been moving northward
as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That movement has caused some
real problems, as fisheries managers have been slow to respond to stocks
shifting north; both recreational regulations and commercial quotas often still
favor more southern states, where the fish used to be, and frustrate northern
fishermen, who often see fish teeming right outside their ports, but are not
allowed to fully exploit such nearby abundance—even as the stocks of fish they
used to depend on, such as winter flounder and cod, are collapsing, and the few
survivors disappearing from the southern extent of their range.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Fisheries managers refer to such movements as
“shifting stocks,” and it has proven to be a very difficult issue to address.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Part of the problem is just human
nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Allocations, whether between
sectors or between states, tend to rank among the most difficult fisheries
issues to resolve, because people who may currently harvest the largest share
of the catch—even if they have to sail 500 miles to do so—aren't very willing to cede quota to states located nearer productive waters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Congress has tried to intervene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4690/text#toc-H76C250B5ADE147FDB053962DDD1A0069">The
Sustaining America’s Fisheries For the Future Act of 2022, introduced by
representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) in the 117<sup>th</sup> Congress, contained a section that addressed the shifting stocks
problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, such section would merely
have allowed the Secretary of Commerce to determine whether</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“a substantial portion of a fishery is located in the
geographical authority of more than one [regional fishery management] Council.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If that proved to the case, the bill would
have allowed the Secretary to either designate one of the affected regional
fishery management councils to draft the management plan for such fishery, or
declare that such management plan with be developed jointly, by multiple
councils.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While even that small step forward might have
improved the current management of species such as summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass, which are important recreational and commercial species in much
of New England, but are managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
with only minimal input from New England fishermen, the bill did not provide
any guidelines for how the regional fishery management councils ought to deal
with the issue of shifting stocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps worse, it required a majority of
council members on each council contributing to a joint plan to agree to the plan’s
terms, which means that the deadlock that currently affects allocation changes
would be allowed to continue unabated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At this point, any discussion of the bill is only
hypothetical, as it was not passed by the House of Representatives during the
117<sup>th</sup> Congress, and has not, to date, been reintroduced, but it
again demonstrates why the shifting stocks issue is so difficult to address.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some aggrieved parties have turned to the
courts for assistance but, like Congress, the courts have failed to provide any
relief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ccead97a-b171-4705-ae74-5f820a78347c/1/doc/22-1189_opn.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ccead97a-b171-4705-ae74-5f820a78347c/1/hilite/">The
most recent court decision addressing the shifting stocks issue was <i>New York
v. Raimondo</i>, which was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for
the 2<sup>nd</sup> Circuit on October 12, 2023</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2021/20210113_docket-121-cv-00304_complaint-1.pdf">In
a complaint filed on January 13, 2021, the State of New York alleged, among
other things, that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The summer flounder fishery has geographically shifted
over the intervening three decades [since summer flounder allocations were set
in 1993], with the center of the fishery moving dramatically northeast to the
waters off Long Island—yet under the 1993 Allocation Rule, New York continued
to receive only 7.65% of the coastwide quotaish in <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>each year, while Virginia and North Carolina
together received nearly 50%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result
has been devastating to New York fishermen, who frequently fish off Long Island
within sight of boats that steam to and from southern ports and are permitted
to catch and land far more summer flounder due to less restrictive limits for
those states.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“On December 14, 2020, Commerce replaced the 1993
Allocation Rule…The 2020 Allocation Rule keeps in place the 1993 formula except
for any surplus fish in years of abundance, which are distributed evenly among
active states in the fishery…resulting in only marginal quota increases for New
York in those years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Rule continues
to ignore substantial changes in the fishery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[numbering omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New York further alleged that the summer
flounder allocation violated <a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/msa-amended-2007.pdf">various
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
including National Standard 2, which requires management measures to be based
on the best scientific information available; National Standard 4, which
requires all allocations to be “fair and equable” and “promote conservation;” National
Standard 5, which states that management measures should, “where practicable,
consider efficiency in the utilization if fishery resources;” and National
