Sunday, February 17, 2019

STRIPED BASS ANGLERS NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING



“Female [spawning stock biomass] for Atlantic striped bass in 2017 was 68,476 [metric tons], below the SSB threshold, indicating the stock is overfished.  [Fishing mortality] in 2017 was 0.307, above the F threshold, indicating the stock is experiencing overfishing.  [internal references deleted]”
So we know that we’re facing a problem, and hopefully we’re going to fix it.

Of course, saying that you want to fix a problem is easy.  Actually doing something that will make a material difference always proves to be quite a bit harder.

That’s certainly going to be the case with striped bass, because the hard numbers say that the remaining female spawning stock biomass is about 25% below the spawning stock biomass threshold, and about 40% below the rebuilding target, so any rebuilding plan is going to require some fairly severe cuts in harvest.  And while people are always pretty eager to conserve someone else’s fish, and cut someone else’s landings, they can often be resistant to measures that end up cutting their own.

Hopefully, striped bass anglers won't follow that pattern.

On the whole, recreational bass fishermen are a relatively conservation-oriented bunch.  That’s particularly true for surfcasters and the light-tackle crowd, who have learned the hard way that any reduction in striped bass numbers will affect the quality of their angling first.    

Even so, as news of the striped bass’ trevails begin to appear in the angling press and on social media, we’re already beginning to see some anglers taking a “not my fault” stance, and pointing accusing fingers at the commercial sector.


“Make the changes to commercial and charter limits.  My 1 or 2 every week or so can’t really be the issue… if it is…  it’s already too late.”
And that poster is right—IF he’s only talking about the bass that he, himself takes home.  But when you consider all of the anglers just like that poster, who each only take home a few fish each year, you get very large number.  “1 or 2 fish every week,” for many thousands of anglers, killed over the course of a year, can quickly turn into hundreds of thousands of dead striped bass, weighing many millions of pounds.

And when you start talking about that sort of numbers, they can very quickly become an issue.

A big issue.

Even so, there are some who have long sought to place the onus of striped bass conservation on others’ shoulders.  A recent article in the Cape Cod Times quotes Dean Clark, a board member of the recreational fishing group Stripers Forever, as saying

“The only way to increase [striped bass] biomass is to manage them as a recreational species,”
By “as a recreational species,” Clark means “by eliminating the commercial fishery.”  That’s long been a goal of Stripers Forever, which ended a recent report on the benchmark assessment with the words

“The only silver lining in all of this is that we may be presented with a return of the opportunity that we missed in 1988 to designate striped bass as a game fish in the coastal states.  Had that happened, we are confident that the decline we all have witnessed in the last 10 or 15 years would not have taken place.”
But it’s hard to figure out what that confidence Stripers Forever expresses is based on.  


So when folks point their fingers at the commercial fishery, and say that it causes most of the harm, their claims seem to arise more out of wishful thinking than from anything out in the real world.

A lot of folks won’t want to believe that.  They’ll talk about pictures they’ve seen of trawlers clearing bycatch off their decks, with a long slick of dead, floating bass trailing out behind them.  But while such incidents certainly occur, and result in disturbing photos that quickly spread across Internet fishing forums, they’re not the primary source of fishing mortality—or even discard mortality—of the striped bass.

Think of them as the mass shootings of the fishing world.  

When mass shootings happen, they get a lot of press, a lot of Internet coverage, and result in a lot of discussion, but they don’t happen very often, and contribute only a very few points to the homicide rate.  Instead, the vast majority of our murders take place by the ones and twos, in drug deals gone wrong, botched liquor store holdups and domestic disputes.  

In the same way, most striped bass mortality is generated a fish at a time, as anglers each take home a fish or two, and release many more, some of which, inevitably, die.  While the big bycatch events might be photogenic, they are the exception, and not the rule.

And we can’t really blame the charter boats, either.  

Again, there are times when we see the party and charter boats hitting the bass pretty hard, but they make up only a small part of the picture.  In 2018, preliminary numbers show that anglers killed about 2.25 million striped bass in the New England/Mid-Atlantic region.  Less than 240,000 of those fish—barely more than 10%--can be attributed to the for-hire sector.

So when we look at the striped bass’ problems, the first thing that we need to do is admit that we—the surf and private-boat recreational fishermen—are the primary source of fishing mortality, and thus will have to shoulder the primary burden of bringing back the striped bass stock.  

That doesn’t mean that such burden shouldn't be shared; if, just for the sake of example, another 25% reduction in landings is needed to rebuild the stock, then the measures adopted should seek to reduce each of the private boat/surf, for-hire and commercial landings by at least that amount.  
But because we account for so much of the landings, when it comes to absolute numbers, rather than percentages, most of the savings will, of necessity, come from us.

How those cuts will have to be made will always be an issue.

Striped bass mortality has not been symmetrical, and neither were the reductions that resulted from the last management action, Addendum IV to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan.  

Pursuant to such Addendum, coastal states were supposed to land 25% less in 2015, compared to 2013, while Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions were supposed to land 20.5% less than they had in 2012.  The decision to establish different reductions for the Bay and the coast was well-intentioned, but like many good intentions, it paved the wrong road.  While the commercial bass fisheries achieved their required cuts, and coastal anglers did, too, recreational fishermen in the Chesapeake substantially increased their kill.

As a result, while coastal anglers harvested, or lost to release mortality, fewer than 390,000 striped bass last year, anglers in inland waters—which, with some tiny exceptions, means Chesapeake Bay—killed nearly 1.9 million, about 85% of all recreational landings.  And while many of those fish were undoubtedly males, many were also females that were still too young to spawn. 

In addition, biologists assume that about 9% of all bass released don’t survive the experience, but Maryland fishery managers believe that, under adverse conditions, the actual release mortality in Chesapeake Bay could exceed 25% at times, saying

“27% is the more appropriate figure given current fishing techniques and environmental conditions in Chesapeake Bay during the warmest months of the summer [up through and including 2017]”
The estimate of dead discards in the benchmark assessment could well have underestimated the actual fishing mortality attributable to Chesapeake Bay anglers.

Thus, reducing the fishing mortality attributable to Bay anglers—and making sure that they meet their mandated reductions this time, and don’t shirk them as they did in the wake of Addendum IV—is going to be a big part of any recovery plan.  Most of the kill in the Bay consists of young fish that have just recruited into the population.  Many fall below the Chesapeake jurisdictions’ low 19- and 20-inch size limits.

Killing too many of those little fish is arguably equivalent to killing the striper’s future.

But coastal anglers will have to do their part too, using circle hooks in bait (already required in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay) and being more aware of good release practices.  Prominent among those will be keeping bass in the water as much as possible, and not waving them around for photos while they’re desperately trying to breathe.

Think about someone holding your head underwater after you’ve finished a mile-long run, or completed a really tough workout, and you get an idea what bass experience in front of your camera’s lens.

And everywhere, we can expect size limits to increase, bag limits—in the few places where they allow more than one—to come down, and maybe even see a season, particularly in areas where warm summer waters are likely to reduce chances for released fish’s survival.

The bottom line is that, if we want to see the abundance of bass in the water increase, then the number of bass that go into coolers, and are otherwise killed, needs to come down.

As the primary cause of striped bass mortality, we, the surf and private-boat anglers, must take the lead in making that happen.


7 comments:

  1. finally a great article about how to achieve what every sector ultimately wants...well done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dean Clark here with Stripers Forever. While I generally agree with all that has been printed here the elephant in the room of the striper discussion has not been addressed.
    If we go directly to the bottom line we must first stop pointing fingers of blame and accept that dead is dead and it matters not who or which user group does the killing. What matters is, and this is at the foundation of the "game fish argument", FOR WHAT PURPOSE/GOAL ARE STRIPERS BEING MANAGED? The answer to this will determine the future welfare of the striped bass.
    When one manages a species (any) for commercial harvest the goal is maximum sustained yield or maximum harvest/species reduction.
    The human economic greed factor comes into play in the commercial management equation and history clearly points out that because of this a commercially managed species suffers accordingly. Remember when a species is managed as a commercial "resource" the only economic value it has is when it is harvested/killed and sold at market.
    However, when a species is managed for recreational purposes the goals are polar opposite. The value of the species is increased in proportion to it's abundance. I.E. a game species managed for recreational purposes is managed for maximum recreational success. This results in the species being managed for maximum abundance not maximum reduction and the welfare of the species is enhanced not degraded. As a result a game managed species thrives while a commercially managed species is under constant threat of being overharvested just as stripers are today.
    Every species that has been classified as a game species (ducks, deer, redfish grouse, trout etc...etc...) were designated and flourished while being protected as a game species. Understand that every designated game species were at one time managed commercially and were overharvested!
    The discussion ought not to be about who the villain is but rather what management paradigm will most benefit the species. That should be the focus of the discussion.
    Summary: The only value a commercially managed species has is when it is dead. To maximize value simply kill more. The value in a recreationally managed species is in maximizing living numbers in order to increase recreational success.
    These management goals are polar opposite and Stripers Forever sees a positive future for stripers only if we manage them as a recreational species. Sportsmen are infinitely better stewards of our animals, birds and fish than are those that must maximize the harvesting/killing in order to derive value. Let's focus on what will be best for the stripers and not on selfish personal arguments based on blame and greed

    ReplyDelete
  3. If it were only so simple.

    Painting commercial fishermen as the villains and recreational anglers as the folks in the white hats might have been fair in the 1970s, but today, things are far more nuanced. In the Gulf red snapper fishery, for example, the commercial segment hasn't overfished since 2007, and have embraced accountability for their actions, while the recreational community chronically overfish the resource, and try to escape accountability by seeking ways to abolish recreational catch limits, accountability measures, etc. In 2017, they convinced the new administration to extend the season, knowing that they would overfish the stock as a result.

    In the case of striped bass, we are not managing for maximum sustainable yield, but instead to a target mortality that should, if properly implemented, provide a biomass 125% greater than it was in 1995. Increasing the number of large females and improving the structure of the biomass is a stated goal of Amendment 6 to the management plan. Recreational fishermen are responsible for 90% of the mortality, but they are not held accountable for their overages, as commercials are. See post-Addendum IV recreational landings in Chesapeake Bay.

    If we want to manage striped bass as a sport fish, and for abundance, the first thing we ought to do is maintain a well-structured biomass. That means allowing females to mature and spawn at least once--no sub-28" size limits, no emphasis on "a fish to take home for dinner." That's how commercial fish are managed. In the case of sport fish, recreation is the primary goal; if anglers want to take a fish home, they must earn it. And not a single fish "saved" by eliminating the commercial fishery should be harvested by anglers.

    With those qualifications, "gamefish" status could benefit bass. Without them, it is merely a shift of mortality, and not a conservation measure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that your response, albeit possibly unintentionally, clearly points out and supports my point claiming that opposing management goals result in opposite results.

    I have suggested that the basic argument ought to be about the welfare of the fish as determined by our management goals... NOT focused on who harvests/kills how many of them or why. That discussion obfuscates the core argument that is more correctly centered on the defined purpose and goals of the management paradigm.

    You correctly stated, "If we want to manage striped bass as a sport fish and for abundance,......" And this is the core issue "IF WE WANT TO MANAGE FOR etc... WE WOULD DO etc.

    You correctly point out that it is the wishes/goals of management that defines their actions. If we want management goals to be species abundance instead of harvest abundance then the species will be managed, again as you point out, differently.

    Opposing goals demand opposing management oversight and regulations. Yes, "If we want to..." defines the question. What do we want?

    There can be no credible argument about which user group - recreational or commercial - has a better fiduciary track record when it comes to looking out for, conserving and enhancing our wild species. That is a non-starter and only distracts from the core issue of management objectives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The comparison between recreational and commercial stewardship is not as cut-and-dried as you claim. Much depends on the time period examined, with recreational stewardship looking far better in the past, and pathetically poor in more recent years.

    And when we talk about salt water fisheries, even the past doesn't look all that good.

    Yes, there have been some conservation initiatives pushed by salt-water recreational anglers in the past, most related to striped bass at the time of the collapse of the late 1970s/early 1980s. But otherwise, the very distinction between recreational and commercial salt water fishermen wasn't that clear

    Prior to the collapse, northeastern anglers regularly sold their surplus striped bass, bluefish, etc. Books such as Frank Daignault's Twenty Years on the Cape describes what he calls 'The Life" very well; sale of striped bass played a key role. Offshore, tuna and mako shark were, and in the case of tuna, still are regularly sold by high rollers in their Bertrams and Vikings, people who don't need the money, but sell their bigeye and bluefin nonetheless. I see this regularly in my local fisheries. I don't fish in the south that often, but my understanding is that such sale is still common in southern snapper/grouper, swordfish, wahoo, dolphin and king mackerel fisheries. You can argue that the activity is primarily commercial, and I don't disagree, but the people doing it consider themselves anglers.

    And at least those fish are sold and eaten. How many marlin, tarpon, sharks and other offshore species have been hauled back to the dock for a weigh-in and photos, and then fed to the flies at the local landfill, or hauled out the sea and dumped? While we see less of such activities today, dumpster tournaments for marlin and shark are still far too common, targeting the largest, most valuable females in the population. In Lousisiana, dead tarpon tournaments still thrive.

    And even when we look at striped bass, anglers aren't exactly wearing white hats. While commercial fishermen's landings are strictly limited by state quotas, anglers are not constrained by any hard-poundage catch limit. in Maryland, anglers grossly exceeded their "soft" landings limit from Addendum IV, and faced no accountability. In New Jersey, the concept of "conservation equivalency" was gamed to allow anglers to kill 2 bass per day, and a third dead fish--a 24-28 inch fish that is likely an immature female--was added to the bag, the state's "gamefish" laws perverted to allow a bigger recreational kill, In Virginia, the recent "Hogzilla" tournament resulted in the deaths of dozens of big, fecund females, some over 50 pounds.

    Not exactly examples of good stewardship.

    More generally, it's hard not to look favorably on the Seafood Harvesters of America's defense of the Magnuson-Stevens Act over the past few years, and its insistence on sustainability and holding fishermen accountable, and compare that with the Center for Sportfishing Policy's support for H.R. 200 in the 115th Congress, a bill that would have gutted key conservation provisions of Magnuson, or its efforts to pass the original version of the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act, S. 1520.H.R.2023, which would have "modernized" recreational fisheries by relieving anglers of hard-poundage catch limits, slowed stock rebuilding times, and allowed questionable data to become part of the fishery management process.

    So, contrary to your assertions, credible arguments can very easily be made as to which user group has a better track record. In truth, I believe that both are dismal, but in a strange juxtaposition of what I had always believed was true, over the past five years, the commercial record is arguably better than that of the recreational sector.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well written and accurate article Charles. I would add that more consistent recreational/commercial size and limit regulations among all states would make a helluva lot more sense that what exists currently.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Agreed. Using conservation equivalency only to address real biological differences in the fishery, and not merely to increase bag limits, and prohibiting the transfer of quota between sectors, would both be on my personal "want" list.

    ReplyDelete