A NEW HIGH, AND A DEEP NEW LOW, IN THE STRIPED BASS DEBATE

This year’s debate over striped bass management is in the home stretch. 

Last May, the process was kicked off after a rigorously peer-reviewedbenchmark stock assessment found that the striped bass stock was bothoverfished and subject to overfishing.  

Now, Draft Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, which is intended to end overfishing and lower fishing mortality to sustainable levels, has been released for public comment.

The first public meeting on the draft addendum was held yesterday in Pennsylvania, and additional meetings will be held all along the striper coast, with the last one held in Massachusetts on October 3. 

Finally, sometime during the last week of October, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will make the ultimate decision on whether  overfishing will end.

Thus, the striped bass debate is reaching its crescendo.  The good news is that most striped bass fishermen seem to understand the problems that the species is facing, and want to see managers do the right thing.  When I was at the Management Board meeting held on August 8, more than one of the commissioners assembled at the table mentioned the large volume of mail that they received in favor of bass conservation.

Various states are recognizing the need for conservation, too.  Just this week, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted emergency regulations that placed meaningful new restrictions on striped bass harvest, replacing its former recreational bag limit of 2 fish (only one of which could be more than 28 inches long) and 20 inch minimum size with a one-fish bag and 36-inch maximum size.  The 20-inch minimum was retained.

On the commercial side, Virginia has, for the first time, imposed a maximum 9-inch mesh size for gill nets fished in the ocean, and maximum 7-inch mesh size for gill nets set in Chesapeake Bay.

All of Virginia’s actions were intended to preserve the large, more fecund female striped bass that remain in the spawning stock, fish that would otherwise be targeted by recreational, and sometimes by commercial, fishermen.

Virginia Marine Resources Commissioner Steven G. Bowman explained the need for such regulations, saying

“Virginia took the first action on striped bass in the spring [when it cancelled its spring “trophy” season] and today’s steps continue our commitment to restore this fishery to healthy levels.  The recent stock assessment shows that immediate action is needed to slow the decline and restore this fishery to healthy levels…Restoring this fishery to its full potential will require further actions for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the coming months.”

Virginia’s Secretary of Natural Resources, Matthew Strickler, enlarged on Mr. Bowman’s comments.  He recognized the connection between fish abundance and a healthy fishing industry, saying

“Poor management of striped bass over the past decade has caused significant economic harm to Virginians who depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods and has reduced opportunities for recreational anglers…We need other states to follow our example and help rebuild the striped bass population starting immediately.  Delay is unacceptable and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission must take decisive action that will ensure restoration of this fishery up and down the coast.”

Such action was a welcome demonstration of leadership in a fishery where states are all-too-often unwilling to take any measures that might disadvantage their residents compared to those of neighboring states.  However, as might be expected, not everyone was happy with Virginia’s actions.

Some charter boat captains and tournament operators were particularly upset.

The Virginian-Pilot reported that Mike Standing, who ran the Mid-Atlantic Rockfish Shootout, a striped bass tournament held in December out of Virginia Beach, lamented that

“It kills it.  It kills it all…

He suggested that if Virginia was going to take any action, it should have done

“Something at least so that it doesn’t kill the tournaments or hurt the captains and businesses that support the fishery.  Something so that it doesn’t hit people in the wallet.”

Neil Lessard, a charter boat captain based in Cape Charles, also lamented that

“Well, that pretty much shuts it down.  We knew it was a matter of time, we were killing so many.

“But my customers come here to trophy fish and they’re not going to drive all that way to catch one fish of that size.  [emphasis added]”

Another charter boat captain, Ken Neill, who is also Deputy Commissioner of the Marine Resources Commission, recognized reality, noting

“This is a bitter pill to swallow.  What would be worse for captains would be no rockfish.  [emphasis added]”

Although not happy with the new regulations, at least Capt. Lessard and Capt. Neill recognized, in their comments, that the bass are in trouble and that more restrictive measures are, in truth, needed (Mr. Standing had also noted that “we’ve been telling them for 10 years that there has been a problem with the population”).

So Virginia’s latest action, and the recognition of its necessity, should be viewed as a recent high point in the fight for striped bass conservation.

But there was a recent low, as well.  It should come as no surprise that it took the form of comments made in a release issued on August 28 by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, an organization that seems to view every fisheries conservation issue through their own paranoid lens, believing that

“Anti-fishing groups and radical environmentalists are pushing an agenda on marine fisheries issues affecting America’s saltwater anglers.  At the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), we’re pushing back to protect your right to fish!”

