If you listen to current discussions about striped bass
management, you’ll quickly learn that there is a real need to reduce overall fishing
mortality.
But listen a little closer, and the nuances begin to come
through. It’s not only fishing mortality,
some people will tell you, that is the problem, but a specific kind of fishing
mortality—the mortality that occurs when recreationally-caught
fish are returned to the water.
They call it “release mortality,” and sometimes “dead
discards/” But whatever you call it, in the case of striped bass you largely mean
the same thing—fish returned to the water by anglers which, despite the anglers' best efforts and intentions, fail to survive.
“The term ‘economic discards’ means fish which are the target
of a fishery, but which are not retained because they are of an undesirable
size, sex, or quality, or for other economic reasons,”
while
“The term ‘regulatory discards’ means fish harvested in a
fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard whenever caught,
or are required by regulation to retain but not sell.”
If we apply those definitions to the recreational striped bass fishery, it’s clear that anglers don’t typically produce economic discards, since economic considerations don’t generally dictate whether or not recreational fishermen keep a fish. On the other hand, striped bass anglers can and do produce regulatory discards, when they return a fish to the water because it does not comply with the existing size limit, bag limit, or season.
While it is nice to think that all discarded fish returned
to the water survive, we know that’s not the case. Some fish inevitably die after being
released. There is a general
consensus that reducing discards to the extent practical, and thus reducing
discard mortality, is a responsible goal.
That makes perfect sense, as discards, whether economic or regulatory, provide
no economic benefit, and are not valued by fishermen. The presence of discards only causes
fishermen unneeded work while placing additional stress on fish populations.
However, in recreational fisheries—and particularly in the recreational striped bass fishery—many fish are caught that do not easily fit into either category of discards. They are targeted, and caught, by anglers, who have no intent to retain them.
While some of those fish might arguably be regulatory discards, others are fish that anglers may keep but choose not to, because they value the act of catching fish far more
than they value keeping such fish and taking them home.
Such intentionally released fish fall outside the
definitions of economic or regulatory discards.
The very term “discard” connotes something unwanted, while the fish we’re
discussing here were fish that the angler very much wanted to catch,
but did not want to keep.
What we’re talking about are preplanned, intentional releases of fish
that the angler never intended to retain..
In the case of striped bass, we are talking about a release
fishery which, by its existence, generates substantial social and economic
benefits that are separate and apart from—and arguably substantially greater than—the
benefits derived from harvest. Yet even
if fish are not intentionally harvested, some released fish will not survive. In the striped bass fishery, managers have
not yet comfortably come to grips with such release mortality.
Instead, they often try to make an inappropriate value judgement, and equate such releases to discards.
Discards, or at least dead discards, represent unalloyed
waste. Undersized, over-limit, or
out-of-season fish that are shoveled off a trawler's deck, often already dead or dying, do no one
any good, although various scavengers might get an easy meal. Similarly, sharks
dumped off a longliner because they’d take up space in the hold that might
otherwise be used for more valuable tuna or swordfish are killed without providing any countervailing benefit to anyone.
Release mortality is often conflated with such discard
mortality, and is too often seen as something equally bad, to be minimized whenever
possible. In the hierarchy of management
outcomes, fish intentionally killed and harvested by anglers are held in higher
regard than those unintentionally killed during release. Managers seek to maximize landings, while
minimizing release mortality.
Thus, the fact that release mortality accounts for about half of all striped bass fishing mortality causes consternation, while the fact that the combined recreational and commercial striped bass harvest accounts for 48%--also about half—of such mortality does not.
Yet, from a biological perspective, there is no qualitative difference between a
fish that dies after release and a fish that dies after being thrown into a
cooler. Both have been removed from the
population, both have been removed from the spawning stock, neither will
contribute to future reproduction.
To put it succinctly, dead is dead. To a fish population, or to an ecosystem, the
details of the death don’t matter.
