THE CULTURE WARS OF THE STRIPED BASS DEBATE

New York held its first meeting on the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission’s draft addendum to the striped bass management plan last Wednesday.  As I sat in the crowd listening to the various people speak, it became clear that much of the striped bass debate—and of any fisheries management debate, for that matter—boils down to a near-tribal clash between cultures rather than a mere discussion of facts and ideas.

In the old days, the lines were pretty simple.  Anglers sat on one side of the room, and commercial fishermen on the other.  The anglers blamed the commercials for killing too many fish, and the commercials responded that they were working for a living, and providing food for folks’ tables, while anglers merely engaged in play.  Fights were more about allocation than about the health of the fish stocks themselves.

That sort of thing went on for a very long time, and for some fishermen now on the far side of sixty, it’s still going on today.

But today’s debate has become far more complex than a mere commercial/recreational fight.  

These days, anglers may be more likely to point accusing fingers at other anglers rather than at the commercial crowd, and while some commercial fishermen also engage in internecine fights, or pick bones with anglers, others—particularly the younger fishermen who want to stay in the business for the next thirty or so years—no longer raise knee-jerk objections to new regulations, and grudgingly support the management process.

Last Wednesday, the commercial bass fishermen said little or nothing at all.

But the recreational sector turned out in all of its diverse glory, making a plethora of comments that made it clear that the angling sector doesn’t, and almost certainly never will, present a united front, and that the frequent calls for “unity” that we hear either represent an impossible dream or are a badly disguised effort from folks who are really saying, “Let’s all do things my way.”

It wasn’t just a simple contest between those who emphasized harvest versus those who promoted conservation.  It wasn’t the typical science-deniers squared off against those who supported the findings in the most recent stock assessment.  It also wasn’t a reprise of past meetings, where fishing-related businesses opposed management measures, while a majority of fishermen wanted to see actions taken, although there was a bit of that going ‘round.

Startlingly, there wasn’t even one explicit comment that “the science is bad,” although there were hints of that in some people’s comments.

Instead, what we saw on Wednesday night was in many ways a clash of cultures, worldviews and personal values, with elements reminiscent of football-team rivalries and, unfortunately, other elements that evoked images of street thugs defending their turf.  While no one was physically removed from the room, there was enough going on that the law enforcement folks present had to issue a warning or two.

The worst behavior came from those who seemed to feel the most entitled to harvest fish.

One for-hire captain rambled on for close to ten minutes (when the limit on each person was three), managing to loft personal attacks at several people, including me, without ever offering coherent comments on the specific options that the ASMFC wanted us all to discuss.  In the end, he seemed to justify his behavior by making the dubious statement that “God put the striped bass on Earth for people to use for food,” and suggesting that conservation-minded anglers perhaps worshipped the fish as some sort of “pagan god.”  

The possibility that the bass evolved to survive in an ecosystem where human predation—and particularly technology-assisted human predation—was not a threat to their survival is apparently not a part of that deity-driven worldview.

And, of course, if you’re divinely chosen to kill fish for food, you’re relieved of any responsibility to maintain the future health of the stock.  That places you in direct conflict with conservation advocates, who are concerned that today’s excessive landings can hurt tomorrow’s striped bass fishery.  Thus, it’s OK to treat such apostates in a decidedly un-Christian manner, jeering them as they speak, taunting them when they return to their seats, attacking them personally and even inviting them outside for a brawl.  (That’s one of the times that enforcement stepped in, to cool the “chosen one” down…)

The argument that people are entitled to take bass for food also leads to another dispute as to whether catch-and-release is ethical, as about 9% of all bass released don’t survive the experience.  So should anglers just “play with” their fish if they’re not intending to eat them?  There are those who say “No.”  When I attended NMFS' Recreational Fishing Summit in the spring of 2018, a representative of western Pacific anglers felt very strongly about that, saying “We don’t play with our food.”

Although he wasn’t talking about striped bass, there are bass fishermen who share the same sentiments.

There are also those who feel economically entitled to harvest fish.  While they seek similar results as those who claim a divine right to kill fish, their behavior is notably less erratic and bizarre.  They made a good-faith effort to address the issues set out in the draft addendum, although their focus tended to be on what was best for their businesses, rather than what was best for the long-term health of bass stocks.  

In the old days here in New York, and in a few other states today, that has been the default position of the commercial fishing fleet.  However, the commercial fleet was notably absent from last Wednesday’s meeting, leaving some members of the party and charter boat fleet to hoist the economic entitlement banner on their own.

Those representing the economic entitlement faction tended to support either slot limits that would allow customers to keep a bass between 28 and 35 inches, or perhaps between 30 and 38, or a supposedly “conservation equivalent” proposal not included in the draft addendum that would pair a 30-inch minimum size with a slightly shortened season that would run from May 1-November 30, and prohibit paid crew from retaining fish.  The thought was that such limits would make it more likely that customers could catch a fish to take home, although the request was also couched in terms of avoiding release mortality.

A number of them also supported “sector separation,” leading to regulations for the for-hire fleet that were different from those imposed on surf and private-boat anglers—because the for-hire fleet, after all, does feel economically entitled to special treatment.

