STRIPED BASS AMENDMENT 7: STAKEHOLDERS DEMAND CONSERVATION

 The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has released a compilation of all the stakeholder comments that it received on Draft Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.  That compilation shows near-unanimous support for strong conservation measures. 

The ASMFC received a total of 4,689 written comments, which consisted of 1,149 individual comments, 3,397 form letters, and letters from 51 organizations; it was noted that, in addition to such individual letters and emails, 92 businesses and angling organizations signed on to one of the latter organizational comment letters. 

Form letters are always a controversial topic.  On one side of the issue sit those who feel that form letters represent people who care about the issues being debated, but lack the time and/or ability to compose their own letter; they argue that form letters should be given the same weight as any other comments.  On the other side sit those who believe that form letters are often sent by people who give little thought or effort to the issues, but merely cut-and-paste someone else’s arguments, and thus should not carry the same weight as individually prepared comments.  The ASMFC took a middle road with respect to the Amendment 7 comments, deciding that

“Form letters (more than 3 of the same comment) include comments stating support for an organization’s comments; however, if the commenter provided additional comments/rationale related to management beyond the organizations’ or letters’ comments, then it was considered an individual comment.”

Judging by the letters that I’ve read so far (I’m on page 645), it appears that the ASMFC is applying that definition very liberally and, when there is any room for doubt, placing comments into the “individual” rather than “form letter” category.

With that in mind, 25 different form letters were received.  Of those, only four accounted for more than 100 comments.  By far the largest of those was the letter provided by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which was used by 2,461 individuals.

Of all the form letters provided by fishing-related organizations, the greatest response came from supporters of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a relatively new, largely volunteer-drive national organization dedicated to science-based management of public lands and public resources; the ASMFC received 251 copies of the form letter that BHA provided.  Despite its sophisticated public messaging infrastructure and years of effort to engage anglers, the American Sportfishing Association, which represents the fishing tackle industry, saw only 217 stakeholders support its positions, while a letter of uncertain provenance, which seems to have originated in the Massachusetts surfcasting community, garnered 141 responses.

Both the tabulations of stakeholder response and the individual letters make interesting reading, although given that they run to more than 2,000 pages, I freely admit that I haven’t yet read them all.  To provide a proper background for some of then individual letters, it probably makes sense to first look at the overall stakeholder response to the individual issues.

Management triggers—the message is “Do not delay”

Stakeholders were very close to unanimous in their opposition to any changes to management triggers, if such changes would permit the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board to delay taking action in response to threats to the striped bass stock.

With respect to the fishing mortality triggers, 4,124 comments (99.4%) supported the current requirement that, if a fishing mortality trigger is tripped, managers must reduce such mortality to or below target within one year; such support included 642 individuals (98.6%), 3,357 form letters (99.8%), and 33 of the organizations (76.7%). 

Only 25 comments supported a two-year reduction period, including comments sent in by the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association, the Massachusetts-based Carver Sportsmen’s Club, the New Jersey-based Hi-Mar Striper Club, the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association, the Northeast Charterboat Captains’ Association, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the R.I. Party and Charter Boat Association, and the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association.  The Twin Rivers Waterman’s Association and Virginia Waterman’s Association submitted a joint letter which did not specify preferred options, but did indicate support for “management stability,” allowing existing management measures time to work before new measures are adopted, and “deferred management action,” and so can probably be placed in the same category.

The split between the overwhelming majority of stakeholders and what might be deemed the traditional for-hire fleet, which is made up primarily of “six-pack” boats and still uses dead fish as the primary gauge of a successful day, is a theme that continues throughout many of the comments.

A related issue, whether management action should be triggered when overfishing occurs in just one year, as is currently the case, or whether no action need be taken until a two-year average of fishing mortality exceeds the threshold, saw similar support for the status quo, with 4,093 comments (99.6%) in favor of taking action as soon as overfishing occurs; such support included 610 individuals (99.2%), 3,357 form letters (99.8%), and 34 organizations (85%). 

With respect to the spawning stock biomass triggers, the ASMFC tabulation noted that

“Many comments noted the [Atlantic Striped Bass Management] Board should have designated a formal rebuilding plan more quickly after the last assessment, and so would support a 2-year rebuilding plan deadline (A-2)”

Thus, it should come as no surprise that 4,101 comments (99.7%), including 626 individuals (99.7%), 3,348 form letters (99.8%), and 35 organizations (87.5%).  Organizational opposition was limited to the Recreational Fishing Alliance and to the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association, Hi-Mar Striper Club, Northeast Charterboat Captains’ Association and Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association, all of which conformed their comments to the RFA position and, in the case of the latter two organizations, placed their names on comment letters that were essentially identical to that submitted by the RFA.

There was also near-unanimous support for amending the recruitment trigger, but here, the response was more nuanced.  4,077 comments (99.7%) supported a more sensitive recruitment trigger than the one currently in place, with 1,427 (35% of those supporting a new trigger) encouraging the ASMFC to adopt a moderately sensitive trigger, and 2,650 (65%) supporting a highly sensitive trigger.  However, such preferences differed by comment type; 456 individuals (75.6%) and 23 organizations (67.6%) prefer the moderately sensitive recruitment trigger, while 2,492 of the form letters (74.4%) preferred the highly-sensitive trigger.

There was far more unanimity with regard to what the Management Board needs to do if the recruitment trigger is tripped.  Currently, it is up to the Management Board to decide whether to take an action; given the Management Board’s penchant for delay, most stakeholders justifiably believe that if the Management Board is given an excuse to do nothing, than nothing is exactly what it will do.  Thus, 4,070 comments (99.6%) believe that the recruitment trigger should be amended to compel the Management Board to act when the trigger is tripped.  Of those 4,070 comments, 4,068 (99.95%) would require immediate action, while two organizations, the Center for Sportfishing Policy and the American Sportfishing Association, would require action, but add some qualifications as to what such response should be.

Stakeholder comments on the final management trigger issue, whether the Management Board should be able to defer action under certain circumstances if a management trigger is tripped, received a similarly lopsided response.  4,080 comments (99.4%), including 612 individuals (99%), 3,341 form letters (99.6%), and 35 organizations (83.3%) oppose deferring management action under any circumstances. As the ASMFC’s compilation noted,

“Commenters noted the need for the Board to respond immediately to management triggers to retain accountable and not delay action.”

Recreational release mortality

The structure of the recreational release mortality section of the draft amendment makes it somewhat more difficult to determine the percent of support foir each proposal.  The section asked commenters to pick either Option A, which represented the status quo, or to pick among a number of actions, which were only related to one another in that they were intended to reduce the release mortality rate. 

The ASMFC’s compilation of comments only notes support for each of such actions, and does not report explicit opposition; since commenters can and often do refrain from commenting on individual actions, absence of support does not necessarily imply opposition (for example, I did not comment on Option D, Outreach and Education, because I have doubts about the value of such efforts; that doesn’t mean that I oppose outreach efforts, just that I believe that states’ fishery management dollars are better spent elsewhere, particularly on science and enforcement, and choose not to burden state managers with that particular unfunded mandate).

Thus, in reporting on release mortality options, all percentages will reflect the percentage of all comments received by the ASMFC, a figure which probably does not reflect the number of comments actually addressing each particular issue.  I apologize for taking such an approach, but without having the opposition numbers, it’s the best that I can do.

Proposals to impose seasonal closures that would reduce recreational fishing effort and so, in theory, reduce fishing mortality were probably the most controversial.  Restrictions on targeting striped bass were viewed by many as unenforceable, as anglers targeting bass could always claim that they were fishing for bluefish, catfish, white perch or some other species, and so evade the law’s intent.  

Restrictions on harvest in spawning areas received more support, but not necessarily from those who fished in such areas; that was particularly true of New York anglers who fished in the Hudson River.  That’s reflected in the comments.  

Only 102 comments (2.2% of all comments received) supported a 2-week no-targeting closure at the heart of each state’s bass season; such closure was unpopular across the board, receiving the support of just 25 individuals (2.2%), 73 form letters (2.1%), and 4 organizations (7.8%).  A 2-week no-targeting closure limited to the spawning grounds (perhaps easier to support, given that only a handful of states host spawning grounds), received the support of 434 commenters (9.3%), including 123 individuals (10.7%), 300 form letters (8.8%), and 11 organizations (21.6%).  

Support was much stronger for prohibiting harvest in the spawning areas between January and April, which was favored by 2,924 commenters.  Such support, however, was skewed by the form letters received from supporters of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, with the prohibition supported by just 136 individuals (11.8%), but also by 2,775 form letters (81.7%), and 13 organizations (25.5%).

The Foundation didn’t take a position on banning the use of gaffs or other lethal devices to land striped bass, nor on the requirement that all bass caught on non-approved gear (for practical purposes, bait fished on J-hooks) be released.  That, too, skewed the results, which show 1,584 comments (33.8%) supporting a gaff ban, including 582 individuals (50.6%) and 36 organizations (70.6%), a majority of both, but only 864 form letters (25.4%).  Mandatory release of fish caught on unapproved gear received similar, although very slightly less, support.

Rebuilding the striped bass stock

Near-unanimity again reigned when the comments turned to issues related to rebuilding the stock.

4,062 comments (99.7%) supported managers using a low-recruitment assumption when preparing the rebuilding plan, to reflect recent striped bass recruitment trends.  Such support extended to all comment types, including comments by 585 individuals (99.2%), 3,341 form letters (99.8%), and 34 organizations (97.1%).  The only organization submitting comments supporting the standard recruitment assumption was R.I. Party and Charter Boat Association.

A proposal that would allow the Management Board to fast-track the rebuilding plan, and move forward without going through the customary, but time consuming, addendum process involving public hearings, earned near-identical support, eliciting 4,047 favorable comments (99.7%), including 588 from individuals (99%), 3,333 in form letters (99.8%), and 34 from organizations (94.4%).  Among the organizations, the R.I. Party and Charter Boat Association was, once again, an outlier, but this time was joined in its dissent by the Maryland Charter Boat Association.

It's probably also worthwhile to note that there were some organizations, led by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, which chose to make no specific recommendations on the rebuilding comments, but instead seemed to question the wisdom of rebuilding at all.  The RFA comments noted that

“RFA is very concerned about the ability to rebuild striped bass biomass to the SSB target by 2029.  It’s important to recognize two key points.  First, in the history of this fishery, female SSB has never reached the rebuilding target, even in 2003, when the fishery reached the highest biomass value in recorded history.  This inability to meet the current rebuilding target clearly demonstrates that then biological reference points including the rebuilding target are not realistic.  Second, in recent years, the striped bass population has been less productive than it was when the rebuilding targets were established.  Meaning, fishing mortality is having less direct impact on rebuilding progress observed in the stock.  It seems highly unlikely that the stock will be rebuilt by 2029.  But since the ASMFC does not control environmental factors and still uses a fixed natural mortality value, the only recourse they can take when rebuilding lags is drastic cuts to fishing regulations.  Perhaps a question that needs to be asked in Amendment 7 is if we can’t rebuild by 2029 without imposing massive restrictions on the fishing community, should we be happy with the current status of the stock and just try to manage F.  RFA has a hard time supporting any of the rebuilding options in the document because we feel we are being set up for failure with this fishery.  We believe that it is imperative that the biological reference points are revised in the next benchmark assessment 2025 before selecting a management response.”

While such comments are completely contrary to the beliefs of almost every stakeholder who expressed an opinion, they were repeated, more or less verbatim, in the comments of the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association, the Northeast Charterboat Captains’ Association, and the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association.  

Should rebuilding the stock by the 2029 deadline require very restrictive management measures, as I suspect will be the case, we should expect to see such comments repeated, both at the ASMFC and in various media outlets.

Conservation equivalency

Conservation equivalency may be the most controversial issue addressed in the draft amendment.  The ASMFC compilation reported that

“Those in favor of restricting CE (B-E) noted concerns about how CE has been used in the past and the high uncertainty of implementing alternative measures, especially when the stock is in poor condition.  Some comments suggest removing CE entirely from the management plan.”

Such concerns were addressed in a number of comment letters.  The Nature Conservancy noted that

“state-by-state Conservation Equivalency provisions have twice been used in ways that undercut widely supported coast-wide stock maintenance and rebuilding objectives for the purpose of achieving very short-term increases in the allowable catch for certain states.”

Another conservation organization, Wild Oceans, stated that

“Conservation Equivalency (CE), as currently applied to the management plan for striped bass, allows states and jurisdictions to sidestep conservation measures necessary for ending overfishing and rebuilding the stock.”

Perhaps the most notable comment came in a letter signed by the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, which said

“Perhaps the most critical component of this draft amendment is its suite of proposals to rein in abuse of Management Program Equivalency, also known as Conservation Equivalency (CE).  As an advocate for the residents of our states, we support such proposals, which are intended to stem some states’ systematic abuse of the CE process, which effectively shifts the conservation burden from such states onto the shoulders of anglers in our states and other, more conservation-oriented jurisdictions.”

Anglers expressed similar sentiments, saying things such as

“I don’t see how Conservation Equivalency has done anything to help the fishery recover.  It gives too few people the opportunity to steer the whole program to whatever they deem appropriate.”

“Conservation Equivalency is the single most important issue in Amendment 7.  It has also likely been the biggest hurdle to striped bass abundance in the time period since the end of the moratorium.  Conservation Equivalency frankly flies in the face of the spirit of interstate management of a migratory species…Perhaps never in the history of fisheries management has a tool been so abused…”

And

“Conservation Equivalency is a legitimate cancer to effective striped bass management…To me it was clear that Conservation Equivalency ensured the failure of the new slot limit that was recently proposed under Amendment 6—dropping the probability for rebuilding to occur below 50%...”

Given such sentiments, it’s probably not surprising that only 52 comments (1.3%), provided by 11 individuals (1.7%), in 33 form letters (1%), and by 8 organizations (19%) supported continuing the use of conservation equivalency in its current form, while 4,104 comments supported prohibiting its use when the stock was in a sub-optimal condition.  Of those 4,014 commenters, 4,101 (99.9%) felt that conservation equivalency should not be used when the stock is overfished, 6 (0.1%) would ban its use when spawning stock biomass was below its target level, and 426 (10.4%) would prohibit CE when overfishing is occurring (multiple options were chosen by some commenters).

There was also strong sentiment for establishing standards for the data underlying conservation equivalency although, because the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took no position on the issue, the number of responses was substantially less.  Nonetheless, of the 1,561 comments addressing the issue, 1,558 (99.8%) opined that the percent standard error of such data should not exceed 30. 

1,567 comments also supported a proposal that would require states who elected to take advantage of conservation equivalency to include an “uncertainty buffer” in their calculations, to account for the lower precision of state-level data.  Of those 1,567 comments, 225 (14.4%) supported a buffer of 10%, 1,144 (73%) supported a buffer of 25%, and 168 (10.7%) supported a buffer of 50%.

Finally, 1,332 comments addressed the question of how conservation equivalency should be defined.  Of those, 1,328 (99.7%) believed that a state’s conservation equivalency measures should achieve the same reduction that the ASMFC’s standard coastwide measures would have achieved in that particular state; the minority preferred that a state only be required to achieve the overall coastwide reduction. 

Once again, the Attorneys General’s letter made one of the most salient points on the issue:

“In addition, we support sub-option E2, which requires that state CE proposals achieve the same quantified level of conservation in the relevant state as the standard management measures adopted by the Board.  In doing so, we note that the alternative, sub-option E1, fails to comply with the Interstate Fishery Management Program Charter’s requirement for CE programs, that such programs ‘achieve the same quantified level of conservation for the resource under management.’  As Draft Amendment 7 itself agrees, sub-option E1 may provide a lesser level of conservation for the striped bass resource, and so undercut the success of management measures.”

So what does it mean?

I have been involved in fisheries management issues since the striped bass stock began to collapse in the late 1970s, and I don’t think that I’ve ever before seen the sort of unanimous agreement on needed management measures that I’m seeing in the Draft Amendment 7 comments where, at least on the major issues, over 99% of the comments support a single option.  Not even last year’s comments on the Public Information Document for Amendment 7 showed such a degree of uniformity.

Although past experiences have led many stakeholders to become wary of the Management Board, and question its receptivity to public comment, I have to believe that the Management Board is going to respond to such a clear statement of stakeholder opinion.  I feel that way for a number of reasons.

First, and perhaps most important was the diverse array of individuals and organizations that came out to speak on behalf of the striped bass.  There were the usual anglers and fishing clubs, but there were also sportsmen’s groups that are relative newcomers to striped bass issues, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and the New York State Conservation Council.  There were conservation organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, Native Fish Coalition, Save the Bay, The Nature Conservancy, and Wild Oceans.  There were angling industry-associated groups, including the Center for Sportfishing Policy, American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.  There were the Maine Association of Charter Boat Captains and the American Saltwater Guides Association, representing the forward-looking members of the for-hire fleet, and the 90-plus signatories to the Guides’ Association’s comment letter, which included a host of companies that are well-known to anglers.

Perhaps most notable of all was the letter sent by the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.  The ASMFC has long been the realm of state fishery managers, who must look out for the interests of their state’s fishermen and fishery resources.  But attorneys general play a very different role; they, too, are charged with protecting the interests of the citizens of their states, but they don’t do so by sitting around a table, debating the data and cutting deals.  Attorneys general’s job is to assure that their states' and their state residents' legal interests are protected, and when they sit down at a table, they do so with those legal interest in mind.  That brings an entirely new dimension to the striped bass debate.

The Management Board ought to keep that in mind if any of them are thinking about ignoring the public’s will, and trying to move Amendment 7 in an unwanted direction.

The outliers

The only outliers in the Amendment 7 debate appear to be the harvest-oriented members of the for-hire fleet who, in this third decade of the 21^st Century, are still trying to shape striped bass management to fit a 1970s paradigm.  But the times are not merely changing; they changed a long time ago.  

Over the past few years, 2018-2021, the for-hire fishery was responsible for less than 2% of all directed striped bass trips, and many of those trips were undoubtedly taken by anglers fishing with the new generation of captains who understand that the future of their businesses depends on having an abundance of bass in the water for their clients to encounter and enjoy, and not merely on stacking dead fish in a cooler.

When the Recreational Fishing Alliance and its allied organizations call for reducing the biomass target, a goal rejected by 99.6% of the stakeholders who commented on the Public Information Document a year ago, they only demonstrate how out of touch they are with the current generation of anglers. 

The R.I. Party and Charter Boat Association demonstrates a similar disconnect when it states that

“we feel a strong message needs needs to be included in the objectives that recognizes a need to preserve the historic value of Striped Bass as a food fish.  According to recreational catch data, a significant portion of the current Striped Bass fishery is a recreational catch and release type fishery.  Recent rebuilding efforts, age structure of the stock, and social changes has [sic] shifted the historic food fishery towards a catch and release fishery, but we feel the folks who wish to fish for striped bass for a meal and those folks who wish to purchase striped bass at a market should not be forgotten.  We support management that increases the level of harvested Striped Bass and reducing the level of discarded Striped Bass from current levels..

“We continue to oppose managing this species for abundance, at the request of and benefit to a portion of the recreational fishery.”

But, again, the overwhelming majority of stakeholder comment disagrees.  Time only moves forward, and changing angler attitudes have “shifted the historic food fishery towards an catch and release fishery.”   Richard Nixon is no longer President.  Try as they might, no one can turn the clock back to 1972.  Killing fish is no longer as important to anglers as it was 50 years ago.

The dogs that didn’t bark

Another thing that was striking about the comments was not who took a position on Amendment 7, but who didn’t.

I don’t pretend to know all of the organizations with an interest in striped bass, but I’m familiar with just about all of the groups in the upper mid-Atlantic, and what I find striking is how many of the organizations that usually provide conservation-averse comments have not, on this occasion, provided any comments at all.

Here in New York, we have some baymen’s organizations that are usually quite active with regard to fishery management issues.  As far as I can tell, none of them provided comment.

We also have a few organizations that represent the for-hire industry.  Some have been around for quite a long time,  while others are newer, but they can usually be depended upon  to show up at hearings and/or provide written comment on fishery issues, particularly those involving striped bass.  All have been strangely quiet this time.

I note the same thing down in New Jersey.  Boatmen’s organizations have not made formal comment.  The Jersey Coast Anglers Association, which has been politically active for many decades and can usually be counted on to address any proposal that impacts New Jersey’s fisheries, is not listed on the ASMFC’s list of commenting organizations.

I’m not sure what to make of such absence.

Maybe people have looked around and noticed an absence of bass, and decided that opposing conservation measures is contrary to their own interests.  I’d like to believe that, but at least in a few cases, I doubt that is so.

Maybe there’s some disagreement among organizations' members, with some opposing striped bass conservation, and some supporting it, leading to an impasse and a lack of the consensus needed to produce a set of comments.  In some cases, I think that may be true, especially in organizations ripe for generational conflict, where an older, less conservation-oriented leadership is coming into conflict with younger and more enlightened members.

Maybe some people are just realizing that this is a fight they can’t win, which is something that I hope is true.

But whatever the cause, I can only take some groups’ failure to comment as a positive sign.

And, finally, thanks

I’m looking forward to next Wednesday’s meeting, hoping that Amendment 7 will turn out the right way.  But however things turn out, I have to thank Emilie Franke, the ASMFC’s fishery management coordinator, for the work  that she’s done for striped bass.

As a new ASMFC staffer, she got thrown into the striped bass fire early last year, just as the Public Information Document was being finalized.  With no previous experience in the role, she had to run the public hearings—on  webinar, back then—tabulate all the comments, present them to the Management Board, and then take the Management Board’s direction back to the Plan Development Team.

At that point, the PDT had to turn the input provided by the Management Board, Technical Committee, and public comment into a comprehensible document fit for public release and public comment.  It was a very tough job, but after sitting in on many PDT meetings, I can report that she and the rest of the PDT pulled it off with aplomb.

After that, there was a new round of hearings, some in person.  As always at such events, there were the usual scattering of boors, blowhards, and buffoons who mix in with the respectable folks and make the hearings a bit of a trial for all concerned, but Ms. Franke handled them all with professionalism and grace, while providing a clear introduction to the draft amendment to everyone who had an honest desire to understand its provisions.

Now, we’re in the final days of the debate.  However that debate ends, we should all thank Ms. Franke for helping to get us this far.