I was finishing up my comments on the Public Information Document For Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, when one of the questions asked in the “Recreational Release Mortality” section stopped me cold.
It was
“Should management focus on reducing effort in the fisher in
order to reduce the number of striped bass caught and released?”
I read that question and wondered, “Why would anyone want
to do that?”
The fact that the question was even asked demonstrates how badly
managers misunderstand the recreational striped bass fishery.
During
the years 2015-2019, anglers released almost 92 percent of all striped bass
caught. The percentage has remained very
consistent through the years, ranging from a low of 89.26 percent in 2015 to a high
of 93.33 percent in 2018. Out of the
more than 170 million bass caught during that five-year period, nearly 157
million were returned to the water.
While many of those released fish were undersized, and could
not be legally retained, many others were voluntarily released because, for the
most part, striped bass anglers primarily seeking recreation, not
food, when they spend time on the water, although most probably do keep a bass
from time to time.
Right
now, the best available science suggests that about 9 percent of all released
bass die. That’s a relatively low
release mortality rate, which compares very favorably with release mortality
rates of 10
percent for summer flounder, and 15 percent for scup, black sea bass, and bluefish.
Still, 9 percent of the 157,000,000 bass released over the
course of five years isn’t a trivial number.
It’s not surprising that recreational
release mortality accounts for nearly half of all striped bass fishing mortality. That’s what you’d expect in a fishery that’s
prosecuted primarily for catch-and-release, not catch-and-kill.
But fishery managers don’t see it that way. The
so-called “Work Group” report that preceded the Public Information Document
stated that
“Multiple members of the [work group] indicated that
recreational dead discards may be the single most important issue at this time,
and addressing (or reducing discards) is the most important action that can be
taken going forward. Many [work group]
members pointed to the fact that recreational discards accounted for just under
50% of the fishing mortality as a basis for the critical need to address this
issue. Others noted that, particularly
in states with primarily catch and release fisheries, the Board is running out
of ways to control removals in the fishery.”
Looking at the issue objectively, those comments just don’t
make sense.
But they do reflect an unfortunate bias that still prevails
among marine fisheries managers. Too
many of them are still operating within an outdated paradigm that can be summed
up as “Dead fish in a cooler are good.
Dead fish in the water are bad. Our
job is to keep enough live fish in the water to put lots of dead fish in
coolers.”
It’s all about putting dead fish in the coolers.
Think about it. Have
you ever heard a fishery manager say that there is a “critical need” to address
landings because they constituted “just under 50% of the fishing
mortality.” In the striped bass fishery,
combined recreational and commercial landings
account for exactly 50 percent of fishing mortality (recreational
landings at 42 percent, commercial landings at 8 percent), but not a single
manager is talking about “the critical need to address this issue,” because
they value dead fish in a cooler.
Recreational release mortality is being singled out as the problem,
because they can’t comprehend that some additional dead fish in the water might
be the price that needs to be paid in order to appropriately manage the striped
bass fishery.
Yet the real problem is fishing mortality from all
sources, not just recreational releases. As I’ve written many times before, dead is dead.
A bass that dies after being released is
no deader, and has no more adverse impact on the stock, as a bass that slowly succumbs
to asphyxiation while lying on ice in a cooler.
Yet marine fisheries managers, particularly in the northeast
and mid-Atlantic, remain focused on landings as the gold standard of fisheries
management. That makes sense when
managing a primarily commercial fishery, or a recreational fishery prosecuted
primarily for food, such as summer flounder, bjut it makes no sense at all when
managing a recreational sport fishery such as striped bass.
In such fisheries, anglers’ primary motivation is to encounter,
and hopefully catch, fish on a regular basis, even if the great majority—but not
all—of those fish end up being released.
Such fisheries should be managed for abundance. Abundance drives angler effort, and increased
effort results in increased recreational opportunity, and the increased economic
benefits that result.
When a fishery is managed for abundance rather than for
landings, recreational release mortality is likely to rise, but so long as
overall fishing mortality stays at or below target, that’s not a problem.
However, higher levels of release mortality do mean that
restrictions on landings must be tightened to keep overall fishing mortality
under control. And for traditional marine
fisheries managers, who worship at the mid-20th Century altar of
maximum sustainable yield, the idea of intentionally managing in a way that increases
release mortality and leads to lower landings is an inconceivable heresy.
In that regard, marine fisheries managers in the northeast
and mid-Atlantic are at least 50 years behind the times.
Both in freshwater fisheries and in saltwater fisheries
elsewhere on the coast, no-kill regulations (e.g., many “quality” trout waters,
Florida
tarpon and bonefish)
and restrictive regulations that promote catch-and-release angling
(muskellunge,
Alaska for-hire halibut, Florida snook and permit) are
frequently seen.
But on the East Coast, fisheries managers remain
laser-focused on maintaining landings.
Thus, the PID’s baseless complaint that “in states with primarily catch
and release fisheries, the Board is running out of ways to control removals in
the fishery.”
After all, if the state’s striped bass fishery is
primarily catch and release, managers can adopt very restrictive
restrictions on landings without significantly disrupting that fishery. Some for-hire operators might be unhappy with
more landings restrictions, but given that, using the same 2015-2019 timeframe
used above, the for-hire fleet only accounted for a little over 2 percent of
all striped bass trips (low of 1.60 percent in 2016, high of 2.73 percent in
2017), such concerns flow from a very small sector of the recreational striped
bass fishery; management should reflect how the resource is used by the great
majority of anglers.
Some managers have reportedly asked what more they can do when
the bag limit has already been reduced to one fish. The answer to that question is simple: More restrictive size limits, and shorter
seasons.
Folks who manage other recreational sport fisheries, in both
fresh and salt water, have already figured that out.
For
example, Wisconsin has decided to
“Manage muskellunge for a variety of unique fishing opportunities
(including trophy, quality action, and harvest) within balanced aquatic
communities,”
by maintaining
“A. Trophy Fisheries—Manage
Class A1 waters to increase the catch of 45” and larger muskellunge, with some
fish 50” and larger.
B. Action Fisheries—Manage
Class A2 waters for a catch rate of 1 muskellunge (any size) per 25 hours of
muskellunge angling.
C. Improve Existing
Fisheries—Rehabilitate former muskellunge waters that have experienced
substantial declines in the muskellunge population; improve Class B and C
fisheries.”
Wisconsin also stresses the need for education that
complements its muskellunge management program, and is taking steps to
“Provide information and technical assistance to our
partners, anglers, and lakeshore property owners. Continue to emphasize the value of
catch and release. Clarify the
role that muskellunge play within aquatic ecosystems, including interactions
with other species. [emphasis added]”
The muskellunge’s role in freshwater fisheries is roughly
analogous to the striped bass’ role on the coast. Both fish are apex predators in their ecosystem,
and among the largest fish encountered by anglers in the waters where they
swim. Both also support what might be
called “prestige” recreational fisheries; anglers who catch a large striped
bass, like those who catch a large muskellunge, tend to be proud of their
accomplishment, and often appear in the pages of local outdoor publications.
But the management is so much different.
In Wisconsin, fishery managers recognize what’s important to
muskellunge fishermen. They may write
about managing for “trophy, quality action, and harvest,” but the state’s
natural (i.e., non-stocked, “Class A”) waters are being managed primarily for either
“trophy” or “action” fisheries; regulations permit harvest in such waters, but
such harvest is subordinate to the other two management goals.
Like
striped bass, muskellunge enjoy very low release mortality rates when caught on
artificial lures and properly handled prior to release, although research
shows that they suffer very high levels of delayed mortality when caught on
live bait, where gut-hooking is often an issue. While Wisconsin fishery managers seek to encourage
anglers catch and release muskellunge, the ASMFC, which clearly doesn’t recognize
what’s important to most striped bass anglers, would consider limiting
catch-and-release, so that more bass could be killed and brought home.
The ASMFC just doesn’t understand how to manage a truly
recreational fishery.
In salt water, Florida’s snook regulations may provide the
best example of how managers should address such fisheries. Snook fishing is, in many ways, like fishing
for striped bass—you can catch them in inlets and around structure such as
bridges and piers, cast to shorelines (typically mangroves instead of sod banks
or stone), fish for them in the surf, etc.
Not to mention the fact that snook taste at least as good as
striped bass do.
As
with striped bass, recreational release mortality makes a contribution to
overall snook fishing mortality. The State
of Florida believes that such release mortality makes up no less than 43
percent, and very probably about 50 percent, of all snook fishing mortality. That falls right into line with release mortality’s
48 percent contribution to striped bass fishing mortality.
But Florida, unlike the ASMFC, isn’t even talking about reducing
catch-and-release fishing effort in order to increase snook landings. Instead, it acknowledges the recreational and
economic value of what is primarily a catch-and-release fishery (one
state study showing that about 97 percent of fish caught on the Gulf coast were
returned to the water), and crafts its snook regulations to take account of
both landings and release mortality—even if that means closing the fishery
during the height of the winter tourist season, when light-tackle guides and
other for-hire operators would undoubtedly profit from an open season.
Because that’s how a recreational sport fishery ought to be
managed: For abundance, for maximum
recreational opportunity, and maximum recreational effort.
Landings are, at best, a secondary consideration.
East Coast managers need to figure that out, for if they don’t,
they’ll get striped bass management wrong.
Again.
As a fishing guide and someone who sells boats to sportsmen, all I can say is AMEN!
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly with this article, however as one who fishes mostly in cape cod Bay when will we address the elephant in the room?
ReplyDeleteThe huge increase in seals isn't just bringing great whites.