However, what ought to be noted is that there is not only a culture clash in the greater angling community, but in the charter boat community as well.  A number of charter boat captains, who cater to customers more interested in the experience of striped bass fishing than in killing fish to take home, But honesty compels me to say that the angling community isn’t without its conflicts, too.

There is certainly a subset of anglers who feels entitled to take fish home, regardless of the health of the stock.  Some will tell you up front that they will kill as many big bass as the law will allow which, if they’re good anglers, is theoretically one fish per day from the middle of April through mid-December (in New York; many states have no season at all), although it’s highly unlikely that anyone fishes every day of the season, and even more unlikely that they catch a legal fish every time they go out.

Some of those folks take their bass home and eat them; far too many illegally sell a least a part of their catch. There is also a contingent that fish to inflate their egos, and live to post photos of their catch on the Internet, or to drive from tackle shop to tackle shop, hauling out their fish at each stop in the hope of having their photo pinned to the tackle shop wall.

Such anglers tend to oppose conservation measures for their own reasons although, since they rarely care enough to show up at meetings, their views are seldom heard.

Most anglers I meet, and most at the meetings, tend to take a more reasonable stance.  They like to catch fish, and they like to take one or more fish home every season, but they don't want to do anything that might impair the bass’ future.  They want to see healthy stocks for the rest of their lives, and want to hand those stocks down for their kids and their grandkids to enjoy.  

These are the people captured in the NMFS survey, who consider fishing with family and friends their most important goal, although just catching fish doesn’t trail far behind.  While they might like to eat bass from time to time, they’re responsible enough not to elevate that desire above the needs of the striped bass itself.

A lot of surfcasters fall into that category, as they’ve learned through bitter experience that their limited, shorebound access to the resource means that bass have to be abundant if they are to catch them on anything like a regular basis.  Boat fishermen can easily move from place to place, and can catch bass on the bottom in 60 feet of water as easily as they can catch them when the fish are blitzing bait in the shallows.  Boat-based anglers can go to the fish, while surfcasters have to wait until the fish comes to them, which is far more likely when the population is healthy. 

A lot of private boat anglers fall into that category, too, although they still kill more fish than the surfcasting crowd.

From there, we move on to the anglers who, like the late Lee Wulff, believe that

“Game fish are too valuable to be caught only once.”

They fish almost entirely for the experience, and seldom if ever take home a striped bass, although they are generally tolerant of those who do.  Many surfcasters fall into this category, too, as do many boat fishermen who prefer to challenge themselves by casting for their fish, rather than trolling or using bait.  Not surprisingly, a lot of salt water fly fishermen also think this way. 

Most catch-and-release anglers didn’t start out that way.  They’re typically experienced anglers who probably killed quite a few bass when they started out, but came to the conclusion that dead fish don’t necessarily make for a memorable trip, and realize that catch-and-release satisfies most or all of their reason for being out on the water.

Needless to say, such anglers have a strong conservation ethic, want to see the bass stock rebuilt, and support restrictive management measures—including measures far stronger than any even considered by the ASMFC.

Which takes us to one final tribe, anglers who would prohibit all striped bass landings, commercial or recreational, until the stock has recovered, regardless of the impact of such actions on the recreational or commercial fishing industries.  It’s an extreme view, perhaps just as extreme as those who claim a God-given right to kill, even if it arises out of far more altruistic motives.  Such a complete shutdown just isn’t needed right now; although it would undoubtedly be the fastest way to recover the stock, it would also cause a lot of unnecessary harm.

The bottom line is that there’s no common ground.

So how can fisheries managers make everyone happy?  How can they reconcile the wishes of those who believe that they have a God-given right to kill fish, regardless of the health of the stock, with those of the folks who are seeking to shut down the fishery until the stock is fully rebuilt?

The answer is that they can’t; as in every other aspect of politics, culture wars will always continue.

In the end, the best thing for fisheries managers to do is to forget about the fishermen, and instead think of the fish. 

After all, anyone claiming a God-given right to kill bass still needs to catch something before they can kill it, and that’s a lot easier to do when there are fish around.  (Yes, one can believe that if things get too bad, bass might fall from the sky to the sea like manna from Heaven, but that never happened with winter flounder, Atlantic salmon or cod, so depending on divine intervention to bail out the striper might just be one hope too far.)

Those who feel economically entitled might not like it if managers elevate the bass’ long-term interests ahead of their short-term cash flow, but they need to accept that they’re in a business, and there is probably no business in the country, from banks and brokerage houses to dry cleaners and gas stations, that don’t have to deal with regulations, and the resultant regulatory risk.  There’s no reason why the fishing industry should believe itself immune.  The striped bass population began to decline more than a decade ago; if some in the industry failed to pick up on that trend, and account for it in their business plans, they have no one to blame but themselves if things don’t work out too well.

And the folks seeking a moratorium are going to have to live with rules tight enough to restore the stock, without needlessly killing off people’s business.  Managers should give bass the rules that they need to thrive, and maybe a little more just to be safe, but there comes a point where overly-restrictive rules can become counterproductive, and cause harm to the management process itself.

In the end, the best thing that managers can do for all of the divergent interests in the fishery is to put the interests of the striped bass first, and give them the protections that they need to thrive.

For without the bass, there is nothing for anyone to catch, or to fight over, regardless of what they believe.