In last Sunday’s edition of One Angler’s Voyage, I discussed what is undoubtedly the most complex issue presented in the Draft Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass for Public Comment, the triggers for management action. Today, I am going to address the most controversial of the four issues, reducing recreational release mortality.
Putting the issue in context
Draft Amendment 7 notes that
“Since 1990, roughly 90% of all striped bass caught
recreationally were released alive…Each year since 2017, more fish were
estimated to have died from catch and release fishing than were harvested by
the recreational fishery. For example,
2.76 million fish were estimated to have died from catch and release fishing in
2020.”
Given that, on average, about 9% of all released striped
bass do not survive the experience, and given that anglers typically release
about 30 million striped bass every year, the estimate of nearly 3 million released
fish dying each year shouldn’t come as a surprise.
The real question isn’t how many released fish die, but
whether such deaths are a problem.
Opinions are split on that. Some
members of the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board
“have 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.”
“Recreational release mortality constitutes such a large component
of annual fishing mortality because the striped bass fishery is predominantly
recreational and an overwhelming majority of the catch is released alive. The source of mortality does not matter
to the health of the stock, as long as the overall fishing mortality is
below the threshold. [emphasis added]”
Given that truth, it becomes clear that any decision to focus
on reducing recreational release mortality, rather than on reducing overall
mortality, which means reducing recreational landings, commercial landings,
and commercial discards as well, reflects a philosophical, policy, and/or
political decision, not one driven by biological necessity.
That’s something that ought to be kept in mind when
considering the release mortality-related options in Draft Amendment 7.
Reducing recreational fishing effort
Fishing season closures
In a landings-oriented fishery, such as summer flounder,
tautog, or scup, reducing fishing mortality can be readily accomplished by
adopting more restrictive regulations designed to limit harvest. But greater restrictions on landings will not
reduce release mortality; if anything, making it more difficult to harvest a
fish could easily increase release mortality, as catch-and-keep fishermen winnow through a greater number of bass before they can land a “keeper”
(however, it should be noted that such shift would not be a one-for-one
exchange; because the release mortality rate is about 9%, on average, an angler
would have to release eleven bass to equal the mortality of just one fish
tossed in a cooler).
In a fishery where the “overwhelming majority” of fish
are released alive, managers have two options:
They can accept release mortality as an inevitable artifact of high
release rates, and reduce landings to compensate for such release mortality, or they can try to change the nature of the fishery by
reducing angler effort—and, in particular, catch-and-release angler effort—while
maintaining the same, or even permitting a higher, level of landings.
Draft Amendment 7 contains two options which would take the
latter approach.
The first, designated sub-option B1, would require every
state to implement a closed season, at least two weeks in length, “during times
when the striped bass fishery is particularly active in each state.” No fishing, including no catch-and-release
fishing, would be permitted during the closure.
What “times when the striped bass fishery is particularly
active” means remains open to debate, and is one of the issues sent out for
public comment. Sub-option B1-a would
define such time as any two-month “wave” when at least 15% of a state’s striped
bass trips are taken, while sub-option B1-b is more restrictive, and would
define such time as any wave in which at least 25% of directed trips occur.
Because Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission
have already instituted no-targeting closures, as part of the supposedly “conservation
equivalent” regulations that were adopted in response to the reductions imposed
by Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate
Fishery Management Plan, Draft Amendment 7 also includes “Tier 1” options
specific to those jurisdictions, with Option A allowing such jurisdictions to
meet the closure requirement with their existing rules, and Option B requiring
them to further reduce fishing mortality by either adopting additional season
closures or adopting only a new season closure (while eliminating
the existing closure) and implementing the fishery management plan’s standard
size limit for the Chesapeake Bay, instead of the smaller minimum size included
in their current, allegedly equivalent, rules.
Does a seasonal closure of some sort make sense? Management Board members have expressed conflicting
thoughts.