Since every management measure is apparently an infringement of that “right to fish,” and RFA reliably opposes most, if not all, proposed reductions in recreational landings, no matter how badly needed, it was probably predictable that the RFA would be the first, and so far the only, organization with national pretentions that has come out against striped bass conservation.

They start out by telling us not to worry, that there really isn’t a problem.  The heading of the original release, although not the linked article listed above, just called the current overfished state “a bump in the road” and called it a

“Management Problem versus Conservation Problem,”

as if management and conservation could properly be separated.  It goes on to try to reassure us that

“the current state of the striped bass stock is far from dire and it is helpful to understand the historic context of this fishery…the striped bass stock remains in far better condition than it was in the 1980’s when rebuilding was first initiated.”

And yes, that’s true, the stock hasn’t collapsed—yet—and the whole point of conservation measures is to keep that from happening, and more, to increase abundance so that, as the Virginia Commissioner put it so well, fishermen can enjoy the striped bass stock’s “full potential,” and don’t have to try to make do with the remaining scraps. 

But anyway, the RFA tells us, the problem isn’t fishing, because

“The decline in spawning stock biomass in the present is primarily the result of below average recruitment which can be seen in the period of 2005 through 2010…With striped bass, recruitment is largely driven by weather, environmental and water quality conditions and not fishing mortality.”

Again, not untrue, but also misleading.  It’s akin to saying, “The decline in my bank account isn’t due to me spending too much, but just to me losing my job and having no income,” and concluding “So I don’t need to cut back my spending, because I’ll be able to make more deposits if and when the economy gets better and I get hired again.”

Sometimes, that strategy might work, but many times it won’t.  And if it doesn't, the fish can't work out their problems in bankruptcy court.  Instead, if excessive fishing pressure removes most of the large females from the spawning stock at a time when few young females are recruiting in to replace them, by the time that “weather, environmental and water quality conditions” are again favorable, the spawning stock biomass may have declined too far to take full advantage of the newly favorable conditions. 

It was such a combination of poor recruitment and overfishing that set the stage for the collapse of the late 1970s.  Keeping fishing mortality at a low enough rate to preserve the older, larger females is the best way to keep history from repeating itself.

Which takes us to the RFA’s next attempt at misdirection, it’s statement that

“in the entire history of striped bass management, the stock size has never exceeded the spawning stock biomass target.”

Again, that’s true.

But again, it's misleading, because what the RFA doesn’t say is that, “in the entire history of striped bass management,” fishing mortality has never been reduced to the target level, and that so long as fishing mortality remains above target, biomass will never reach its full potential and increase to its target.  

On the other hand, Max Appelman, ASMFC’s Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass, told the Management Board on August 8 that if fishing mortality is reduced to target, as Addendum VI proposes to do, female spawning stock biomass could be expected to rebuild to its target level in about 13 years.

But that doesn’t fit into the RFA’s agenda, because it is trying to convince everyone that

“While the current status of striped bass does warrant some management adjustments, drastic measures are not needed at this time nor is a formal rebuilding plan needed for this stock.  Modest adjustments to fishing mortality and efforts to minimize recreational discard mortality now may not result in sufficient improvements to spawning stock biomass in the near future if other management problems, primarily dead discards, are not addressed.  [emphasis added]”

Now there are a couple of interesting statements.  

“[D]rastic measures are not needed,” but “[m]odest adjustments to fishing mortality...may not result in sufficient improvements”?  

“[E]fforts to minimize recreational discard mortality now may not result in sufficient improvements…if other management problems, primarily dead discards, are not addressed”?

Did anyone tell these folks that the entire point of “efforts to minimize recreational discard mortality” is to address the dead discard issue?

But then, we are talking about the RFA…

And the RFA always has its own agenda.  Long ago, it declared that managing fish stocks for greater abundance, rather than for higher landings levels, constituted an

“Abundance of Crap.”

and made the spurious claim that

“’fish first’ conservationists are talking a good game and leading some folks to believe that oceans of abundance will punish greedy business owners while leaving more fish in the oceans to catch, but it’s really a ploy to build support for reduced fishing participation through shortened seasons and bag limits.”

And, of course, who did the RFA blame for encouraging anglers to seek abundant fish stocks?  Why, the

“well-heeled light tackle and fly guy,”

of course.

That was written in 2014, but for the RFA, it seems that time has stood still.