However, from the perspective of the fishery, maybe how a bass
dies really does make a difference. Perhaps a high level of release mortality, far from
being the great bugaboo, is a sign that the fishery is maximizing its social and
economic returns.
Let me pause for a second to be sure that everyone understands: I am not saying that a high release
mortality rate is a good thing.
Right now, the release mortality rate for striped bass is believed to be
9 percent, which is one of the lowest release mortality rates on the East Coast. Even so, any realistic ways to drop the rate even lower are worthy of pursuit.
Instead, I am arguing that it’s not necessarily a bad thing when recreational
release mortality is the greatest single component of striped bass fishing
mortality.
The benefits of such a fishery are optimized by maximizing
recreational effort, although always within sustainable limits, and not by
maximizing recreational yield.
When effort increases, the number of releases increases, so the
number of fish that die after release will increase as well. But that’s fine, so long as the increase in
release mortality is offset by more restrictive management measures that result
in a corresponding reduction in landings.
Yes, I know that’s heresy to saltwater fisheries managers,
who have long worshipped at the altar of yield, and still quest after the highest
sustainable level of landings. But it’s
not a new concept; managing fisheries for recreational effort, rather than
yield, is something that has been done for years, in both fresh and salt water.
No-kill trout streams are probably the best-known example. In such rivers, trout are often larger and
more abundant than they are in waters where harvest is allowed. While recreational release mortality accounts
for 100 percent of all fishing mortality in such waters, few if any fisheries
managers see any problem with that.
A similar situation exists in the Florida
tarpon fishery, where all tarpon caught must be released; the only exception
comes in the form of a permit, issued to anglers seeking a state or world
record fish, which allows them to retain a single contending tarpon each year. Once again, release mortality is, by far, the primary component
of fishing mortality, but no one seems too concerned.
And those are merely two examples. In many purely recreational fisheries—bonefish,
permit, largemouth bass, muskellunge—catch-and-release angling is widely
practiced, and is the single largest source of fishing mortality, yet no one
complains.
Why should the striped bass fishery be viewed any
differently?
If striped bass were managed to maximize yield, pursuant to size
and perhaps bag limits that made it relatively easy for anglers to catch and take
home a legal-sized fish, effort would have to be sharply curtailed, probably by
substantial closed seasons, to prevent overfishing. Managers would need to closely regulate
catch-and-release fishing, and almost certainly prohibiting it during any closed
seasons, in order to reduce release mortality to a sustainable level. Because no one spends money on trips they can’t
take, such a reduction in effort would result in a sharp reduction in the
economic benefits gleaned from the striped bass fishery. People might be keeping more bass, but they
would be catching (and releasing) fewer of them, and spending less money on
each harvested fish.
On the other hand, if bass were managed to maximize angler
effort, probably through the use of very restrictive size and bag limits, release
mortality would increase. Because it takes 11 released fish to equal the harm done to the bass population
by harvesting a single individual, anglers would be able to take many more
trips, and spend far more money, than they would in a harvest-oriented fishery.
Contrary to what people often say at management
meetings, managing the striped bass fishery in a way that maximizes effort will
provide greater economic benefits to angling-related businesses, and provide
anglers with greater recreational opportunities, than will managing the fishery
for yield.
A higher level of release mortality is merely the price that
managers must pay to maximize the fishery’s social and economic returns.
Thus, the members of the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass
Management Board must learn to stop worrying about, and fearing, release
mortality. Instead, they must learn to
embrace it, and realize that such mortality, and not that attributable to landings,
is the key to maximizing the social and economic values of the most important
inshore fishery in the United States.
I couldn't agree with your sentiment more. I've been saying this for several years. Managers need to get the red herring of release mortality out of their thinking. It's the fact that 91% of all released striped bass survive is what they need to be keying in on!
ReplyDeleteThat was my comment above. Just wanted to have it known that I did say it and I'm not some internet troll.
ReplyDelete