Standard 7, which requires that management measures “where practicable, minimize
costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.”</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2021/20210312_docket-121-cv-00304_memorandum-of-law.pdf">In
a trial brief which expanded on the allegations made in its complaint, New York
noted that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“According to Commerce data, 87% of 2016-2019 commercial landings
were caught in northern mid-Atlantic and southern New England waters proximate
to Long Island, while only 10% were caught off the North Carolina and Virginia
coast, even though Commerce allocates around half of all landings to those
southern states.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Summer flounder were clearly a
shifting stock, and the shift was certainly changing where the fishery was
being prosecuted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2021/20210402_docket-121-cv-00304_memorandum-of-law.pdf">The
Commerce Department’s trial brief contested New York’s allegations, and argued
that no one national standard should dictate the outcome of the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, Commerce argued that the National
Marine Fisheries Service properly balanced the sometimes conflicting goals of
the national standards, along with the conflicting considerations of the
states, saying that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“NMFS carefully considered the precise data New York
points to regarding the location of the summer flounder fishery and determined
that it must be weighed against preexisting infrastructure and community
reliance, which was in turn based upon historical landings data and the
resulting 1993 Allocation formula.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“New York argues that recent fishery data ‘are more
current, relevant, and reliable than the 1980s data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this argument conflates two sets of data
measuring entirely different phenomena: fishery location versus landings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>NMFS did not disregard a superior version of
the same data, but rather made a choice between prioritizing historical
landings and current fishery location data in deciding among the management
approach here…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[references deleted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-right: .5in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220329_docket-121-cv-00304_opinion-and-order.pdf">In
the end, the trial court accepted the Commerce Department’s argument, finding
that</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“the 2020 Allocation Rule is not arbitrary and
capricious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the Court finds that
NMFS carefully considered all the appropriate factors, explicitly considering
applying all 10 MSA [national] standards and evaluating them against the
proposed alternatives.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On October 12, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Circuit
confirmed the trial court’s decision, writing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“By including ten [national] standards, the MSA contemplates
that other fishery management considerations—here, the inertia of fishing
industries established over decades—can outweigh equitability concerns that
flow from the transitory movement of the summer flounder…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The NMFS adopted a rule that sought to ‘balance
preservation of historical state access and infrastructure at recent quota levels,
with the intent to provide equitability among states when the stock and quota
are at higher levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot say that
this adjustment to the previous rule—the result of balancing ten different
national standards—lacked a rational basis articulated in the administrative
record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We therefore conclude the NMFS
did not violate the MSA or the [Administrative Procedures Act] when it set
summer flounder quotas through the 2020 Allocation Rule.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[references omitted]”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">While that decision was probably good law—administrative
actions are supposed to be difficult to overturn, with courts only stepping in
where there is clearly <b><i>no</i></b> rational basis for the action, and not just because the court would have chosen a different course—it probably sounded the
death knell for significant council actions to address shifting stocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Quite simply, <a href="https://conservefish.org/2020/10/02/mid-atlantic-fisheries-time-to-abandon-the-past-and-embrace-the-future/">as
I once noted in a different post in a different blog on another website, when
it comes to allocations, Billie Holiday probably said it all when she belted
out “God Bless the Child,”</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Them that’s got shall get/Them that’s not shall lose…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Armed with the 2<sup>nd</sup> Circuit’s decision,
states that have long harvested the lion’s share of a fishery have no reason to
cede any portion of their quotas to other states, even if that fishery has
shifted far from a state’s waters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
long as such states control a majority of votes on a regional fishery
management council—which may not always be the case—we can depend on them to
frustrate any efforts to let quotas follow the fish into new waters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Absent congressional intervention, which is
badly needed, we can imagine some time far in the future, perhaps in a day when
today’s fishing vessels have all been replaced with artificial
intelligence-guided drones, a warming ocean has pushed the summer flounder
fishery to the edge of the Canadian border, and only one thing remains of the
fishery we know today: quotas will still be based what landings were when
Ronald Reagan sat in the White House, quotas that North Carolina and Virginia