Thus, if you read a little more of the release, you’ll discover that, according to the RFA, the folks who are killing and keeping striped bass aren’t the problem.  The problems in the striped bass fishery are caused by conservation-minded anglers who release their fish.  In particular,

“States should consider advising anglers against using inappropriate-sized gear such as light-tackle outfits designed for smaller species of fish and fly tackle when targeting striped bass due to its increased mortality on released fish.”

 Instead of supporting conservationists, the RFA comes out strongly in favor of both the fill-the-cooler crowd and the for-hire industry, saying

“The issue of release mortality cannot be taken lightly and it is critical to understand where it comes from.  According to NOAA Fisheries, the total number of striped bass released alive by recreational fishermen amounted to 41,716,648 fish in 2017.  Broke [sic] down by mode, 67% of those fish are attributed to anglers fishing on private boats, 29% to anglers fishing from shore or piers, and just 2% attributed to party and charter boats…

“There has been a growing culture within the recreational striped bass fishery that catch and release demonstrates one’s commitment to this species [sic] long-term sustainability.  This culture also tends to cast shame on anglers that opt to land a legal sized fish to eat.  This is consistent with the trend to push the striped bass fishery more toward a sport fishery and away from a consumptive fishery.  As outlined above, catch and release does not come without consequences when discard mortality values are applied.”

Parts of that argument might seem superficially attractive, but they don't give enough consideration to the fact that while the over-all release rate on striped bass is 9%, that rate is not directly attributable to all catch-and-release fisheries.  Instead, catching a striped bass on bait in warm or low-salinity water may result in a much higher release mortality rate, while hooking a fish in the mouth with a single-hooked lure in cool ocean waters, as is typical of many fly and light tackle fisheries, would result in a lower rate.

In addition, the argument quickly skips over the fact that while the release mortality rate for striped bass is assumed to be 9%, meaning that out of every eleven fish caught and released, ten survive the experience, the mortality rate for striped bass that are caught and tossed in a cooler is believed to be quite a bit higher, almost certainly in the range of 100%, meaning that the two approaches to fishing aren’t directly comparable.  

Thus, to say that

“any management option that simply moves mortality from harvest to discard mortality is a waste of a natural resource and unnecessarily excludes traditional uses of the striped bass fishery”

misrepresents the choice facing both anglers and fishery managers.  Raising the minimum size will result in an increase in release mortality.  But it does so by preserving the life of ten out of every eleven fish released, which might otherwise be retained and killed. 

Thus, a higher minimum size doesn’t merely shift mortality from harvest to discard mortality, but potentially reduces the chance that a formerly legal-sized fish will experience any fishing mortality by approximately 91%.

Still, the question remains : Why does the RFA take such an out-of-the-mainstream approach to the conservation and catch-and-release of striped bass?  

After all, the fishery, contrary to some of the suggestions in the RFA’s release, has already moved “towards a sport fishery and away from a consumptive fishery.”  That movement began during the collapse years, and has only grown stronger since; by the RFA’s own admission,

“over 90% of all striped bass caught by recreational anglers are released.”

The days of striped bass as a primarily “consumptive fishery” ended long ago.

But there are still a few corners of the recreational fishing industry that still place their emphasis on dead fish, and the RFA seems to find much of its support in those places.

For although the RFA claims to be a membership organization supported by recreational anglers, facts don’t back up that assertion.  According to the IRS Form 990 that it filed for 2017 (the most recent such form available), the RFA’s membership revenues that year were just $61,130; divide that number by the basic membership fee of $35 per year, and you come out with around 1,750 members. 

That probably understates the RFA’s individual membership by a bit, because it leaves out life and a portion of the three-year memberships that won’t show up as annual renewals, but even so, it’s clear that the $61,000 in membership revenues don’t come anywhere close to covering the $722,684 in expenses that the RFA incurred in 2017.

So where does the other money come from?

Fishing tournaments are a major component of the organization’s revenues, accounting for $354,850, or nearly 46%, of the RFA’s $779,695 gross receipts in 2017.  

But tournaments generally depend on dead fish and, as evidenced by the comments of the Virginia tournament director, quoted at the beginning of this piece, conservation measures needed to rebuild the striped bass population probably will depress tournament entries.

So yes, we can understand why the RFA might possibly have a problem with that.

Most of the rest of the RFA’s 2017 revenues, $355,996, came in the form of “contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts” not otherwise classified on the IRS form.  It’s probably a safe bet that such contributions came from people sympathetic to the RFA’s anti-regulatory, “anglers’ rights” stand, which again makes the RFA’s opposition to needed striped bass conservation measures understandable.

Along the same lines, it makes it clear why the RFA singles out the light tackle and fly fishermen as particular problems.  Such anglers are not likely to support an anglers' rights agenda.  They tend to be among the most conservation-oriented anglers, a fact that is reflected in the fly fishing industry; in fact, the American Fly Fishing Trades Association came out today with a statement supporting Virginia’s new conservation measures.  That makes them, and their customers, an obvious target for the consumption-oriented RFA.

But the force of history seems pretty clear, and it’s clear that the striped bass are in trouble, even if the RFA still makes the claim, contrary to the best available science, that

“striped bass have been responding to warming shelf water by moving into deeper, more northern and eastern waters.  These are areas that may not have been traditionally sampled for striped bass.  Furthermore, there is no directed fishery for striped bass in federal waters and thereby our understanding of this distribution shift to cooler water is limited.  This lack of information also results in a presumed underestimation of older female striped bass in the assessment.  Surveys need to be adjusted to account for more fish being in the deeper, cooler waters of the [Exclusive Economic Zone]…”

Of course, the only ones presuming that older female striped bass are being underestimated because they’re out in the EEZ is the RFA and its fellow travelers, but I suppose they’re hoping that if they repeat it enough…

The rest of us, who fish for striped bass and, in some cases, have fished for them before and through the last—and hopefully final—collapse, understand that the fish are in trouble.  We can read the stock assessment, that reflects what we see when out on the water, and we want to see the spawning stock biomass restored.

Like the fly fishing folks, we see Virginia’s new action as another, solid step forward, and will work hard to convince regulators to stay the course and rebuild the stock, despite the smoke blown by a handful of people who cling desperately to the past, to old paradigms, and to a management status quo that can only hurt the future of the striped bass, and those who seek and respect them.

 

SOME THOUGHTS ON STRIPED BASS AND ASMFC'S DRAFT ADDENDUM VI

The draft of Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass that was approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board on August 8 is now available for public comment.

The draft Addendum VI is a simpler document, that proposes only a few basic changes to the striped bass management plan.  In essence, it asks only two questions: 

1)      Should fishery managers act to end overfishing? and

2)      Should circle hooks be required to reduce the number of bass that die after release?

Of course, Addendum IV is not that simply worded, and there are sub-options to be considered, which each bring their own subtle nuances to the debate.  So, given that the comment period on the addendum is now open, and will run through October 7, and given that the first public meeting on the topic will be held in Pennsylvania as soon as August 28 (which will be followed by a meeting in New Jersey on September 3, meetings in New York and New Jersey on September 4, and other meetings all along the striper coast that finally wind up in Maine and Massachusetts on October 2), it’s probably time to take a good look at the draft addendum and figure out the implications of the options and sub-options therein.

Whether and how to end overfishing

The recent benchmark stock assessment found that the stock was experiencing overfishing and Amendment 6 to the management plan requires that, when overfishing occurs, the management board must act to reduce fishing mortality to the target level within one year.

So the answer to whether the management board should end overfishing seems to be an unequivocal “yes.”

But at the ASMFC, it’s never quite that simple.  Unlike federal fishery managers, ASMFC is not bound by the conservation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, including those that prohibit overfishing.  That’s why ASMFC’s tautog management plan can allow overfishing to continue in Long Island Sound until 2029, and face no legal consequences for doing so.  

Thus, there is at least a theoretical possibility that the management board could adopt Addendum VI’s Option 1, status quo, and make no changes to the management process.

It’s very, very unlikely that is going to happen.  I attended the August 8 management board meeting, and the atmosphere in the room was manifestly in favor of remedial action, even if there were a handful of commissioners who still seemed to be seeking ways to keep landings high.  Even so, there will be the usual folks from various fishing-related industries who, used to plucking dollars off the heads of dead bass, will be pushing hard for the status quo option.  

They may try to flood some of the meetings, particularly in Maryland and the upper Mid-Atlantic, which makes it particularly important for anglers concerned with the striped bass’ future to come out in big numbers to show their support for needed conservation measures.

If the meetings become far too unbalanced toward the status quo side, there remains an extremely remote, but nonetheless real, chance that the status quo option might win.

Assuming that nothing unexpected occurs, and Option 1 is rightfully ignored by the management board, the next choice is between Option 2, which shares the burden of reducing fishing mortality equally among all fishermen, or Option 3, which places a disproportionate share of that burden on the recreational sector.  

While the choice also seems obvious here, a little consideration of the logic between the two options is probably in order.

Option 2 requires both the recreational and the commercial sector to reduce fishing mortality by at least 18%, the minimum amount needed to have a 50% probability of reducing such mortality to the target level.  Because the benchmark stock assessment found that recreational fishermen were responsible for 90% of all fishing mortality in 2017, requiring both sectors to cut mortality by the same amount will mean that anglers will be responsible for 90% of the reduction, commercial fishermen for 10%.  

To see how this works, assume that fishing mortality is limited to 1000 fish.  Using 2017 fishing mortality estimates, anglers would have killed 900 of them, commercial fishermen would have killed 100.  If each sector then reduced mortality by 18%, anglers would have to reduce the number of fish that they killed by 162 (900 x 18%)  while commercial fishermen’s reduction would only be 18 (100 x 18%), making recreational fishermen responsible for 90% of the cut.

Option 3, on the other hand, uses a strange calculation that would only require commercial fishermen to reduce their fishing mortality by 1.8%, while anglers would be required to make a 20% reduction.  

While the Option 3’s impact on recreational anglers, compared to that of Option 2, is small, the policy of placing a disproportionate share of the conservation burden on one sector, when all sectors benefit from a healthy fish stock, is something that’s better avoided.  The draft Addendum 

VI explains that the 1.8% figure was derived by calculating

“the product of the percent total reductions needed (18%) and the proportion of 2017 removals from the commercial sector (10%).”

But that's a nonsensical approach.  If we analyze it using the same approach taken in the hypothetical example above, anglers would still have killed 900 fish in the base year, while commercial fishermen killed 100.  But under Option 3, anglers would have to reduce their contribution to fishing mortality by 180 (900 x 20%) fish, while commercial fishermen would only have to reduce their contribution by 1.8 (100 x 1.8%) bass.  

Thus, while commercial fishermen would have been responsible for 10% of the landings in 2017, they would only be required to shoulder 1% of the conservation burden.

That doesn’t make sense.

Draft Addendum VI tries to explain the disproportionate burdens by saying

“The rationale for this suite of options is the commercial fishery is managed via a static quota system which keeps effort and removals relatively constant from year to year, while the recreational management program does not have a harvest limit.  That has allowed recreational effort and, therefore, removals to increase with resource availability and other social and economic factors.”

While that explanation certainly reflects the feelings of Option 3’s proponents, and while it is true that ASMFC manages the recreational fishery without annual catch limits and without imposing any sort of accountability on anglers when they overfish, employing such a contrived and ultimately illogical calculation to shift the conservation burden is not the answer to the stated problem.

As I’ve noted on a number of occasions, the right thing to do is to impose annual catch limits and accountability measures on the recreational striped bass fishery, an action that is long overdue.

Thus, Option 2 is the preferable option to reduce fishing mortality.

That opens the door to another required decision:  Should the fishery be managed with a fixed size limit of 35 inches on the coast, and either 18 inches (with a 1-fish bag) or 22 inches (with a 2-fish bag) in Chesapeake Bay, or should managers instead adopt a slot limit that would prevent the harvest of the largest, most fecund females in the spawning stock?

Both approaches have their proponents. 

Those who prefer the 35-inch minimum size tend to argue that setting a size limit high enough to allow important year classes to enter the spawning stock more-or-less intact was the strategy that successfully brought the striped bass population back to health after it crashed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and so has a time-tested history of success.

Those who prefer slot limits tend to point to their success in other fisheries, particularly southern fisheries for red drum and snook.  They also cite what they see as the obvious logic of protecting the biggest, most fecund females in the population.  

Having said that, there are undoubtedly others, particularly those who profit in some way from recreational striped bass landings, who like slots because there are a lot of smaller fish coming up from the successfully recruited 2011, 2014 and 2015 year classes, which will be passing through the proposed slot sizes, and will thus be available for harvest, for at least the next five or so years.

And that, in the end, may be the biggest problem with slots.  They focus recreational effort, or at least recreational harvest, on the big year classes that are critically important to the future health of the stock.  As noted in the draft Addendum VI,

“the long term conservation benefits of implementing slot limits (i.e., protecting older, larger fish) may not be realized if effort is concentrated on fish within the slot limit, thus reducing the number of fish that survive to grow out of the slot.  While the [Plan Development Team] expects fish larger than the slot limit will be protected, concentrating effort within the slot limit may reduce the number of fish that are able to grow out of the slot thus potentially reducing the population of larger, older fish over time.”

In addition, managers probably shouldn’t be so sanguine about a slot protecting the fish that have already grown above a slot’s upper limit.  Release mortality remains an issue in the recreational striped bass fishery, and striped bass anglers with any significant experience in the fishery will readily admit that larger bass are more difficult to release in good condition than are smaller fish, both because such fish are usually fought for a longer time, and so come to the boat or shore more exhausted than smaller individuals, and because many larger bass are caught on bait, which often involves fish being deeplyhooked in the gills or gut.

Fred Galofaro, Editor of the New York edition of The Fishermanmagazine, described the problem well when he wrote

“My concern given the disturbingly high mortality rate of released fish by recreational fishermen provided in the assessment, which claims 48 percent (a number I find tough to swallow) of striped bass mortality is attributed to fish released by recreational anglers, is the ability of those big fish to survive release under a wide range of circumstances.

“Assuming even half that mortality is attributed to recreational anglers, it is still way too high.  But the reality is that many fishing situations do not provide an opportunity to conduct a healthy release.  It is often necessary to revive big stripers before sending them on their way.  How do you do that when the surf is running three or four feet, or from a wave battered jetty, or from the deck of a party boat far above the waterline.  Throw in some warm water temperatures and that 30 or 40 pounder becomes a feast for the resident crab population.”

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Thus, between the uncertainty of whether slots might do harm by concentrating effort on a few important year classes, and so reduce the number of fish that enter the spawning stock, and the reality that requiring the release of big fish, under all circumstances, will probably lead to increased release mortality, I have to come down in favor of the larger minimum size, both on the coast and in Chesapeake Bay.

But having said that, I’d certainly rather see the management board adopt a slot than see them adopt no new restrictions at all.  

Of course, as mentioned above, a lot of the largest bass caught are caught on bait, and that means that a slot will probably lose much of its impact if gut-hooked fish must be returned to the water to die.  Thus, slots shouldn’t even be considered unless circle hooks are required for all bait fishing for striped bass.

Circle hooks

There is no question that circle hooks reduce the number of striped bass that die after being released.  The draft Addendum VI lists a number of studies that have demonstrated that fact.

Given that truth, it is difficult to understand why more states have not already required the use of circle hooks in striped bass bait fisheries.  Some anglers object to their use, arguing that they don’t work well with eels, or with sandworms, or with some other baits, but such arguments should bear little weight.  

Offshore anglers, recognizing the conservation benefits of circle hooks, have long used them when trolling baits for billfish such as sails and white marlin.  It took a while to develop rigging techniques appropriate to the circles, as they do behave differently than traditional J-hooks, but circle hooks are now regularly used by anglers pursing such species.  If circle hooks can be effectively used to catch the smaller billfish, which have hard, narrow mouths and tend to slash and grab at trolled baits, it’s difficult to believe that striped bass anglers can’t find new ways to rig eels and worms in a way that will allow them to easily hook a large-mouthed, relatively soft-mouthed suction feeder like the striped bass.

Yet, despite the clear benefits, it's likely that there will be oppositon to a mandatory circle hook requirement.  Nearly 20 years ago, when the ASMFC first started discussing the document that eventually became Amendment 6 to the management plan, I heard tackle shop owners object to mandatory circle hook requirements, and say that the managers’ emphasis should be on “education, not regulation,” and there is a provision in the draft addendum that reflects such a view.

But the educational process doesn’t seem to be going too well, for as recently as last June, I walked into shops to see fishermen buying treble hooks—not the weighted, snag-and-drop treble hooks, although they’re problematic, too, but small unweighted hooks in the #3/0 - #5/0 range--which they planned to use when live-lining bunker for bass. 

While that was a common practice years ago, given what we know today, it is inexcusably irresponsible.  

Education having failed, it is time to regulate the issue.  Option B, listed under Section 3.2 of the draft Addendum VI, is the right way to go.

In summary

The draft Addendum VI is not perfect.  We should all be disappointed that it makes no effort to rebuild the striped bass biomass within 10 years, as required by Amendment 6, and apparently leaves that task for a new amendment that, depending on how it is ultimately written, has the potential to harm, as well as to help, the future health of the stock.

Having said that, Addendum VI seems to provide an effective framework for ending overfishing and returning fishing mortality to target levels.  However, it is likely to face stiff opposition from some quarters of the fishing community, who will undoubtedly seek to block, water down or amend its provisions in a way that might harm the striped bass, and so the greater angling community, but help their bottom lines. 

Thus, it is vitally important that bass anglers concerned with the future of the stock turn out in high numbers at their states' striped bass meetings, to represent the striper’s best interests and, in doing so, represent their own best interests as well.

THE QUIET FIGHT FOR THE SOUL OF RECREATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT

Fishery management debates have a public face that shows itself at meetings and hearings, when commercial fishermen, anglers, conservation advocates and fishery managers each present their views on both the state of the fisheries in question and what measures—if any—are needed and most appropriate to either maintain a species’ abundance or, far too often, to rebuild an overfished stock.

The meetings can get contentious, and it’s a rare issue that doesn’t see at least one person’s emotions boil over.  Heated remarks, insults, curses and threats are, unfortunately, an unavoidable part of the landscape.  But on the positive side, there’s no question about where anyone stands.  Their comments, and positions, are made—often too loudly—in a public place, and are transcribed on the public record.

But at the same time, there is another, more subtle battle going on.  It’s a fight that tends to stay in the shadows, although its ultimate goal is to impact public opinion.  It is, for the most part, a propaganda war, a fifth-column effort intended to undercut the angling public’s faith in fishery managers, fisheries science and the management process, in order to push public opinion in a direction that favors those in the angling industry who feel that the regulatory process, while perhaps good for the fish, is bad for their bottom line.

It’s all about what the military calls “shaping the battlefield.”  A high-ranking artillery officer describes it this way:

“Shaping the battlefield is a concept involved in the practice of manoeuvre [sic] warfare that refers to shaping a desired situation on the battlefield and gaining military advantage for own forces.  Successful shaping of the battlefield facilitates channelising the enemy to conform to own strategy and will…and employing appropriate fire power assets with the intention of making them lose their initiative,  coherence and force them to fight a disorganized battle while ensuring the integrity of own forces and plans.”

In the military, that’s often accomplished with artillery and air strikes.  In fisheries debates, it’s usually done with the help of sympathetic members of the angling press, who are willing to muddle the message provided to trusting readers, in order to convince them to take a side against the management system. 

One of the best examples of this is an editorial that appeared in The Fisherman Magazine in late 2016.  It’s title,

“Will Angry Anglers Respond to Fluke Fiasco?”

set the tone, and made it clear that anyone delving into the piece wasn’t going to find an even-toned piece describing the state of the stock, its declining abundance, and the management measures that might be needed to halt such decline.  It was clear that the piece would be nothing but a diatribe against summer flounder management, and in that respect, it did not disappoint.

The piece began

“I’m about to really tick you off.

 “Seriously, reading any farther is just going to make you incredibly angry.”

and then it did its best to live up to that promise with its next words, saying

“There’s no way to sugarcoat this, the coastwide quota for summer flounder (fluke) in 2017 is expected to be cut by about 40%.  That means a shorter season, lower bag, an increase in size limits or any combination of the three.”

At that point, there was still no explanation of why the quota needed to be reduced, no mention of anglers overfishing their allocation or the relatively few newly-spawned fluke being recruited into the population.  Instead, there were merely the words

“Pardon my French, but I told you that you’d be pissed.

“The question is what are you—what are we going to do about it?”

And thus the call was made to recruit anglers into a fight against the fishery management system, even though those anglers had no idea what they were really fighting about, or what the fishery managers did that was wrong.

Anglers were just encouraged to feel indignation about having their landings restricted, and for the purposes of that editorial, such indignation was enough.

It’s easy to say that this is the United States of America, and that the author of that editorial had every right to express his opinion that way.  And that comment would be perfectly right. 

But leaving things there would ignore the fact that, more and more, editorial opinions in the angling press are being shaped not by editorial staff, but by the advertisers who expect editors and writers to take public positions and shape public policy in a way that helps the advertisers' profits to grow.

Think about it:  When was the last time that you saw a pro-conservation piece in an angling magazine?

OK, you might have seen one in a fly fishing publication, because the fly fishing industry figured out, long ago, that they’ll sell a lot more tackle, for many more years, if people have something to catch.  But in the mainstream salt water angling press, pro-conservation pieces are pretty scarce.

Yes, you might see an editorial attacking pelagic long lines, gillnets, selling billfish or such.  Attacking the commercial industry is still well withing the rules.  But when recreational fishermen are part of the problem, and need to be part of the solutions, too, the press is surprisingly quiet.

That’s because they know that their advertisers won’t support anything that might hurt their income stream.

And woe betide the editor or publisher who tries to buck that trend.

A little over 15 years ago, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was drafting the document that became Amendment 6 to theInterstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

Those debating the goals and objectives of that Amendment fell into two basic camps.  One supported a high fishing mortality target, which would allow a larger harvest and a smaller minimum size, but would also remove a lot of the older, larger, most fecund females from the spawning stock, which would then be composed mostly of large numbers of smaller fish.  Such a spawning stock, that lacks a broad age structure, is at greater risk when striped bass recruitment falls below average for a few years in a row.

The other camp supported a low fishing mortality target that would restrict landings, but would also allow older, larger females to survive, and provide a more stable spawning stock structure.

As is always the case, the ASMFC held meetings on the proposed Amendment all along the striper coast, including here in New York.

At the time, I was pretty friendly with the owner of a media company who, among his other activities, put out a regional angling newspaper that was supported by a very popular website.  He was very involved in striped bass management, and we worked together on other fishery issues.  In the weeks leading up to the ASMFC’s striped bass meeting, he polled visitors to his website about what they would prefer:  management that allowed the harvest of larger numbers of smaller fish, or management that provided for more older, larger fish in the striped bass population.

Managing for older, larger fish won in a walk, being the choice of a significant majority of responding striped bass anglers.  But it wasn’t what the local angling industry wanted.  Both the tackle shops and the for-hire boats strongly preferred management that effectively rendered striped bass a panfish, and relaxed regulations enough that just about everyone could take one home.  That, they felt, would be best for their business.

So when the media guy stood up at the meeting to report the results of his poll, he was clearly nervous.  He made it very clear that the results he reported expressed the opinions of his readers, and not his own.  But he had the integrity to say that a broad majority wanted to see the more restrictive regulatory scheme put into place.

His advertisers’ reaction was immediate and harsh.  When he got into his office the next morning, many thousands of dollars in advertising was being cancelled, and the future of his publications was clearly threatened.  In the face of that assault, he relented, wrote an editorial supporting the for-hire fleet, and retired from the conservation scene.

The industry voices won by taking his often passionate voice out of the debate.

That’s what shaping the fisheries battlefield looks like.  One of its primary goals is to silence anyone who opposes the industry position.  The industry will ruthlessly cull anyone who tries to provide anglers with the other side to the story.  I know a number of writers who privately support conservation, but rarely if ever take an overtly pro-conservation stand in anything they write, because if they do, their writing career will be over.

But the Internet is a wonderful thing, and allows the conservation message to get out even when the angling press does its best to suppress it.

At that point, those who would shape the battlefield turn to personal attacks, with industry representatives, and industry shills in editorial slots, leveling attacks on people’s motivations, character and commitment.  

One of the most common approaches is to label conservation-minded anglers and writers “environmentalists,” as if that was a bad thing. Personally, I share the view of outdoor columnist Rich Landers, of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review, who said that

“Now, more than ever, a sportsman who is not an environmentalist is a fool.”

But there are still plenty of fools out there.  One of their favorite tactics is to initiate an early attack on a person, organization or idea (“I’m about to really tick you off”) in an all-too-often-successful effort to throw their victim off their stride, and force them to reply to the attacks, insults and innuendo, rather than to execute their own strategy for successfully addressing the management issue.

I’ve seen that approach work many times, particularly back in the day when I was associated with a large angler-based organization that was effectively paralyzed, and feared taking controversial positions because of attacks that might come in the press, and convince some anglers not to renew their memberships.

Thus, the attacks are too often effective.  They too often cause people, and organizations, to lose their focus on the ultimate goal, and their strategies for getting there, and instead concentrate on rebutting what they perceive to be damaging claims.  

Yet there’s truth in the adage that “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”  The trick to frustrating efforts to shape the battlefield is not to get sucked into the response the attackers are trying to provoke, but instead to stay above pointless fights.

Now, as the ASMFC poises itself to deal with overfishing in the striped bass fishery (and hopefully, soon, to rebuild the overfished stock as well), as a recent stock assessment update is likely to show that bluefish, too, are overfished, and as the annual follies with summer flounder, striped bass and scup are about to kick off, we should expect to see industry and their shills in the press begin to shape the battlefield again.

We’ll see editorials attacking the science, attacking people, and attacking the management system.  We’ll see hyperbole, we’ll see feigned outrage, and we’ll see comments that are, at best, only loosely connected to truth, all intended to mislead some portion of the angling community, and convincing them to shut their ears before hard data and rational thought can creep in.

.

We won't see those editorials containing many facts, because the whole point of the battlefield shaping is to get anglers reacting emotionally rather than rationally, and to have them calling for management measures based on that emotion rather than on data.

Which is just what the anti-regulation folks want.

Because they know that when data arrives on the scene, the battle is over, and the only thing that they can do is lose.