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 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