I wish that I didn’t have to write this at all.
But things need to be said, and maybe it’s right that I’m
saying them now, in November, with the big Christmas shopping spree poised to
begin.
In one more week, Black Friday shoppers will descend on the
malls, some lured by ads promising wonderful deals on clothes, smartphones and
TVs.
And when a lot of those shoppers get to those malls, they will
find the sale items gone, and learn that the deals that had drawn them were “limited
to items in stock.”
But, ever helpful, the stores will be willing to sell them
all something else, even if it is far less attractive and comes at high cost.
When that sort of thing happens in shopping centers and malls
it’s called “bait and switch.” It gets
consumer advocates riled, and is just plain illegal in many states.
When that sort of thing happens at the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, it’s called “conservation equivalency.” It pleases the fish hogs, and is clearly endorsed
in the ASMFC Charter.
Striped bass fishermen are learning about the ASMFC’s
version of bait-and-switch right now, and they’re learning the hard way.
Those striped bass fishermen have long been complaining
about a decline in the striped bass population, and, most particularly, in the
number of big female spawners. They have
been asking ASMFC to cut back on landings to let the bass stock rebuild.
Those pleas fell on mostly deaf ears until, a little over a
year ago, ASMFC received a benchmark stock assessment that confirmed what the
anglers were saying. The fishing mortality
target and the threshold that defined overfishing were both set too high. Landings needed to come down. And even under the best possible conditions,
the stock is almost certain to be overfished in 2015, and for some years
thereafter.
Finally, ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board began to take
action.
It was grudging action, to be sure, but things slowly ground
forward.
There were public hearings, and chances for comments to be
mailed in. Anglers responded in
droves. Thousands of anglers made themselves
heard, and the overwhelming majority called for a one-fish bag limit, and a
minimum size somewhere between 28 and 32 inches.
On October 24, the Management Board voted to adopt new
striped bass regulations, maintaining the 28-inch minimum size and dropping the
bag limit to a single fish.
Anglers went to bed happy that night, believing that they
had won a victory. I have to admit that
I was quite pleased.
But…
And it was a big but…
The Management Board also said that states could adopt
alternate regulations that provided “conservation equivalency.” Moreover, that conservation equivalency
didn’t have to equal a 31% harvest reduction, as the 1 fish at 28 inches did;
it merely had to equal the 25% reduction that would supposedly be enough to
reduce fishing mortality back to the target.
It was a little strange, because states that opted for
conservation equivalency would be able to kill more fish than those who stuck
with the regulations that were actually adopted.
And yes, it was an omen.
Because last Monday, representatives of the coastal states
between Massachusetts and Delaware held a conference call to discuss adopting
the same regulations throughout the region and to discuss conservation equivalency.
All of a sudden, striped bass managers were pulling their
own bait-and-switch.
A good chunk of the states that voted at the Management
Board meeting, and acted as if they had heeded anglers’ calls for a one-fish
bag, were having second thoughts. Now
that all of the excitement had ebbed, and few were paying attention, they were
talking about conservation equivalency and continuing to kill two fish per man.
To be fair, not all were on board. The push for two fish is being driven by New
Jersey and Rhode Island. From all that I
hear, New York doesn’t like the idea, and the other states fall somewhere in
between.
New Jersey opposed one fish all along, and was one of only
two states (the other was Delaware) to vote against one 28-inch bass. And since, regardless of species, New Jersey
is always conniving for ways to let its anglers kill more and smaller fish,
it’s position was hardly unexpected.
Up north, Rhode Island is driving the action. Apparently, it couldn’t care less that its
anglers asked for one bass. Rhode Island’s sole concern seems to be its
for-hire fleet which, like so many such fleets, is still struck in troglodyte times
when only dead fish are a gauge of success.
Unfortunately, greed is a metastatic disease, no less so than
cancer, and when one state kills more fish, everyone else wants to kill more
fish, too. If Rhode Island gives its
for-hires two bass, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts are likely to do
the same.
There are so few for-hire operators and so many anglers,
that you might be wondering why such a short, stubby tail would be wagging the
whole recreational dog. Well, I
understand your confusion, because I’m wondering, too…
But what I’m not wondering about is how much those for-hire boats
kill.
Last year, in my home state of New York, anglers made about
950,000 trips in search of striped bass, and killed about 375,000 fish. About half of those trips—more than
450,000—were made by surfcasters, while fewer than a quarter—just 191,000—were
made on party and charter boats.
But when you look at the landings, nearly two-thirds of the
fish—235,000 out of 375,000—were killed by the for-hires.
Giving the for-hires two fish when other anglers only get
one will only make that disparity worse.
And that’s the good news…
The bad news is that “conservation equivalency” is largely a
myth, and giving the for-hires (or even worse, everyone) two bigger fish rather than one at 28
inches, isn’t going to reduce the kill very much.
That’s because, to calculate conservation equivalency, ASMFC’s
Striped Bass Technical Committee looked backwards, to what people caught in
2013. They assumed that the size and age structure of the striped bass stock
will be the same in 2015 and beyond, and that’s just wrong.
We can never forget (as the Technical Committee apparently
did) that the striped bass stock is shrinking because spawning has been
poor. Compared to a healthy population, there
are relatively few smaller fish, and a disproportionate number of big ones.
Based on 2013 figures, allowing anglers to keep one 28-inch
bass has about the same conservation impact as allowing folks to keep two
33-inch fish. Here in New York, about
44% of the bass landed in 2013 were between 28 and 33 inches long, with fish
from the above-average 2005 and 2007 year classes accounting for more than half
of the total.
But if we look ahead
to 2015, the 2005 year class will average about 35 inches long, and all of the other
above-average year classes in the fishery, except for 2007 (which was only
slightly above average) will be even larger.
With very few fish between 28 and 33 inches long, raising the size limit
to 33 inches won’t make that much of a difference.
It will be better than two fish at 28 inches, but not by
much.
To suggest that it will reduce 2015 and 2016 harvest by at
least 25%, and have “conservation equivalency” to one 28-inch fish in those years is ludicrous.
Thanks to conservation equivalency, ASMFC once again finds
itself with a management plan that is more likely to fail than succeed.
Even under the best assumptions, the proposed 25% harvest
reduction had only a 50-50 chance to cut harvest to target levels by the end of
next year.
After the Management Board decided to base commercial
harvest on the Amendment 6 quota rather than on actual landings, those chances got
smaller.
They shrunk a little more after the decision to cut
Chesapeake Bay landings by just 20.5%, instead of the full 25.
Now, if the states adopt one of the
conservation equivalency proposals, the chances of getting harvest back down to
target will become even slimmer. Maybe,
if we’re lucky, they’ll be one in three.
Our fish—and, in the long term, our fishermen—deserve better
than that.
In the short term, we can hope that folks from New York and
the other rational states can convince their recalcitrant colleagues to reject
conservation equivalency.
In the long term, as I’ve repeated before, we need a
long-lasting solution.
We need to end ASMFC’s tolerance of “conservation equivalent”
measures that allow states to game the system and kill more fish than the
stocks can withstand.
We need to set some limits on management boards’ discretion,
and force them to adopt plans that are more likely to succeed than to fail.
We need to compel ASMFC to end overfishing and timely
rebuild overfished stocks.
In short, we need legislation that will compel ASMFC’s
fishery management plans to adhere to the same standards that currently bind
federal fisheries managers.
Call it a consumer protection act for the fish stocks, that
will stop bait-and-switch in its tracks.
I read your October posting and thought we had made progress towards limiting striped bass catches to preserve the fishery. Apparently the loopholes are bigger than were originally thought. Bringing home one fish from an outing should be good enough. How much can you eat in one sitting anyway? Fish, catch and release. You can have a great day and bring home one keeper. It is all about gluttony and greed.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Mystic meeting, it felt as if things were moving the right way. The northeastern managers seemed to be on the right page. But the Rhode Island for-hires refuse to give up their fight for two fish. They're really the lynchpin--if Rhode Island goes to two fish, I think that the other states are going to fall like dominoes. If we can hold the line in Rhode Island, there may be a chance to keep 1 @ 28j everywhere but in New Jersey and Delaware.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to get the word out about RI's actions to RI'ers. I am an avid RI angler and after I heard the ruling of one 28" fish, I crawled into my winter hole. There are many anglers in RI that are for the one fish bag. We do have a large head boat fleet out of Point Judith (Francis Fleet), that is a big voice always trying to push for more though. I will post this acticle to friends but I have no way of reaching a large RI audiance. I only found this by reading "MoldyChum"...
ReplyDeleteI know that the leadership of RISSA gets notices every time that a new blog comes out, and that at least one has been reprinted in the RISSA newsletter, so that helps. Also had a couple anglers get in touch with me who seem to be involved. But yes, you're right. The more people who get the word, the more likely that someone will be able to make a difference. Anything that anyone can do would be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI think that any conservation action is necessary
ReplyDelete