Maryland has already adopted a no-targeting closure, to prevent
high levels of release mortality when bay temperatures spike during
July, so it’s probably no surprise that Maryland
fishery manager Michael Luisi favors the use of mid-season closures to reduce
release mortality. At the October 2021
Management Board meeting, he said
“The one thing that made me most happy about this document
when I read through it, was that these [seasonal closure] options on
recreational release mortality were really starting to cut into a new way of
thinking and a new way of approaching fishing mortality.”
That isn’t an unreasonable position for him to take, given
that during the summer, in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay, a combination
of high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels lead to such high
levels of release mortality that the floating bodies of dead, released striped
bass often litter the bay's surface down-current from the anchored recreational
fishing fleet.
But even if such closures are, arguably, right for Maryland,
that doesn’t mean that they’re right for the rest of the coast.
For one thing, a no-targeting closure is extremely difficult
to enforce. The ASMFC’s Law Enforcement
Committee has admitted to strong reservations about the enforceability of the
no-targeting options in the draft amendment.
Massachusetts fishery manager Michael Armstrong noted last October that
“I think for most people it’s completely unenforceable, the
no targeting aspect…as long as you have bluefish in the water, you are fishing
for striped bass. It’s just an
unenforceable thing.”
In addition, to date, neither the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped
Bass Technical Committee nor the Plan Development Team that drafted Draft
Amendment 7 has been willing or able to quantify the benefit that such closures
would provide the striped bass.
Intuitively, reducing fishing effort should lead to lower fishing
mortality. But how much lower, nobody
knows.
Thus, Dr. Justin Davis, the Connecticut fishery manager, expressed
his reservations about any such closures at last October’s Management Board
meeting, saying
“I think that no targeting closures are, certainly speaking from
Connecticut’s standpoint, I suspect for a lot of other jurisdictions are a
regulatory nightmare and unenforceable…
“I am really gun shy about creating more mandates with questionable
enforceability. I also share the
concerns expressed earlier that we can’t quantify the benefit from these
potential closures, so we can’t explain to the public what benefit we’re
getting from the sacrifice we’re expecting them to take…
“I think it also just sort of reflects in my mind, a bit of
a, I don’t know what I would call it, maybe an outdated or inaccurate sort of
idea like, what do we want out of this fishery?
I mean I think this is a fishery that is primarily recreational. The benefit we want from this fishery
is opportunity for people to go fishing, which in turn provides economic benefits
to society, because people are going fishing and spending money to do
it.
“I don’t know why we would want to take that opportunity to
fish away from people, without a clear idea of what we’re getting from it… [emphasis added]”
I can find no reason to disagree with Dr. Davis’ remarks; he
seems to have a real understanding of how to manage a primarily recreational,
release fishery such as striped bass.
However, I can find another reason to be leery of the proposed season
closures, and that’s manipulation by various states who might, in bad faith,
try to escape their full share of the conservation burden.
Some states wouldn’t have an option. New England states, particularly northern New England states, have a concentrated striped bass season. A two-week closure, during any two-month wave that sees either 15% or 25% of their directed trips, can’t help but cut a big piece out of the heart of such states’ striped bass seasons.
In contrast, consider New Jersey. 24.7% of its directed striped bass trips are
taken in March and April, 41.1% in November and December. Yet all of the weeks within those two waves
aren’t equally important to the striped bass fishery. While some bass are caught when the season
begins, and a handful linger throughout December, the first two weeks in March
matter far less than the last two weeks in April, while the last two weeks in
December are nowhere near as important as other parts of the last two-month
wave. Thus, under either the 15% or the
25% scenario, New Jersey could shut down its bass fishery during Christmas
week, as well as the week before, and be in full accord with the language
of this particular option, while having relatively little impact on striped
bass fishing effort, and so being completely divorced from its spirit.
But it is the language, and not the spirit, of the rule that determines compliance.
