The
Management Board’s decisions will help to determine whether the ASMFC meets its
obligations to rebuild the still-overfished striped bass stock by 2029, and
whether the Board will put itself in a position to quickly respond to any new
obstacles to rebuilding the stock.
It’s
often difficult to predict what the Management Board will do although, given
that even the best-case scenario only gives Addendum II a 51% chance ofrebuilding the stock by the deadline, while the worst case is a 64% probabilityof failure, it’s probably fair to say that the more the Board does at next week’s
meeting, the less it will have to do between now and 2029—beginning, most
likely, next October, after the release of a scheduled update to the stock
assessment.
Stakeholders
submitted a total of 3,525 comments, which broke down into 2,832 written
comments (1,062 comments from individuals, 1,723 form letters, and 47 comments
from organizations) along with 693 comments provided at the various hearings
held between Maine and Virginia.
The
ocean recreational fishery
Not
surprisingly, 2,448 of those comments, the most addressing any individual
issue, addressed the ocean recreational fishery, and as Ms. Franke noted in
here memorandum to the Management Board,
“The
vast majority of commenters favored ocean Option B (28-31” all modes). Commenters noted this option is the most
conservative option with the highest estimated reduction, which is needed to
support stock rebuilding. This option
would best protect the 2015-year class…Most commenters noted specific,
strong opposition to any mode split options. They noted the entire recreational sector
should have the same regulations and participate equally in rebuilding the
stock. They also noted that all
recreational anglers should have the same fishing opportunity.,. [emphasis added]”
Option
B was supported by 93.5% of the people who commented on the issue.
Option
C, which would grant special privileges to anglers fishing from for-hire
vessels, was preferred by slightly less than 6.5% of the commenters. Ms. Franke noted that
“The
second most-supported ocean option was Option B (28-31” private/shore; 28-33”
for-hires). Support for this
option was primarily from the for-hire industry. Comments noted the…for-hire did not see the
same level of harvest increase in 2022 as private vessels/shore anglers. Comments highlighted that allowing the wider
slot has a negligible impact (0.1%) on the estimated reduction. Stakeholders noted the narrow 28-31”
slot has had negative economic impacts on for-hire businesses with fewer
bookings this year, as customers do not feel the trip is worth it with
such a narrow slot. Comments noted a
wider slot would attract customers and would support anglers who value bringing
fish home for food. Comments also noted
a wider slot would decrease release mortality, and that many dead fish in water
have been observed this year with the narrow slot. [emphasis added]”
While
Ms. Franke provides a fair and accurate review of the comments provided, there
are nuances in the comments that couldn’t be captured in a single paragraph. The supporters of Options B and C did not
neatly break down into anglers on one side and for-hires on the other; some
anglers supported Option C, while a surprising number of for-hire operators and
other angling-related business supported Option B.
A
more accurate breakdown of the comments might be made by the commenters’
focus.
While
not everyone provided a rationale for their choices, among those who did, Option
B’s supporters typically emphasized their concerns for the long-term health of
the stock, along with a sentiment that all anglers, regardless of whether they
fished from shore, from a boat, or from a for-hire vessel, had an equal
obligation to contribute to the recovery of the striped bass stock, and that
shifting some portion of that burden from for-hire anglers to the shoulders of
shore-based and private boat anglers was manifestly unfair.
A perhaps surprising number of for-hire operators also supported Option B. For the most part, they fell into two groups. Many were concentrated in northern New England, while most—but not all—of the others had stopped trying to promote their business by selling dead fish, and instead owned successful charter operations that sold a quality angling experience, and didn’t depend on putting bass in the cooler.
It’s probably
important to note that the American Saltwater Guides Association, the only for-hire
organization that represents charter operators in every state between Maine and North
Carolina, supported Option B, and stated that
“ASGA
strongly opposes the idea of mode-splits…and implores the Striped Bass Board
to not consider these options at this time…the primary goal of Addendum II is
to reduce fishing mortality to target levels; this is NOT the time to consider,
let alone approve, such a fundamental shift in striped bass management
exclusively designed to let one group harvest more fish than others in the same
sector and further threaten the long-term sustainability of the stock. The Striped Bass board should remain
focused on rebuilding the stock and not create conflict and controversy within
the recreational sector. [emphasis
added]”
Option
C’s supporters, when they commented at all, often gave lip service to maintaining
the health of the stock, but then focused their comments on personal economic
concerns. They made it clear that their
customer base wanted to take fish home, and many of their comments seemed to
reflect an attitude of entitlement.
While such entitlement was generally muffled, as it was in the comments
provided by a group calling itself the “East Coast Fishing Coalition,” that
seems to be composed of charter boat operators from New York and southern New
England, which said that Option C
“balances
the need for conservation with the socio-economic needs of the for-hire fleet,”
(as
if, when managing an overfished stock experiencing recruitment failure in
multiple nursery areas, such balancing should even be considered), it was fully
displayed in the comments of one Long Island, New York charter boat operator,
who brazenly asserted that
“I
have been a charter Captain for over 40 years.
As a charter captain I pay a State fee of $250 for my charter
business. I pay for commercial
insurance. I have to maintain my captain’s
license and renew it every 5 years. I am
subject to random drug testing.
“For
all of these righteous requirements I get no preferential treatment to help
maintain my business and no consideration of what I do for the tourist industry
in my region.
“This
is draconian bullying at its best based on somewhat shaky science.
“Charter
catch should be 28 to 35 inch or 36 and over.”
Although
it’s unlikely that most for-hire operators feel quite that entitled, none who
supported Option C ever really explained why their customers ought to get
special privileges that are denied to anyone else, other than it would put more
money in the for-hire folks’ pockets.
But,
as I noted, not all for-hire operators support Option C. Capt. Randy Siegler of Marblehead,
Massachusetts commented that
“I
am writing as the owner of (what I believe is) the largest/busiest guide
service in the country that targets Striped Bass. With 10 (+/-) boats running one or two trips
a day, virtually every day of the season June-Sept.), [sic] we typically run
1,000-1,400 Striped Bass trips a season…
“With
that as a frame of reference, I want to express how pleased we were with this past
year’s size & bag limits (1 fish 28” to less than 31”). We saw first hand the surge of fish entering
the legal slot in 2022 and (previous legal slot) in 2023. We are absolutely thrilled that these fish
from the 2015 year class, critical to the long term success of the population,
are being protected.
“Our
business is successful if we have fish to catch…it is not dependent on
sending every client home with a ‘keeper’ striped bass. In fact, we probably average about one legal
fish retained for every four of five trips.
We certainly catch ‘legal’ fish frequently, but when customers
understand the science behind the population, they are more than happy to
release fish that could otherwise be kept.
“I
suspect that you will hear from some charter operators that they need better
access to legal/keeper striped bass in order to attract customers. I am writing to tell you that is absolutely
not the case for us…”
That’s
quite a difference between the comments made by two different charter boat
captains.
Certainly,
some of the difference is attributable to their different business models,
which attract different sorts of customers.
There are certainly quite a few for-hire customers who want to take a
fish home, particularly those who patronize the party boat fleet. At the same time, one has to wonder how much
customer attitudes are shaped by the attitudes of the captains themselves. If someone emphasizes “full boat limits” in
their advertising, and fills such ads with photos of dead striped bass, it’s not
surprising if their customers become conditioned to believe that a full cooler is
the best evidence of a good day. On the
other hand, if a boat’s business model emphasizes a quality angling experience,
and allows but downplays taking fish home, angler views of a “good day on the
water” might be tempered accordingly.
How a boat catches its bass also affects that perception. There’s a big difference in the customer experience between boats that drag umbrella rigs on wire line, never taking the boat out of gear when a fish is hooked, and those that give customers a chance to cast to structure or to breaking fish with gear that actually lets the angler feel the fish fight.
Last June, a
friend told me about what he saw while fishing from the rocks at Montauk, New
York:
“I
thought I’d seen it all. Yesterday
Montauk with fish pushing tiny sand eels tight to the beach in a blitz a well
known charter boat insisted on running parallel to the shore trying to pull
wire thru 7 feet of water. This despite
clear signs all you needed to do was lob an Ava jig and make a few cranks.”
As
anyone who has done it can tell you (and in the old days, I did it a lot),
pulling wire for bass can be very effective, but it’s not a lot of fun, using
broomstick-stiff rods and keeping the boat moving forward as the angler cranks
the hooked fish to the boat. It’s more
like work than recreation, with only the largest fish able to pull back against
the heavy gear. It’s easy to see why
charter boats fishing that way have to emphasize taking fish home, because the
mere act of catching those fish isn’t particularly entertaining.
It's easy to believe that if more for-hire boats emphasized just catching
the fish on gear that makes fishing fun—basically, as my friend suggested,
lobbing a diamond jig or other lure into blitzing bass—so that the angler can
feel the fish strike and has to struggle a bit to bring the bass to hand, the
thrill of the catching can become as or more important than the food from the
keeping, and fewer customers would be upset if they don’t bring a fish home. If we look at other inshore sport fisheries
in other places, for bonefish, or permit, or tarpon down South, or for
freshwater fish like bass and muskellunge—or, in many cases, for false albacore and bluefish right
here off Long Island—anglers are more than happy to hire boats to fish for fish that
they have no intention of keeping, just so long as the action is good. There appears to be no reason why the for-hire striped bass
fishery can’t evolve along similar lines.
Unfortunately,
too many captains are too set in their ways to try something new. Of course, much of that may be because, in
many cases, a for-hire captain is also a commercial striped bass fisherman,
and is imbued with the commercial fisherman’s desire to put bass in the boat using
the quickest and most efficient means available. As one New York angler noted,
“It
would seem that the only meaningful change we are considering at this point is
a possible split in the regulations (different regs for For-Hire). As far as New York is considered, the public
would require much more transparency on the overlap of those who are licensed
to take recreational fishermen for-hire, but also hold permits to harvest
striped bass commercially. We appear to
have a population of commercial fishermen who essentially want to be the voice
of recreational fishermen. We simply
need better disclosure (data that New York has) to understand the extent to
which we have conflicts of interest here.”
Anyone
who might question that statement need only look to the votes of New York’s
Marine Resources Advisory Council, which routinely sees representatives of the
for-hire fleet ally with commercial representatives to defeat proposed
conservation measures that might restrict either commercial or recreational
landings. More times than not,
particularly when striped bass measures are being considered, the outcome of
such votes can be predicted before voting even begins.
Nick
Montefusco, an angler from New Jersey, added another twist to the mode split
issue, saying
"any
option which grants for-hire vessels less restrictive regulations as compared
to shore-based private anglers is inherently incompatible with the concept of
maintaining fairness in regulations across economic classes (i.e., people should
not be able to pay for the privilege of retaining fish that couldn’t be
retained otherwise), irrespective of the minimal impact on the projected
mortality reduction. It also opens the
possibility of undermining enforcement, since it will not be immediately obvious
if possession of a fish that is 31”-33” constitutes a violation…”
The
ASMFC’s Law Enforcement Committee expressed similar concerns, noting that
“Consistent
compliance requirements across all modes within a sector leads to enhanced
voluntary compliance. Compliance is
complicated when there are varied sizes, seasons and possession limits for
recreational fishers who fish in different modes. The [Law Enforcement Committee] recognizes
and respects the desires by fishers to advocate and pursue management options
for their respective modes of fishing for striped bass, however when specific management
options intended to safeguard the stock of a species are complicated by
different regulations for different modes of fishing, voluntary compliance and
enforceability decrease.”
In
other words, when anglers perceive regulations to be unfair, because they grant
special privileges to others and not to them, some anglers will try to rectify
the situation by taking unilateral actions that may be illegal, but satisfy
their sense of fairness in the fishery.
Some
of the largest recreational fishing organizations in the country, including the
American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Center for
Sportfishing Policy, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership recognized that truth in a joint comment
letter, which stated,
“We
are adamantly opposed to mode splits. If
ASMFC hands out conservation passes to the for-hire mode, what incentive does
any one individual angler have with a mentality that if you’re a small percentage
of the overall pie your slice doesn’t need to bear the burden of conservation?”
The
Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery
Although
the ocean recreational fishery drew the most comments, the Chesapeake Bay
recreational fishery options generated 2,399 written comments, only a few dozen
less. Once again, stakeholders were
asked to pick the most appropriate slot limit, and also asked to choose whether
for-hire anglers should get special treatment not enjoyed by the rest of the
angling community. And once again, the
responses broke down among similar lines.
As
Ms. Franke reported,
“The
majority of comments noted support for Chesapeake Bay Option B1 (19-23” fish
all modes) and Option B2 (19-24” fish all modes), noting either
option is estimated to meet the 14.5% reduction. Most other comments supported Option B1 specifically,
noting this is the most conservative option with the highest estimated
reduction to support stock rebuilding.
Comments also noted the need to protect the 2018-year class. Many comments noted specific opposition
to mode split options, noting the entire recreational sector should have the
same regulations, should contribute to rebuilding, and should have the same
fishing opportunity. Many
comments also noted the need for conservative Bay regulations considering
recent poor recruitment in the Bay.
[emphasis added]”
With
regard to commenters supporting mode splits, Ms. Franke reported that
“Those
in favor of Chesapeake Bay Option C2 (19-24” 1 fish private/shore; 2 fish
for-hire) noted that charter businesses in the Bay could not survive with a
1-fish bag limit, and that for-hire trips have already decreased. Maryland stakeholders noted that Maryland
charter vessels participate in the state’s electronic reporting program and
provide detailed information on trips and catch.”
Stakeholders
preferences with respect to the Chesapeake fishery were even more one-sided
than they were with respect to the ocean fishery, with slightly over 95% of the
comments supporting Options B1 or B2, and less than 2.5% supporting Options C1
or C2, the two mode-split options.
Comments
were similar to those submitted on the recreational ocean fishery. Anglers and some for-hire operators expressed
concern for the health and the future of the striped bass stock, and supported
the “B” options, while supporters of the “C” options were primarily concerned
with business issues. But at least one
tackle shop operator was also concerned with business issues, and he didn’t care
for the “C” options at all. He wrote,
“My
business, Anglers Sportscenter, which employs between 20 to 40 people at any
given time, depends to a large degree on recreational sport fishing for striped
bass on the Chesapeake Bay.
“As
striped bass regulations have become more restrictive it has had a negative
impact on my business.
“Shifting
part of the allowable catch from one sector of recreational anglers to another
is a case of the government picking economic winners and losers, as tightening
restrictions on my customer base hurts my business while giving more of the
share to other forms of business benefits theirs.”
One
of the more poignant comments came from a high school student, James Ronayne,
from Annapolis, Maryland, who does his striped bass fishing from a 12-foot tin
boat called the “Pork Chop.”
“…When
I think about regulations, I think about the future. I think about what a fishery will look like
not only for my future, but for my kids and grandkids.
“I
fully recognize that shutting down or restricting a fishery has massive
implications for a lot of people and their livelihoods today. BUT what I keep thinking about is
tomorrow. If we kill all the fish now,
what does our livelihood look like next year or 5 years down the road? What does it look like for future generations?
“While
the past 5 years of a poor spawn can be partially attributed to poor weather
conditions, it is also due to overharvesting.
It does not seem fair that charter boats that that possess decades of
fishing knowledge, and thousands of dollars of fish-finding equipment can go
out and keep upwards of 60 fish per day while I am limited to 1. The effort per catch on their boat vs my boat
is not comparable…”
If
more adults felt the same way that teen does, our bass might well be in much
better shape.
On
the other hand, many of the Maryland charter boats commenting on the proposal
insist that they will lose so many customers that they could go out of business
if their bag limit is reduced to just one bass.
That
may well be true, but one must then ask whether that problem is entirely due to
the bag limit, or the charter boats’ usual practice of returning to the dock
once a limit of bass has been caught, even if anglers only fished for a portion of their originally allotted time.
After all, there are other fish in the bay that the boats could also
target for their customers to bring home, in addition to the one striper. As John Billings, a former mate on various Maryland
for-hire boats observed,
“I
understand the Captain’s [sic] concerns that they may have a reduction in
clientele if they can only keep one striped bass, but there are other fish in
the water for harvest. Yes, they may
have to adapt to the changing times, but we all do. Speckled sea trout, white perch, redfish, bluefish,
Spanish mackerel and sea bass are all available to catch as well. They can supplement any client’s desire for
meat with most of these options, and nearly all can be caught using the same or
very similar techniques and equipment they currently employ.”
Once
again, as in the ocean fishery, an aversion to change may be the for-hire fleet’s
biggest problem.
Other
recreational measures
The
draft Addendum II addressed two other issues directly related to the
recreational fishery, but which attracted far fewer comments.
One
asked whether, if mode splits were allowed, the captain and crew of for-hire
vessels would be allowed to keep fish falling within the wider, 28- to 33-inch
slot, or whether they should be restricted to the narrower 28- to 31-inch slot
that applied to everyone else. Only 303
comments were received on this question, with 247—81.5%--recommending that
captain and crew be restricted to the same slot as private boat and shore-based
anglers.
The
other issue, which gave rise to 648 comments, asked whether, if states allowed
bass to be filleted at sea or at shoreside locations, anglers/for-hire vessels
should be required to 1) keep the racks from the filleted fish so that law
enforcement could determine if the fish were of legal size, 2) keep the skin on
the fillets to facilitate identification of the species that they came from,
and 3) only possess two fillets for every rack retained. Of the people who commented on the issue,
555, or 85.5%, favored such requirements.
Most
of the opposition to this requirement came from the for-hire fleet which, as
Ms. Franke reported,
“noted
that fillet requirements would delay the turnaround time between charter
trips. Charter vessels need to
transition as quickly as possible between trips. Commenters noted questions and concerns about
where the racks would be disposed of, and noted that state/local rules would
limit where racks could be disposed of.”
Reducing
the commercial quota
The
draft Addendum II also proposed reducing the commercial quota by up to
14.5%. This option drew 2,407 comments,
with 2,249 of them, or just under 93.5%, supporting such reduction. Ms. Franke reported that
“The
majority of comments support Option B (up to 14.5% quota reduction), with
most comments supporting the full 14.5% reduction for both the ocean and
Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries.
Comments noted that all sectors should take an equal reduction to
rebuild the stock. Some comments noted
the reduction should be taken from landings, not from the quota.
“Those
in favor of Option A (status quo commercial quotas), primarily the
commercial industry, noted the commercial sector should not be penalized for
the increase in recreational harvest…Comments noted that unlike the
recreational sector, the commercial sector is heavily monitored with
accountability through tagging and quota paybacks. Comments noted there have been multiple quota
reductions the past several years, and additional reductions would be
detrimental to the industry with negative economic impacts.”
Response
to stock assessments
Finally,
the draft Addendum II asked whether the Management Board should be allowed to
adopt new management measures in response to upcoming stock assessments, without
the need to first put proposals out for public hearing, if the assessments
suggested that, without such additional measures, the stock was unlikely to rebuild
by the 2029 deadline.
The
ASMFC received 2,240 comments on the issue, with the vast majority—2,150, or
nearly 96%, the greatest percentage in favor of any proposal in the draft
Addendum—favoring such grant of authority.
As Ms. Franke noted,
“The
majority of comments support Option B (Board action process) noting the
need for quick, decisive action by the Board following stock assessments to
rebuild the stock and quickly implement new measures. Some commenters noted that while they support
a fast process, opportunities for public comment should be clearly
communicated.
“Those
in favor of Option A (Addendum/Amendment process) noted the need for a
full public comment process during the development of management actions to
make informed management decisions.”
A
complication
Based
solely on public comment, one might expect the Management Board to maintain the
current 28- to 31-inch slot limit in the ocean recreational fishery, adopt a
1-fish bag limit and either an 18- to 23-inch or 18- to 24-inch slot in the
Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, require racks to be retained, etc. if fish
are filleted at sea, reduce the commercial quota by 14.5%, and give the
Management Board the authority to fast-track management measures if a stock
assessment or assessment update suggests such measures are needed to timely
rebuild the stock.
However,
it is likely that one or more of those things will not happen as, for whatever
reason, the ASMFC’s Striped Bass Advisory Panel seemed out of touch with the
desires of its constituents, and recommended far different actions.
Only
four out of 13 Advisory Panel members supported the commenters’ clear choice in
the ocean recreational fishery, a 28- to 31-inch slot for all anglers. Instead, eight Panel members supported the
for-hire fleet, and recommended Option C, which would hold shore-based and
private-boat anglers to such 3-inch slot, but allow anglers fishing from
for-hire vessels to enjoy a broader, 28- to 33-inch slot limit.
Reasons
given for such decision included claims that the larger slot would reduce
discards on for-hire trips, that it would have roughly the same effect on
reducing recreational landings, and that it would support the for-hire
business.
The
Advisory Panel reached a similar conclusion with respect to the Chesapeake Bay
recreational fishery, with only five supporting any of the “B” options, which
would create a 1-fish bag limit and the same slot limit for all anglers fishing
within the Bay, while six supported Option C1, which would create an 18- to
23-inch slot limit, accompanied by a 2-fish bag for for-hires and a 1-fish bag
for everyone else.
Again
similar to the ocean recreational fishery, the majority of the Panel supported
such option because it believed that the 2-fish bag was essential to the
for-hire fleet’s survival, that the fleet had little to fish for besides striped
bass, that the for-hire fleet was required to report its fish electronically,
and because such a limit would discourage the release of small fish in the
hopes of catching a larger one.
With
respect to the other recreational measures, the Advisory Panel disfavored
holding for-hire captain and crew to the same limits as private boat and
shore-based anglers, with only one member supporting the proposal and four
opposing it. Nine members opposed rack
retention requirements when fish are filleted at sea, with none supporting the
proposal.
The
majority of the Advisory Panel also opposed reducing the commercial quota, with
seven opposing such reduction, and only four supporting it. Reasons given for the opposition included the
fact that Addendum II was initiated because recreational, and not commercial,
landings spiked in 2022, because quota cuts would cause economic losses, because
the commercial industry is “highly regulated” and landings are capped by
quotas, because quotas are rarely caught, because most landings are now
recreational, and because commercial gear has generally been adapted to avoid
spawning-sized fish.
Finally,
ten Panel members opposed giving the Management Board fast-track authority to
adopt management measures, while only two supported the proposal. The opposition claimed that it was concerned
about losing the opportunity for public comment, that emergency actions could
still be taken, that there was frustration over the last emergency action, that
“faster is not always better,” that the Addendum/Amendment process is designed
to address management issues, and that they wanted to avoid “knee-jerk”
reactions.
Thus,
the Advisory Panel was out of step with the public comment on every single
issue.
Neither
public comment nor Advisory Panel recommendations dictate Board action, which
lies solely within the discretion of the Management Board. However, the Advisory Panel recommendations
will provide Management Board members who might be looking for an excuse not to
go along with public opinion an easy way out, and a justification for supporting the
views of a very small minority of stakeholders.
Thus,
the future of Addendum II is very much in doubt.
On
January 24, we will learn whether a majority of the Management Board will yield
to the calls of the minority, and support narrow economic interests, or whether
it will choose to represent the public and the needs of the bass, and support
the majority view.
Right
now, I can’t predict which path it will choose.
Thanks Charles for the comment synopsis and your commentary. I assume the advisory board makeup has ties to either the commercial or for-hire groups?
ReplyDeleteTypically, yes, although there are a couple of legitimate private anglers.
Delete