will still, most certainly, defend.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-right: .5in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-89029101192643681222023-12-24T14:58:00.000-05:002023-12-24T14:58:01.380-05:00FISHERY MANAGERS CAN'T CATCH A BREAK<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ve said it more than once in casual
conversation, and might have written it down once or twice somewhere in this
blog: Fisheries managers, whether state
or federal, don’t get paid enough for the job that they do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s be honest—you don’t become a marine
biologist to get rich.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biology had
fascinated me throughout all of my school years, and from the time that I was
six or seven or so until the time I turned 17, I had no doubt that I’d spend my
career happily studying the various creatures that lived in our seas. But about
the time that I started taking a serious look at colleges, and career research
turned from just thinking about what I’d like to do to thinking about what sort
of job might keep me reliably supplied with a sufficiency of groceries, boats, and
related gear, a career in biology slipped from my first choice to an unrequited
dream.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But when I talk about folks being underpaid, it
goes far beyond mere salary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I grudgingly
settled into my job at various big financial institutions, observed the
stultifying world of corporate America first-hand, and became more and more
involved with the fishery management process in an effort to do at least
something worthwhile with my life, I realized that the folks who run the
fisheries management agencies, and the various subdivisions thereof, needed the
same sort of organizational, budgeting, personnel, and public relations skills
as the corporate set, but were paid—if they were very fortunate—maybe 10
percent of what they might earn as administrators in a similar corporate setting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It's pretty clear that someone enters the
field of fisheries management out of a love for the subject and a dedication to
the mission of rebuilding and conserving fish stocks, because they certainly
don’t do it for the money.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">They don’t do it for the public acclaim,
either, for it’s hard to think of another career in which a person is
confronted with the same degree of acrimony, just for trying to do the right
thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Consider, for a moment, what happened down in
Louisiana over the past few years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The state’s two foremost inshore recreational
species had fallen on hard times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speckled
trout—more properly, “spotted seatrout”—and red drum have both fallen on hard
times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the two, <a href="https://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/speckledtrout.htm">the
trout were facing the worst situation, with the stock badly overfished</a> and <a href="https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Stock_Assesments/Spotted_Seatrout/2021_Spotted_Seatrout_Assessment.pdf">the
spawning stock biomass at the lowest level of abundance ever recorded</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Red drum were just beginning their slide, and
presented managers with a chance to limit the damage and start the rebuilding before things got much worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Louisiana’s fisheries managers set about to
make things right.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first item on
their agenda was rebuilding the speckled trout stock, and modifying the state’s
extremely liberal recreational measures, which still allowed anglers to keep 25
foot-long trout every time they left the dock, a bag limit significantly
higher, and a size limit significantly smaller, than prevailed in any other
Gulf state at the time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Commission_Meeting_Minutes/2020/August-2020-Commission_Meeting_Minutes_8-6-2020.pdf">To
that end, Louisiana managers sat down and devised a few different sets of
regulations that, they expected, would get the job done, then sent their
proposals out for public comment</a><a href="https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Commission_Meeting_Minutes/2020/August-2020-Commission_Meeting_Minutes_8-6-2020.pdf">,
holding eight public hearings and sending surveys to a representative sample of
Louisiana’s recreational fishermen</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>Based on the feedback received, the managers proposed new regulations
which would decrease the bag limit to 15 speckled trout, and raise the size
limit to 13 ½ inches, measures that received the strongest support from the
angling public.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it seemed that the Louisiana managers did
everything that reasonable and prudent managers ought to do, first using their
scientific expertise to craft alternative sets of management measures that would rebuild the speckled trout stock within a reasonable time, sending the
alternative measures out to public comment to see which ones the public
preferred, and then seeking to adopt the proposed regulations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The only problem was that not everyone agreed
with the rules, and that<a href="https://ccalouisiana.com/news/speckled-trout-cca-louisiana-statement-on-pending-changes/">
one of groups opposing such rules was the politically connected Louisiana chapter
of the Coastal Conservation Association, which made the incredible statement
that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Based on our experience, changes in recreational
regulations have rarely, if ever, resulted in a direct fishery recovery,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">CCA Louisiana argued for rules that would allow
Louisiana anglers, most particularly including the chapter’s members, to kill
more speckled trout, regardless of the state of the stock.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the end, Louisiana’s professional fishery
managers were slapped in the face for trying to do the right thing, <a href="https://www.houmatoday.com/story/news/local/2023/08/04/ldwf-votes-to-restrict-speck-fishing-recover-population/70511256007/">as
a committee of the state legislature, largely or wholly ignorant of fisheries
science but fully cognizant of where both their votes and their donations come
from, vetoed the new regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately,
it wasn’t a total loss, as a new set of management measures, not quite as
effective as those initially adopted but still capable of rebuilding the stock
within six years</a>, was ultimately adopted and escaped further political interference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Proposed red drum regulations followed a
similar, if somewhat shorter path.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/lwf-commission-adopted-a-notice-of-intent-to-modify-red-drum-size-and-bag-limits">Louisiana’s
drum aren’t yet overfished, but are experiencing overfishing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Louisiana’s fisheries regulators noted that</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“biological data [indicates] the red drum stock is
experiencing overfishing resulting in an escapement rate below the 30 percent
minimum limit, leading to a declining biomass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To increase the escapement rate and avoid the stock biomass declining to
an overfished condition, management changes are necessary.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Once again, <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/article_4e056dac-7e6a-11ee-8fa5-2b78f951e147.html">Louisiana’s
fisheries managers tried to protect the fish stock, as well as the public’s
long-term interests in a healthy red drum fishery, and proposed regulations
that could rebuild the stock within about 10 years</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/article_4e056dac-7e6a-11ee-8fa5-2b78f951e147.html">The
proposal received the support of most of the stakeholders who commented before
both the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Commission and the same legislative
committee that had torpedoed the proposed speckled trout management measures</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But once again, the Coastal Conservation
Association opposed the conservation measures, with a spokesman saying<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The majority of our members believe that the [proposed
management measures] passed in July [go] a step too far.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And once again, politicians overrode
professional fishery managers and shot down the proposed red drum rules, resulting in</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;"> a less effective set of
management measures being proposed in their stead.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such disregard for professional fishery
managers' expertise, standing alone, was bad enough, but then the
outdoor media began piling on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2023/12/13/frustration-grows-lwf-commission-targets-redfish-limits/">On
December 12, an article appeared on the <i>Outdoor Hub </i>website, in which a
writer named Keith Lusher complained</a>,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“As recreational anglers in Louisiana acclimate to the
new speckled trout regulations that have been imposed on them, the Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission is continuing its push to tighten
restrictions on redfish…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Once again [the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries] is asking recreational anglers in Louisiana to comment on the new
restrictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it’s blatantly
clear that the comment session is more of an appeasement session giving the impression
that the LDWF cares about what recreational fishermen think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s because of this that frustration among
recreational fishermen is growing after the state initiated a closed season on
flounder just last year and the tighter restrictions on speckled trout last
month.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Roland Gardner has fished Southwest Louisiana for over
50 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gardner says he’s seen ebbs
and flows in redfish harvests through the years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘To take a few down years and write new law
to limit recreational fishermen is just a knee-jerk reaction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wouldn’t be surprised if some
environmentalists got to them and put forth an agenda to reduce limits on all
species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not going to stop with
flounder, specks, and redfish,’ Gardner said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Jeff Dempster believes what’s happening on the East
Coast of the country is coming to the Gulf of Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘They want us all off the water to have the
Gulf all to themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is just the
beginning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Look at what’s going on along
the East Coast with the windmills.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re
killing whales and putting lobster fishermen out of business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can bet your last fed coin they have eyes
on the Gulf,’ Dempster said.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/environment/lsu-study-finds-southern-flounder-are-disappearing-throughout-their-habitat-including-louisiana/article_554cddfa-8dce-11eb-be2f-438cf7077bee.html">for
trying to rebuild a badly overfished stock of southern flounder, a species that
is in steep decline throughout the southeast</a>, for trying to restore a
speckled trout stock that has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded, and for
trying to keep the red drum stock from following the same path—basically, for
doing they job that they’re paid for—Louisiana’s fishery managers are being
accused of collaborating with some imagined cabal of extreme environmentalists
who are supposedly trying to push anglers off the water, so that such
environmentalists can “have the Gulf all to themselves,” although what they plan
to do with said Gulf, if they’re not planning to fish, isn’t completely clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, conspiracy theories of this
sort aren’t unique to Louisiana.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/donofriotestimony10.26.11.pdf">Fishermen
on the East Coast, and particularly in the mid-Atlantic region, long ago became
inured to spokesmen for the now thankfully defunct Recreational Fishing Alliance
ranting about how</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“large, well-funded and politically active environmental
organizations…are philosophically opposed to fishing and endeavor to remove as
many fishermen as possible from the water.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s probably not surprising that the same
delusions have spread to conspiracy-minded recreational fishermen along the
Gulf coast, although it is somewhat amusing that one such conspiracy
theorist quoted in the Outdoor Hub piece rails against East Coast windmills
for “killing whales and putting lobstermen out of business,” but doesn’t seem
to expend the same sort of vitriol on<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oil-pipeline-leak-louisiana-gulf-2cad7b5e16298f966b5033466822c229">
Louisiana oil rigs and related infrastructure that not infrequently spring leaks and spill oil into the
Gulf of Mexico, such as the recent spill of about 1.1 million gallons of crude
into waters</a> that <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-leak-gulf-of-mexico-endangered-species-at-risk/">host
not only the endangered Kemp’s ridley turtle, but also the rare Rice’s whale,
which some have called “the most endangered whale in the world</a>.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such irrational attitudes, and such disdain
for professional fishery managers, might be excused if they were only expressed
by a single author in a single outlet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unfortunately, they seem much more widespread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/outdoors/kicking-the-can-this-time-its-redfish/article_3b10ea9a-8f1e-11ee-896f-3b90bfba2db9.html">In
a December 9 article in <i>The Advocate</i>, writer Joe Macaluso accuses Louisiana
fishery managers of playing “kick the can” with the state legislature, because
after seeing their proposed science-based regulations shot down by a legislative
committee, the managers failed to completely capitulate to the politicians, and
instead came back with a new set of rules that maintained their preferred
3-fish bag limit, but coupled it with a more broader, more permissive slot size
of 18 to 27 inches, rather than the originally proposed 18 to 24.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.louisianasportsman.com/fishing/time-to-right-the-ship-leadership-of-our-states-wildlife-and-fisheries/">More
troubling, on December 22 the same writer published an article in <i>Louisiana
Sportsman</i> titled “Time to right the ship—leadership—of our state’s wildlife
and fisheries,” in which he wrote,</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Without naming names—and didn’t your Momma tell you ‘if
you can’t say anything nice about someone, then don’t say anything’—Louisiana’s
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has been run as if it was a red-headed
stepchild (with all apologies to anyone red-headed and anyone who’s a stepchild).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The hope is these folks will go away, these folks who
made life a growing misery when it came to fish (especially fish) and wildlife
issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“The heart-felt hope is that newly elected governor Jeff
Landry has found the just-right people to run this vital state agency, and
appoint the just-right people to the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And thus we come to understand why the professional
fishery manager can’t catch a break.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If he or she does their job, promoting healthy
fish stocks and healthy fisheries that are sustainable in the long term—they are
pummeled in the press by people focused only on their short-term kill, and not
on the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are the subjects of
inane conspiracy theories, and accused of trying to throw fishermen off the
water (which might be the most ignorant comment of all, for just about all of
the fishery managers that I’ve ever met were also inveterate anglers).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are stymied, and often criticized, by
opportunistic politicians with no real understanding of fisheries biology, but
with very well-developed instincts for the right sound bite at the right time—politicians
who often have the final say on whether those fishery managers remain employed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, if a fishery manager just
goes through the motions, bending to the will of politicians and an
often-hostile angling press that is driven more by a desire for advertising
revenues than a desire to tell the truth, such manager can avoid political
peril and public castigation, but will still have to face the most strident
critic of all—themselves, and the conscience-driven knowledge that, in their
inaction, they have betrayed the public trust.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’ve met a lot of professional fishery
managers over the years, at the state, regional, and federal levels, and can say
that, with very few exceptions, they have eschewed the latter path, and instead
executed their duties professionally and well, standing up to the politics as
well as they could, while withstanding the cries of the critics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Maybe they can’t catch a break.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe, whatever they do, someone will scream
and cry that it’s wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nonetheless,
they endure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And we, our sport, and the
fish we pursue are better off for what they do. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Charles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.com0