HOW TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN ON STRIPED BASS AMENDMENT 7 (OR OTHER FISHERIES ISSUES)

 The public hearings on the Draft Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass for Public Comment have begun.  A look at the hearing schedule reveals that four mid-Atlantic venues, Delaware, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, held their public hearings last week, and that the high-profile hearings which usually draw the biggest crowds, held in states between New Jersey and Maine, begin tomorrow in New Jersey, and run through Maine and New York—Hudson River on March 23 (coastal New York is on the 16^th) and New Hampshire on March 29.

Depending on the state, such hearings will be held in in-person, webinar, and hybrid (in-person and webinar) formats.  People who can’t make a hearing may send their comments in the to email and snail mail addresses provided at the end of this post.  Deadlines for all mailed or emailed comments is 11:59 p.m. on April 15.

A year ago, over 3,000 stakeholders commented on a preliminary document, the Public Information Document For Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, and the volume of comments, along with their near-universal call for improved striped bass conservation, led the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board to keep a lot of bad ideas out of the draft amendment, and put some good new proposals in.

But a few bad ideas remain, so it’s important that concerned anglers and other stakeholders turn out one more time, and make a concerted effort to get those bad ideas out, and make sure that the good ideas become a part of the final Amendment 7.  

If we can muster the same sort of turnout, and the same sort of unity, that we mustered a year ago, there is a very good chance that the Management Board will turn out an Amendment 7 that will materially improve the ASMFC’s striped bass management program, lead to a rebuilt stock in the foreseeable future, and result in a striped bass fishery that is sustainable in the long term.

Of course, if people don’t turn out in good numbers, that will send its own message to the Management Board, and likely lead to a very different result.

So, hopefully, folks are preparing their comments, and one of the things that they ought to be asking is how to make those comments as effective as humanly possible.

Effective advocacy is both art and science; it’s something that you learn how to do, and that the only way to really learn is to get out and do it.  But to help shortcut the process, I’m going to offer a few tips on how to make your case, gleaned from over 40 years as an attorney, and an even longer time as an advocate for striped bass conservation.

The first thing to do is understand what issues are on the table. That means that you'll actually have to read the Draft Amendment.

The draft amendment is available on the ASMFC’s website; you can access it directly by clicking on the link in the very first line of this blog.  While you might be able to skip over some of the introductory sections—although, particularly if you’re fairly new to striped bass management issues, I suggest that you don't, as they provide valuable background—the most critical information, including the issues to be decided and some explanatory material about them, is found in Section 4.0, Management Program and Proposed Options.

Before doing anything else, read that section, which is detailed and long, to learn just what the ASMFC is asking stakeholders to comment on.

There are four broad issues being presented:  Management triggers, reducing recreational release mortality, rebuilding the striped bass stock, and management program (more often called “conservation”) equivalency.  There are subordinate issues associated with each of the four, and for each subordinate issue, the draft amendment provides a set of options providing management alternatives.  

Those are the only issues and options that the Management Board wants to hear about, and it will do neither you nor the bass any good to speak about something else.

This is not the time to talk about a moratorium, “gamefish status,” treble hook bans, law enforcement efforts, menhaden management, or any other issue that is not directly addressed, and presented along with management options, in Section 4.0.  If you do so, you will only be wasting the hearing officers’ and other commenters’ time, and demonstrating that you don’t fully understand how the comment process works.

So only answer the questions being asked, and before you answer, particularly if you’re commenting at a hearing, know what you want to say.  After reading each of the four issues, take the time to think about each option, and decide which ones you support.  If you have any questions on what the impact of one or more of the sub-options might be, there is infoprmation available on the Internet that can help you.

First and foremost is Draft Amendment 7 itself, which provides some background on each of the issues, and each group of options, being presented.  The Plan Development Team worked long and hard to give stakeholders the information that they need to evaluate the options, and you would be doing yourself a disservice if you don't take advantage of their work.

If you wish to go beyond that, I can selfishly recommend a three-part series in One Angler’s Voyage that began on January 12, which broadly describes the potential impacts of each of the many options in the draft amendment, and a second four-part series that began on February 6, which makes specific recommendations on which options would best benefit the bass.  The American Saltwater Guides Association also published a piece last week that walks the reader through each option and provides advice on which ones to choose, with a rationale for the Association’s recommendations.  The Association also carries a piece on its website that was written by Capt. John McMurray, New York’s legislative proxy to the Management Board, which discusses the various options and their impacts in some depth.

Once you understand the options and adopt positions that you believe are right, the next step is to communicate those positions to the Management Board. 

When you do so, remember your role.  

You are probably not a biologist, and if you are, you probably don’t study striped bass. The science you need to evaluate the various options is, for the most part, included in the draft amendment, and to the extent it isn’t, it is in the 2018 benchmark stock assessment.  So don’t try to make science-based arguments that don't rely on information from one of those documents.  You may have your own opinions about release mortality rates, the level of commercial discards, the accuracy of the Marine Recreational Information Program, or any other scientific/technical issue, but if you don’t have statistically valid data to support your assertion, you’re not going to convince anyone.

Saying that “the seals [or the cormorants] ate all the stripers” will get you about as far as “the dog ate my homework” did back in your childhood days.

Never forget that, as an advocate, credibility is your most important asset.  Lose your credibility, and you've pretty well lost everything.

On the other hand, if you are a striped bass angler, you are probably a reliable observer of what occurs on the water.  So your own thoughts on angler behavior, with respect to whether fishermen would respect a rule prohibiting them from targeting striped bass during the heart of the season, or whether a ban on the use of gaffs might prevent out-of-slot bass from being needlessly killed, are completely relevant to the Draft Amendment 7 debate.

You must decide how you will communicate your views to the Management Board, orally, at a hearing, or in writing.

Providing written comments is always best.

There is also value in attending a hearing, because hearings provide an opportunity to highlight particularly important issues.  But providing nothing but oral comment is usually a mistake, for a number of reasons.

First, if the hearing is crowded, you may get a very limited time to speak.  It isn’t unusual for speakers at crowded hearings to be limited to just five minutes; sometimes, they sometimes only get three.  Draft Amendment 7 encompasses four distinct issues, that are further broken down into twenty-one related sub-issues; overall, the public is presented with fifty-three separate options addressing various questions.

Just pronouncing positions on twenty-three different matters would take up a good part of a five-minute time allotment.  Even if you get to speak longer, rattling off a series of options, with no opportunity to explain why you made the choices that you did—which is often the thing that folks from the Management Board most want to hear—makes for an uninspiring and lackluster presentation.

Instead, after approaching the podium, introduce yourself, quickly describe your connection with the fishery (“I have been surfcasting for striped bass for about 20 years,” or “I run a 26-foot charter boat out of Chatham”), and name any organizations that you may be representing, then highlight the issues most important to you, whether those issues include a prompt management response to overfishing, limiting the use of conservation equivalency, or initiating a rebuilding plan as quickly as possible.  Take some time to explain why those are the key issues, state your preferred options, and then provide the hearing officer with a set of written comments that address all of the issues in the draft amendment.

By preparing written comments in addition to your oral testimony, you ensure that, even if the hearing is so crowded that you don’t get a chance to speak at all, your views will be put on record, and communicated to the Management Board.

Because it is likely that some or all of your state’s three Management Board members will be present at the hearing, it is always good practice to make additional copies of your written comments to hand directly to each of them after you speak.  While your comments will be provided to the entire Management Board prior to the next Management Board meeting, your own state's Board members are your most important allies; they will almost always be more interested in your comments than members from elsewhere.  You can also follow up with your state representatives, to expand on any comments that you have already made.

At all times, at hearings and in written comments, strike a respectful tone; insulting, threatening, or demeaning hearing officers, the Management Board, or the fishery management process, or other people who are providing comment, does you no good, and will probably brand you as someone unlikely to have much worthwhile to say.  Similarly, while in the audience, loud commentary, booing, and catcalling will not serve your cause; even applause for other speakers can be disruptive, although polite applause when a particularly cogent point is made is probably OK.

Written comments, whether handed in at a hearing or sent directly to the ASMFC, should be more detailed than those made on the hearing record.  Again, providing an explanation of why you preferred the options you did gives decisionmakers valuable guidance.

Effective fisheries advocacy requires that the advocate be fully informed, takes scientifically justifiable positions, effectively communicates such positions to decisionmakers and, by doing so consistently, convinces decisionmakers of his or her credibility and value to the decision-making process. 

Thoughtful comment can make a difference.  I urge everyone concerned with the long-term health of the striped bass stock to provide such comment on Draft Amendment 7.

The bass can use your help.

-----

Written comments on Draft Amendment 7 may be handed to ASMFC staff at all local hearings, emailed to comments@asmfc.org, with a subject line that reads “Draft Amendment 7,” or mailed to Emilie Franke, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,