Finally, there is the big question of whether this type of
seasonal closure even belongs in an amendment to the management plan, or whether
it is better treated as a transient measure better suited to an addendum that addresses a particular management issue.
Pursuant to the current language of the management plan, the
Management Board must do its best to rebuild the stock by 2029. Any rebuilding plan will be based on the
results of a stock assessment scheduled for release in October 2022; such plan,
if needed, will be contained in an addendum to the finalized Amendment 7. It is entirely possible, although certainly
not a sure thing, that the assessment update will bring bad news, and that restrictions
on harvest alone will not be enough to rebuild the stock by the 2029 deadline.
If that is the case, it could be necessary, and if so, entirely appropriate, to use no-targeting closures as a last resort to get the job done. But if that is the case, such closures belong in the rebuilding plan, which is intended to have a relatively short life, and be superseded by more relaxed management measures once the stock is rebuilt. Season closures probably don’t belong in an amendment that might be in place for the next twenty years, during most of which time—with any luck—the contemplated closures won’t be needed.
Thus, Option B1 should be opposed.
Spawning area closures
Sub-option B2 would impose seasonal closures, but only in
spawning areas.
Draft Amendment 7 advises that
“Spawning area closures during the spawning season could
contribute to stock rebuilding by eliminating harvest and/or reducing releases
of spawning and pre-spawn fish. Reducing
releases during this time is particularly important to reduce stress and injury
to fish as they move into lower salinity spawning areas.”
The draft amendment provides two different sub-options that approach the problem
in two different ways.
Sub-option B2-a would prohibit harvest, but allow
catch-and-release fishing, in spawning areas from January 1 through April
30. Spawning areas are defined as the
Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, Delaware Bay, the Hudson River, and the
Kennebec River. The states bordering
such waters would determine which portions of them would be closed. Draft Amendment 7 notes that many states have
already closed the relevant spawning areas, in whole or in part, during the
four months in question.
Sub-option B2-b would prohibit catch-and-release during the closed
period, but states could limit the closed season to just two weeks during Wave
2 (March/April) or Wave 3 (May/June), depending upon when the greatest spawning
activity occurs in each body of water.
Once again, the states would determine the waters to be closed. This sub-option would have its greatest impact
on New York, and in particular the Hudson River, as qualifying closures already
exist on the Kennebec, on the Delaware, and in the Chesapeake Bay.
Is either sub-option worth supporting?
That’s a difficult question, because some aspects of both
are worthwhile, while some aspects don’t make much sense.
Sub-option B2-a would create a closure long enough to offer real protection to spawning striped bass, imposing a four-month ban on harvest. However, the closure would end too soon to adequately protect bass in more northerly waters such as the Hudson River, where spawning doesn’t really get underway until the water warms up in May; in that respect, sub-option B2-b’s focus on the period between March 1 and June 30 makes more sense.
If sub-option B2-a could be
changed to impose a four-month harvest ban, with the state choosing any consecutive
four-month period between January 1 and June 30, it would be a very
attractive proposal.
Sub-option B2-b’s 2-week closure would occur at the
right time, but is too brief to provide meaningful protection for the
resource. While it might reduce release
mortality over a two-week period, it would permit harvest at all other times. It also only affects a single spawning area
in a single state, meaning that its impact on the health of the entire stock
will be minimal.
On balance, sub-option B2-a seems the better choice. However, given the issues noted above, it
might make more sense to keep it out of Amendment 7, and then include an
improved version in a future addendum.
Gear restrictions
Draft Amendment 7 includes two options that would address
the gear used by anglers to catch striped bass.
Sub-option C-1 would prohibit anglers from using anything
but a “non-lethal device” to land a striped bass. Effectively, that means eliminating gaffs
from the fishery, although the broad language would also ban harpoons or anything else that might poke a
hole in a bass, however unusual the use of such devices might be.
Despite the October comments of New Jersey Legislative Proxy
Adam Nowalsky, who argued that
“There are many ways to use a gaff that is non-lethal,”
there is little excuse to use a gaff in the striped bass
fishery.
The current 28- to 35-inch slot limit means that any fish an
angler is permitted to keep will comfortably fit in even a modest-sized
net; larger fish might be encountered, but since they must be released, gaffing
should not be an option. Should the size
limit shift upward in a later management action, there are plenty of nets
capable of surrounding even the largest bass, and if such nets aren’t
available, a bass’ toothless lower jaw makes a perfect handle for any fish an
angler wishes to land and keep.
This option deserves support.
So does sub-option C-2, which states
“Striped bass caught on any unapproved method of take would
be returned to the water immediately and without unnecessary injury.”
That would require any
angler who accidentally caught a bass on a J-hook, instead of a circle hook,
while fishing with bait to return such bass to the water. Such a rule is already in place in many
states, although some still allow bass caught on J-hooks to be retained, if the
angler claims to be fishing for something else.
Thus, over in New Jersey, a fisherman could thread a big wad of clams on
a J-hook, claim to be fishing for fluke, bluefish, or even false albacore, and
keep any bass that was “accidentally” caught while fishing for another species.
Adoption of sub-option C-2 would close that very large
loophole.
Angler education
Good fish handling practices can significantly reduce recreational
release mortality. Thus, the final option
in Draft Amendment 7’s recreational release mortality section deals with
education and outreach, to encourage the use of best practices when fishing
for, fighting, handling, and releasing striped bass.
Option D1 would require states to develop public education and outreach campaigns, and provide annual updates to the Management Board in their annual compliance reports.
The draft
amendment suggests that such public education include subjects such as how to
avoid gut-hooking fish, best release practices, best handling practices,
shortening fight times, etc. It’s not an
unheard-of idea; the National Marine Fisheries Service provides similar
outreach to anglers who fish for large pelagic gamefish, and even requires
anglers seeking a shark endorsement on their Highly Migratory Species permit to
watch a film and pass a quiz that addresses such topics.
On the other hand, as much as states might like to conduct such programs, state fishery managers have to deal with limited personnel and financial resources, and it’s not completely clear that prioritizing angler outreach above other duties of the state agency would benefit marine resources in the long term.
It’s also not clear how many
anglers would heed the lessons that the state would try to teach. Good fish handling techniques aren’t exactly
a secret on the striper coast, and serious bass anglers are usually more than
willing to correct those who chronically mishandle fish. On the other hand, the guy who will habitually
unhook a bass, drop it onto the sand, and forcefully kick it back into the
water probably isn’t going to heed state outreach efforts any more than the
boat fisherman who insists on bringing a large bass into the boat, then
keeps it out of the water for a couple of minutes before shoving a hand up
its gill and holding it up so that his friend, who finally found the camera,
can take a few photos.
Mandatory education and outreach is nice, but the benefits
might not outweigh the very real costs.
Sub-option D2 would only recommend that states perform
education and outreach, and not require that they do so, although such option
would still require that the state provide annual reports describing its
education and outreach efforts.
If one believes that each state’s director of marine
fisheries (whatever official title that person may hold) is in the best position to
prioritize management actions and decide how the department’s limited budget is spent, as I do, sub-option D2 is probably the better of the two choices. Requiring education and outreach programs
that the state can’t afford, and the state’s fisheries director may not want to support, isn’t the right way to effect change.
In summary
Reducing striped bass fishing mortality is an important
management goal, and reducing recreational release mortality, as a part of that overall effort, is certainly worthwhile.
However, there is no scientific support for singling out release
mortality as a particular threat to the stock; in the end, a dead fish is a
dead fish, and whether that fish dies because it is intentionally killed and
retained, or it dies after release, the effect on the stock is the same.
In a fishery dominated by recreational, catch-and-release fishing, it is effort, not landings, which create the greatest overall social and economic benefits. In view of that fact, reducing recreational effort should probably be a management strategy of last resort, and not a policy incorporated into Amendment 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment