Thursday, January 25, 2024

ASMFC APPROVES STRIPED BASS ADDENDUM II: IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT BAD

 

Yesterday, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board approved the final version of Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.  While the Addendum is far from perfect, and doesn’t do enough to protect or rebuild the striped bass stock, the final version is nonetheless a better management document that I expected it to be.

And that’s probably good enough, because Addendum II was always intended to be an interim management measure, that constrains fishing mortality to a reasonably low level through 2024, and then is replaced by a new Addendum III, which will be guided by the results of the stock assessment update that will be released next fall.  Addendum II was intended to reduce overall fishing mortality by 14.5%, which would get it down close to Ftarget, although the final measures adopted at yesterday’s meeting probably won’t quite be enough to attain that goal.

Addendum II addressed four primary issues—constraining fishing mortality in the ocean recreational fishery, constraining fishing mortality in the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, constraining fishing mortality in the commercial fishery, and providing the Management Board the authority to respond quickly to the findings of upcoming stock assessments, in the event such assessments suggest that, under existing management measures, the striped bass stock is unlikely to rebuild by the 2029 deadline specified in the management plan.

However, there were ancillary issues primarily impacting the recreational fisheries that were also important to the debate; another ancillary issue—the deadline for implementing the provisions of Addendum II—also had very real implications for the commercial fishery.

With one not-too-important exception, all of the issues presented by the Addendum were resolved in a way that advanced both the public interest and the health of the striped bass resource.

The first issue addressed was the ocean recreational fishery, where there was very strong stakeholder support (2,289 comments), from individual anglers as well as some charter boat and tackle shop owners, for formally adopting the current emergency measure—a 28- to 31-inch slot limit applicable to all anglers, whether they fished from private boats, for hire boats or from the shore—into the striped bass management plan.  However, a much smaller contingent of party and charter boat owners (158 comments) supported a related option that would apply the current slot limit to private boat and shore-based anglers, but grant special privileges to anglers fishing from for-hire vessels, and allow them to take fish that fell within a wider, 28- to 33-inch slot size.

The debate between the two options pitted those who were primarily concerned with the health of the striped bass resource and providing a fair angling environment for all anglers against those who prioritized the economic well-being, and perhaps the survival, of the for-hire fleet above other concerns.

Of course, as in most debates, things were not that black and white; many folks supporting the former option were very sympathetic to the problems besetting the for-hire operators, while many of those who supported the latter option were concerned with the state of the striped bass stock.  Nevertheless, everyone was forced to pick a position based on what they believed was the most important priority at this point in time.

The ocean recreational fishery

Dr. Michael Armstrong, a Massachusetts fishery manager, started off the debate by moving that Option B, the universal 28- to 31-inch slot limit, be adopted; his motion was seconded by Dennis Abbot, New Hampshire’s Legislative Proxy.  In supporting his motion, Dr. Armstrong declared that

“There’s a whole ton of reasons why this is the right way to go.”

He noted that maintaining the current slot limit for all anglers, regardless of platform, is the best way to maintain the fishing mortality reduction achieved by this year’s emergency measure, and observed,

“Now is not the time, with a looming disaster, to start carving out exceptions for special fisheries.”

In his view, carving out special regulations for the for-hire fleet represented a “paradigm shift” in the fishery, although he wouldn’t say whether he might support such action under other, more typical circumstances.

Mr. Abbott noted that the original purpose of both the emergency action and Addendum II was to reduce fishing mortality, and that any relaxing of that size limit

“marks a setback from what we were trying to do.”

Immediately after Mr. Abbott spoke, Dr. Justin Davis, Connecticut’s fishery manager, rose to amend Dr. Armstrong’s motion by replacing “Option B” with “Option C,” which would create the special, 28- to 33-inch slot limit for for-hire anglers.  His motion to amend was quickly seconded by Emerson Hasbrouck, the Governor’s Appointee from New York.

While Dr. Davis recognized that both sides of the debate made valid arguments, he admitted that

“I’ve been swayed by the outpouring of comments that I’ve gotten from the for-hire sector in Connecticut.”

He said that the comments he heard from for-hire operators exceeded the number of comments that he’d ever received on any other issue, and expressed concern for the future of the industry, particularly because of recent restrictions on all six inshore fisheries important to the for-hire fleet, and, for charter boats that venture offshore, the closure of the mako shark fishery.  Mr. Hasbrouck noted that Option C would lead to a fishing mortality reduction only 0.1% less than that provided by Option B, and said such option would help the for-hire fleet while having a minimal impact the striped bass.

Similar sentiments were expressed by Dr. Jason McNamee, Rhode Island’s fishery manager, who admitted that he was worried about the future of his state’s for-hire fleet, and wished that mode splits had been considered earlier in the management process.

But David Sikorski, the Legislative Proxy from Maryland, spoke against the proposed amendment, arguing that

“This motion is chasing the 2015 year class as they grow,”

and is contrary to the purpose behind Addendum II.

Another member of the Maryland delegation, fishery manager Michael Luisi, disagreed, arguing that both the emergency action and Addendum II were proposed and put in place quickly, with no consideration for the needs of the for-hire businesses.

At that point, Max Appelman of NOAA Fisheries noted that he had difficulty supporting Option C not because of the mode splits per se, but because of the uncertainty inherent in the effects of the change on fishing mortality.  He observed that successful rebuilding depends on successfully limiting fishing mortality, something that managers have so far been unable to do for any extended period.

He was followed by, Mr. Abbott, who said that he opposed Option C for multiple reasons, and that

“I see a basic unfairness.  There are millions of people who fish for striped bass, and only a few in the for-hire sector.”

He felt it was wrong for an angler who fishes from a private boat to be limited to the current slot, while someone who can afford to pay for a for-hire trip can take advantage of a more permissive size limit.  Mr. Abbott said that he had been on the Management Board for 28 years, and made an impassioned comment in which he noted

“We are not paying attention to the canary in the coal mine…We continue to do the things that I called ‘death by a thousand cuts’…We always tend to take the easy path, and the easy path has taken us to where we are today.”

He said that it was time to stop making exceptions to the management measures in order to please special interests in the various states, and instead

“do what’s right for the resource,”

finally observing that

“We tend not to do what we should be doing.”

Mr. Abbott’s comments were challenged by Adam Nowalsky, Legislative Proxy from New Jersey and probably the most aggressive advocate of recreational catch-and-kill fishing on the Management Board, who claimed that the “easy path” was placing more restrictions on anglers, and that the harder route was finding a way to conserve the fish while still maximizing the economic benefits from the fishery.  He also claimed that the true inequity in the striped bass fishery was emphasizing the sport fishery over recreational harvest.

With that, it was time for a vote.

Going into the meeting, I suspected that Option C would pass on a fairly narrow vote, but in the end, the opposite happened.  While seven jurisdictions—Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission—supported Option C, nine—Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, NOAA Fisheries, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service—opposed it, so the motion failed.

Once that occurred, Option B was adopted on a vote of 14 to 2, with only New York and New Jersey opposing.

The Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery

The debate over recreational management measures in the Chesapeake Bay followed similar lines, but had its own unique twists.  It began when Michael Luisi made a motion to adopt Option C2, which would establish a slot size limit of 19 to 24 inches, with a 1-fish bag limit for shore and private boat anglers and a 2-fish bag for those fishing from for-hire boats.  Ingrid Braun-Ricks, executive director for the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, provided a second.

Mr. Luisi attempted to justify his motion by noting that the 2-fish bag for for-hire vessels had already been adopted for Maryland through the conservation equivalency process, and that for-hire vessels participated in an electronic data program that provided much information which he deemed to be “incredibly valuable.”  He also argued that the “sport fishery” (i.e., shore and private boat anglers) and the for-hire fishery were “not one in the same,” and so shouldn’t be governed by the same rules.

Virginia fishery manager Pat Geer disagreed with the motion, saying that while he was happy to support consistent recreational rules throughout the Bay, Virginia’s Finfish Advisory Panel strongly opposes any sort of mode split, and has for many years.  He also noted that Virginia’s for-hire fleet, many of which fish in the Chesapeake Bay, were already subject to a 1-fish bag limit and had no problem with it.

Dr. Armstrong noted that stock assessments benefit from uniform regulations, and that when biologists try to analyze data where different modes have different rules,

“We’re slicing the [Marine Recreational Information Program] baloney awful thin.”

At that point, Mr. Sikorski again split with his state’s fishery manager, moving to substitute Option B2 for Option C2.  The two options were the same except for one very big difference:  Option B2 established a 1-fish bag limit for everyone, including for-hire anglers.  Mr. Geer seconded the motion.

In support of his motion, Mr. Sikorski explained that most of the 2018 year class will be larger than 24 inches in the upcoming season, and that Option B2 would thus help protect the last strong year class produced in the Bay.  He noted the problems besetting the Bay’s bass fishery, emphasized the need for consistent regulations, and then argued that

“Chesapeake Bay regulations have done a disservice to this resource…One fish for all could have been how we prosecuted our fishery for the past four years”

instead of

“chasing a snowball downhill.”

He acknowledged his concern for the impact a 1-fish bag limit might have on the for-hire fishery, but also noted that because Maryland had closed its traditional April striped bass fishery so that it might have a 2-fish for-hire bag, other businesses have suffered, including an Annapolis tackle shop that saw revenues decline by 23%.  Instead of breaking the recreational sector into pieces, Sikorsky said that

“I prefer to define us as the general public,”

while warning that if current trends persist,

“the dark days are coming.”

When a vote was finally taken on the motion to amend, it passed 13 to 3, with New Jersey, Maryland, and the Potomac River fisheries commission dissenting.

The lopsided vote didn’t stop Michael Luisi from trying again, this time proposing that the Management Board approve Option C2 only for 2024, and adopting Option B2 for 2025 and beyond; once more, his motion was seconded by Ms. Braun-Ricks. 

This time, he argued that retaining the 2-fish for-hire bag limit in 2024 would give the for-hire fleet time to adjust their business plans to account for a smaller bag, while also giving Maryland a chance to figure out how to maintain the data being accrued through electronic for-hire reporting, before such data was lost to “retribution” from an upset for-hire fleet.

New Jersey’s Nowalsky supported the motion, noting that for-hire boats often book trips well ahead of the season, when customers believe that fishing rules will not change, and so already have commitments to customers; more restrictive rules, he claimed, would lead to cancelled trips, while Doug Grout, proxy for New Hampshire’s Governor’s Appointee, opposed it, arguing that Addendum II was intended to reduce fishing mortality in 2024, not in 2025.

Other comments were made, but when the vote was taken, Michael Luisi’s motion was defeated, this time by a vote of 4 to 14, with New Jersey, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia its only supporters.

Still, Luisi tried one more time, making a motion to substitute Option C1, which would reduce the slot size to 19 to 23 inches, achieving a greater fishing mortality reduction while still giving the for-hires a second fish.  This time, Dr. Davis seconded the motion, calling it “a reasonable compromise.”

Nowalsky challenged the Management Board to choose between Option C1, which achieved an even greater fishing mortality than Option B2 did, and their opposition to mode splits, which would allow more fish to be killed.  In response, Mr. Sikorsky noted that the narrower slot would increase release mortality, disagreed with those who sought special privileges for a “small group,” and plead,

“Let’s stop trying to divide people by how they participate in the fishery.”

With that said, a vote was taken, and Mr. Luisi lost again, this time on a vote of 6 in favor, 9 opposed, and a single abstention.  Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland were among the supporters.

