NEXT STEPS FOR STRIPED BASS: PART II

Last week, I wrote a piece about possible changes to the way the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages striped bass.

ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board has now held its meeting, and the path ahead has become a little—if just a little—clearer.  Whether you’re optimistic or pessimistic about the future of striped bass management, you could find something that was said at the meeting to support your views.

Once again, ASMFC staff mentioned that the reference points used to define the target spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality rate (as well as the ones used to determine whether the stock is overfished and/or overfishing is occurring) represented a policy decision on “preserving biomass versus allowing fishing.”  

More conservative reference points generally lead to greater abundance, including a greater abundance of the larger, more fecund females, and thus a spawning stock that is more resilient and better able to maintain the population in the face of consecutive years of poor spawns, but require lower levels of harvest.  Less conservative reference points lead to larger harvests in the short term, but increase the likelihood of a depleted stock, or even a stock collapse, should there be poor recruitment for an extended period.

The optimists can point to the fact that a survey of both Management Board and Striped Bass Advisory Panel members revealed that both groups believed that the most important management objective was to

“Manage [fishing mortality] to maintain an age structure that provides adequate spawning potential to sustain long-term abundance.”

Such an objective would require relatively conservative reference points, which would in turn lead to an abundance of striped bass.  

The need for such abundance was also reflected in Board and Technical Committee visions of what constituted a “quality and viable fishery.” 

The greatest number of Management Board respondents described such fishery as one that featured a

“Broad age structure with high abundance of larger, older fish.”

Other highly-ranked options included

“High abundance of market-size fish (>18” in producer areas, >28” on the coast)”

and

“High catch rates, even if not all fish could be retained.”

Advisory panel members chose two of the same three options, ranking an abundance of market-sized fish first, with broad age structure and an abundance of larger, older fish in second place.  Their third choice was

“High abundance of trophy-size fish (>28’ in producer areas, >36” on the coast)”

So it was clear that to many, if not most, members of both groups, abundance—and thus conservative reference points—is a good thing.

But pessimists could also find plenty of comments to justify their view of the striper’s future.  

There are a lot of folks who find the current reference points too conservative; there was also an expressed desire to consider reference points that reflected periods, prior to 2015 (the first season when the current reference points were reflected in regulations),

“when the stock was in good condition.”

At first, that didn’t sound too bad, given that it seemed to include the possibility of biomass reference points reflecting the 2000-2006 period, when there were plenty of striped bass around.  

However, things quickly went downhill after a clarification that such retrospective glance would apply primarily to the fishing mortality reference points—F_target=0.30 and F_threshold=0.41—in place at the time (F_threshold was reduced to 0.34 in a 2011 stock assessment update), with which allowed a substantial kill, and not the biomass reference points, which would have required something close to today’s level of harvest.

Such past reference points would certainly incorporate a higher level of risk than the current F_target=0.18 and F_threshold=0.219.  While it’s impossible to deny that such higher reference points allowed the striped bass spawning stock to reach high levels of abundance in the early years of this century, and didn’t prevent the production of dominant year classes in 1993, 1996, 2001, 2003 and 2011, it’s also impossible to ignore the fact that they also permitted the sharp, decade-long decline in bass numbers that anglers are lamenting today.

More conservative reference points could better avoid such steep declines, and provide a more consistent—but still varying—level of abundance.

It’s harder to categorize some Management Board members’ aversion to biologically-based fishing mortality and biomass thresholds.

Because there was no clear consensus on whether the Management Board wanted to manage the striped bass stock for stability and abundance or for short-term yield, a motion was made to include a range of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass reference points in the stock assessment, which the Management Board could later review when deciding upon the appropriate risk profile.

Doug Grout, a fisheries manager representing New Hampshire, attempted to amend that motion, to provide that the fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass thresholds be biologically-based, and not based on the 1995 level ofabundance, as is currently the case.  

Presumably, such biological reference points would be tied to the fishing mortality rate and spawning stock biomass calculated to produce maximum sustainable yield; the corresponding targets would be calculated to reflect the risk of overfishing, or producing an overfished stock, that the Management Board was willing to accept.

That seems logical, and is largely how federal fisheries are managed, in order to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.  However, ASMFC is not subject to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, so absent a clear mandate to set fishing mortality and spawning stock thresholds at sustainable levels, it is free to allow overfishing to occur (as it did in the most recent tautog management plan, which permits overfishing to continue in Long Island Sound until at least 2029) and does not require overfished stocks to be rebuilt by any predetermined deadline, if at all (also the case with Long Island Sound tautog, as well as for weakfish, Southern New England lobster and a number of other depleted stocks).

Thus, when the Management Board voted 9 to 6 against requiring that threshold reference points be biologically based, it provided real reason to worry that some members wanted the “flexibility” to allow overfishing and delay rebuilding the stock, should it ever become too small to produce maximum sustainable yield.

On the other hand, given that the 2011 stock assessment update revealed that F_msy=0.34, and that unless such calculation changed, a biologically-based F_threshold would equal 0.34 as well, it might turn out that non-biological reference points would set the threshold somewhat lower, and result in fewer fish being killed.  While the Management Board might have set F_target well below 0.34, in order to minimize risk to the stock, it also would have been free to set F_target=F_threshold, even though that normally isn’t done.

Thus, the jury will remain out on this issue until the stock assessment is completed, and we see what set of reference points the Management Board actually prefers.

With respect to such Management Board action, this week’s meeting conveyed a bit of good news.  Going in, there was concern that the Management Board might adopt a set of reference points that would not fulfill the current goal of the management plan, which is

“To perpetuate, through cooperative interstate fishery management, migratory stocks of striped bass; to allow commercial and recreational fisheries consistent with the long-term maintenance of a broad age structure, a self-sustaining spawning stock; and also to provide for the restoration and management of their essential habitat.”

However, Max Appleman, ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for Atlantic Striped Bass, reassured all present that

“the goal of this exercise [to recommend reference points] is to give the stock assessment team a starting point,”

and that any change to the fishery management plan goals, or to the current reference points, would have to be done through the customary adaptive management process, requiring an amendment or addendum and extensive public comment.

Thus, we’re all now in a waiting mode.

The stock assessment, which will include a range of reference points and an explanation of their consequences, will be prepared over the next few months, and peer-reviewed late this year.  It will probably be presented to the Management Board next February.

We can only guess what happens then.

There is the likelihood that a coalition of Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions, almost surely abetted by New Jersey and Delaware, will push for less conservative reference points, and an increased striped bass kill.

There is also a distinct possibility that the reference points ultimately provided in the stock assessment will not apply to the entire striped bass stock, and will instead be specific to each of the three sub-stocks (fish spawned in Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware River estuary and the Hudson River, although the Delaware and Hudson fish might, at least for a time, be combined).  If that occurs, some of the reference points may look very different from what we see now, even if they are substantially similar in effect.

Thus, for the next nine months or so, anglers concerned with the striped bass’ future won’t have too much to do. 

We need to keep our ears open, in case there are new developments.  We need to network, and get folks prepared for bad news.  And we need to again do what we did in 2014; get out and fight for the long-term health of the striper, once the draft addendum/amendment is finally released, and the inevitable effort to increase the kill begins.

No, tha fight never ends.  But at least this time, we’re coming off a win, and have something to defend.