With no new motions put on the table, Option B2 was adopted by a vote of 14-2, with only New Jersey and Maryland voting against.

Recreational law enforcement

Before moving away from the recreational fishery, the Management Board also needed to consider a measure intended to assist law enforcement, which would require anyone who filleted a bass at sea or at a shoreside location to retain the rack—that is, the carcass—so that law enforcement agents could determine whether the filleted bass complied with the relevant slot limit.  The same provision would require skin to remain on the fillet to facilitate species identification, and would set a possession limit of two fillets for every rack retained.

A motion to remove the requirement to leave the fillet unskinned passed with little opposition.  The amended motion found wide support, with 14 in favor, no opposition, and the two federal agencies abstaining.

The commercial fishery

The next agenda item called for the Management Board to decide whether the commercial quota should be reduced and, if so, by what amount.  Addendum II contemplated quota reductions that might range from 0 to 14.5%.

Dr. Armstrong put a motion on the table for a 14% reduction, saying that Addendum II should include commercial reductions

“Because we need to be moving in that direction,”

and that the commercial reduction ought to approximate that taken in the recreational fishery.  Cheri Patterson, New Hampshire’s Legislative Appointee, seconded the motion.  Delaware fisheries manager John Clark quickly responded by making a motion to substitute Option A, which called for status quo commercial landings.  Mr. Hasbrouck seconded his motion.

Mr. Clark argued that excessive recreational landings made Addendum II necessary, and that recreationally-related fishing mortality comprised the largest part of overall fishing mortality.  He said that a quota reduction would “make life very difficult” for Delaware’s commercial fishermen, who had experienced an aggregate 40% quota cut since 2014, and claimed that at some point, such reductions would no longer allow them to make a living as commercial fishermen.  He also opined that cutting the commercial harvest did a disservice to seafood consumers.

Other Management Board members supported Mr. Clark’s statement, but Mr. Appelman disagreed, saying that NOAA Fisheries supported some level of reduction, although not necessarily 14%.

On the other hand, Rhode Island’s Legislative Proxy, Eric Reid, expressed concerns that any cut could destroy the commercial striped bass fishery.  He called striped bass “a seasonal specialty,” produced by a “boutique fishery” for a “boutique market,” and believed that if the fish was not available to restaurants when they wanted it, they would substitute another species and, having moved on, would not buy the bass when it came on the market again.

Mr. Sikorski addressed the question from a Chesapeake Bay perspective, noting that the Bay produced about 80% of all commercial landings, when measured in numbers of fish, that fishing mortality is not only currently too high, but also focused on fish needed to rebuild, and that Addendum II was all about rebuilding the stock.  He thus opposed the motion for status quo quota.  Mr. Luisi, his colleague from the Maryland delegation, said that he wouldn’t support the substitute motion or a 14% cut, but would support a reduction that fell between the two.

In the last comment before the vote on the substitute motion, Joseph Cimino, New Jersey’s fisheries manager, noted that the Management Board was making “huge assumptions” about the effectiveness of the recreational measures, and that imposing recreational restrictions while leaving the commercial quota at status quo would be inequitable.

The final vote found only New York, Delaware, and Virginia supporting the motion, which failed 3-13.

At that point, Mr. Luisi moved to substitute a 7% reduction for the 14% in Dr. Armstrong’s original motion.  Jeff Kaelin, Governor’s Appointee from New Jersey, seconded the motion, which only received comment from Chris Batsavage, a North Carolina fisheries manager, who argued that 7% was too small of a reduction to promote rebuilding, and noted that when different levels of reduction are mandated for different sectors, the fish that aren’t caught by the more restricted sector often end up being caught by the sector with less stringent restrictions.

Despite that comment, the motion to substitute a 7% commercial quota reduction passed on a vote of 8 jurisdictions—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Virginia—in favor, 6 opposed, and the federal agencies abstaining.  When the final motion came up for a vote, it passed 13 to 1, again with two abstentions, and only North Carolina voting against.

Management response to stock assessments

Because the formal addendum process typically takes at least a year between the time a new addendum is proposed and the time when its management measures become effective, the draft Addendum II contained a provision that would allow the Management Board to fast-track management action, without going through the formal process, should a stock assessment indicate that there was less than a 50% probability that the stock would rebuild by the 2029 deadline if management measures were left unchanged.  Absent such power, the Management Board would be unable to quickly respond to any new threats to the rebuilding process.

Dr. Davis moved to grant such authority, a motion that was seconded by David Borden, Rhode Island’s Governor’s Appointee.  Little opposition was voiced, although Maryland’s Luisi was an exception, saying that

“This Board shouldn’t be acting fast, in my opinion,”

and expressing support for the addendum process.

However, multiple Management Board members expressed concern that the fast-track process didn’t provide sufficient opportunity for stakeholder input, and made it clear that they hoped that such input be provided by alternate means, if the Board chose to fast-track an addendum—something that it was not compelled to do, even if it had the authority to do so.

Despite such misgivings, the motion passed on a vote of 11-5, with New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia taking the minority view.

Implementation dates

One of the critical aspects of any Addendum, and particularly of Addendum II, is when such Addendum’s measures will have to be implemented by the states.  Addendum II, after all, was intended to govern the 2024 fishery, so there would be little use implementing its measures when the year was nearly over.

Thus, Dr. Armstrong moved that the states would have to present their implementation plans to the Management Board by sometime in March, and make such measures effective no later than May 1, 2024.  Mr. Borden seconded the motion.  

Dr. Armstrong noted that the Management Board decided to reduce the commercial quota by only 7%, rather than the 14% originally suggested, and advised compounding the problem by delaying the implementation of even that small reduction.  He recognized that fisheries had already begun in such states, but noted that such states had the ability to hold back a portion of their quota from fishermen, knowing that their quotas might be reduced, and that if they chose not to do so, and exceeded the reduced quota in 2024, they could always pay back the excess with a smaller quota in 2025.

Mr. Sikorski supported the motion, agreeing that the smaller reduction in commercial quota justified a quick implementation.  He noted that, although the Maryland and PRFC fishing seasons had already begun, they would close on January 31 and February 29, respectively, and wouldn’t restart until June, providing an opportunity to call back excess commercial striped bass tags. 

That drew an immediate response from Luisi, who said that recalling tags would be like giving someone $1,000, and then asking for $70 back.  He maintained that Maryland was unable to recalculate the number of tags to be issued under the reduced quota, and observed that some fishermen might have already used their entire tag allocation.  With respect to calling back 7% of the already issued tags, he said that

“It can’t and will not happen…We’re not able to do that administratively.”

Mr. Geer made similar comments, saying that

“We’re in the same situation.  Our season started on the 16th,”

while reminding the Management Board that it had been warned by the Bay states that such issues would arise if Addendum II wasn’t adopted at the October 2023 Board meeting.  He then moved to amend the motion, to require all recreational management measures to be adopted by the states no later than May 1, 2024, but giving the states until January 1, 2025 to adopt commercial measures.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark.

Mr. Nowalsky made the only comment on the motion to amend, saying that while he was sympathetic to the administrative concerns, the originally proposed commercial reduction was nonetheless cut in half, and if implementation of that reduction was delayed until 2025, it had the effect of cutting the reduction in half again.  He warned that if Mr. Geer’s motion passed, he would seek to reopen the vote on the commercial quota, and seek an increased reduction.

With that, Mr. Geer’s motion was put to a vote, in which seven jurisdictions—Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Virginia, and North Carolina—voted in favor, seven voted against, the federal agencies abstained, and the motion narrowly failed, because it did not win a simple majority.

With that, Dr. Armstrong’s motion was back on the table, and passed ten in favor, four against, and the federal agencies abstaining, with Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Virginia casting the dissenting votes.

Final approval of the entire Amendment II came on a 12-4 vote, with the same four jurisdictions voting against adoption.

Thoughts and observations

Addendum II, standing on its own, will probably not be enough to rebuild the striped bass spawning stock biomass by the 2029 deadline.  However, it marks an important step on the way to rebuilding, particularly since it gave the Management Board authority to fast-track some future management measures.

Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts remain steadfast supporters of striped bass conservation, while Pennsylvania and North Carolina--and to a surprising degree, the District of Columbia--are also proving themselves to be good and responsible stewards of the striped bass resource.

New Jersey and Delaware, on the other hand, consistently elevate short-term exploitation over long-term stock health.  Unfortunately, that duo has now been joined by New York, which had previously been a champion of striped bass conservation; while New York’s state fisheries management agency continues to care for the resource and tries to consider all stakeholders when making decisions, both New York’s Governor’s Appointee and its new Legislative Appointee have strong biases in favor of the commercial and for-hire sectors, and give short shrift to private recreational fisherman.  That bias was made extremely clear by Mr. Hasbrouck’s efforts to discount recreational comments early in the meeting, when he asked whether most public comments were made by recreational fishermen, and asked whether the Advisory Panel, which presented contrary recommendations far more favorable to the commercial and for-hire sectors, had “more balanced” representation between the three sectors.  

I suppose “balance” is in the eye of the beholder.  Given that the recreational sector accounts for at least 85% of striped bass fishing mortality, with the precise percentage varying from year to year, and given that surf and private boat anglers are responsible for about 98.5% of all recreational striped bass trips, and thus the lion’s share of the economic contributions from the fishery, it’s not hard to argue that true “balance” would weigh the responses according to each sector’s participation in the fishery. 

But that wouldn’t fit Mr. Hasbrouck’s aims.

With respect to the tension between the for-hire fleet and the rest of the recreational fishery, it’s becoming clear that both New Jersey’s Nowalsky and Maryland’s Luisi have a particular disdain for anglers who tend to emphasize recreation, and release most of their catch, and favor the catch-and-kill segment of the recreational fishery championed by the for-hire fleet.  While that disdain doesn’t appear to be shared by any other state managers, nor any of the other recreational representatives, it is something to monitor as time goes on.

Also with respect to such tensions, it seems that the idea of “mode splits,” or “sector separation,” is gaining some support among Management Board members.  While, speaking personally, I don’t believe that fisheries managers should create an aristocracy within the recreational sector, members of which are granted privileges not available to the general public, I am also not entirely opposed to true “sector separation,” if it is done correctly.  That is, if the for-hire fleet is given special consideration because it represents businesses, then managers should focus on the for-hire businesses themselves, and not on their customers, by giving the sector a separate quota reflecting its recent historical share of recreational landings, issuing tags to be attached to all for-hire fish, and then shutting down the fishery when the quota is reached, with paybacks required if the quota is exceeded.  Such a management approach would be similar to the commercial management system, and would take advantage of the electronic reporting systems already in use by for-hire boats along much of the coast, which make real-time management and, if needed, in-season closures a realistic possibility not available to the rest of the recreational sector.

My final observation may, in the end, be the most sobering. 

While Addendum II may help make it possible to rebuild the striped bass stock by 2029, it cannot maintain the stock at its target level.  Only nature, assisted by fisheries managers, can achieve that goal.  In recent years, we have seen unusually low striped bass recruitment, presumably due to unfavorable spawning conditions.  Unless such conditions improve—we can only hope that this winter’s cool and wet conditions extend through the spring, and possibly lead to higher juvenile abundance in the coming year—the health of the bass stock will inevitably decline. 

Should that occur, the best that managers can do is try to preserve the spawning stock through the hard times—what Dr. Armstrong called a “looming disaster” and Mr. Sikorski “dark days”—until favorable conditions recur.

While we can hope for the best for the bass, but until such conditions return, such hope is mere wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment