MARYLAND CHARTER BOATS CONTINUE EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT

 

Last January, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board adopted Addendum II to Amendment 7 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass as an interim measure intended to reduce fishing mortality to something close to sustainable levels, until a stock assessment, expected to be released in six months or so, provides more concrete advice on future management efforts.

Addendum II, among other things, established new recreational management measures for the Chesapeake Bay, which included a 1-fish bag limit and a 19- to 24-inch slot size limit, as well as a 7% reduction in the commercial striped bass quota.  While the slot size limit, applicable to all jurisdictions that border the Bay, was something new, the one-fish bag was not.  It originally appeared in Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan, adopted in 2019, and was carried forward in Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

However, Addendum VI permitted the unrestricted use of “conservation equivalency,” the doctrine that allows a state to propose, and adopt if approved, management measures that diverge from those in the fishery management plan, so long as such divergent regulations are calculated to have the same conservation impact on the managed fishery resource. 

Taking advantage of that doctrine, in 2020 Maryland created a matrix of proposed regulations that placed added restrictions on shore-based and private-boat anglers, including new closed seasons when even catch-and-release fishing for bass was prohibited, in order to maintain a 2-fish bag limit for anglers fishing from for-hire vessels within Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay.  At the February 2020 meeting of the Management Board, Michael Luisi, the Maryland fishery manager, confirmed such intent to favor the for-hires, saying

“It’s the no-targeting provisions that allow for some extra credit, if you want to call it that, to allow the charterboat fleet the extra fish.  [emphasis added]”

Thus, Maryland made the conscious decision to subsidize the extra fish for its for-hire anglers by taking away opportunities from the state’s shore-based and private boat fishermen even though, in 2019, such shore and private boat fishermen accounted for 93% of the directed striped bass trips taken in Maryland, and thus also for the lion’s share of the recreational, social, and, almost certainly, economic benefits gleaned from that state’s recreational striped bass fishery.

However, Addendum II brought such subsidies to a halt.  New language in Amendment 7 provided that

“[Conservation equivalency] programs will not be approved for non-quota managed recreational fisheries, with the exception of the Hudson River, Delaware River, and Delaware Bay recreational fisheries, when the stock is at or below the biomass threshold (i.e., overfished), as determined by the the results of the most recent stock assessment update or benchmark stock assessment approved for management use.  CE programs will not be considered until a subsequent stock assessment indicates stock biomass is above the threshold level.”

Since the most recent stock assessment update, released in late 2022, found the striped bass stock to be overfished, such language applied to the new recreational measures included in Addendum II.

That being the case, it’s hardly surprising that Maryland’s Luisi, who has a long history of subordinating the interests of Maryland’s anglers to that of the state’s charter and commercial fleets (such bias becomes particularly evident in the transcript of the August 2019 Management Board meeting, where Luisi, on multiple occasions, raised the specter of conservation-equivalent regulations that didn’t apply Addendum VI’s 18% fishing mortality reduction equally across both sectors, but would instead make only a minor reduction in Maryland’s commercial quota, and thus require the recreational sector to shoulder a greater than 18% reduction to make up the difference), and has been criticized by recreational fishing groups such as the American Sportfishing Association for just that reason, fought long and hard to include provisions in Addendum II that favored the charter fishing sector over the recreational sector.

However, such efforts failed to win the support of the Management Board.

Now, it appears that reality is beginning to set in, and the Maryland charter and commercial fleets don’t want anything to do with Addendum II at all.

The website of Maryland broadcaster WMDT announced yesterday that

“Dorchester County joined Queen Annes, and Talbot counties in calling for a reversal of a decision from the Atlantic States Marine Fishing Council [sic] (ASMFC), that imposed a one fish limit, 7 percent commercial reduction, and creel limit on striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay…

“[Dorchester County Council President Michael] Pfeiffer tells 47ABC he wants to see the regulation pushed back by [the Maryland Department of Natural Resources] to allow for relief…

“Delmarva Fisheries [Association] President Captain Robert T Newberry says the department must appeal the decision from ASMFC.”

But, while the ASMFC does have a process for appealing its species management boards’ decisions, there are requirements for taking such an appeal.  One of those requirements is that all three of the state’s management board members—the Administrative Appointee/state fisheries manager, Governor’s Appointee, and Legislative Appointee—must agree on taking such appeal, and right now, that does not seem to be the case in Maryland.  Michael Luisi, who was quoted in the article, revealed that

“In this case, there is a split within the ranks of those people sitting at the table representing Maryland as to how to move forward.  the [sic] appeal was not something that we could move forward with.”

However, it appears that Maryland may still try to eke out extra fish for its charter boat fleet, permitting the crew of the vessel, and not merely the fares, to retain a bass.  Luisi observed,

“If there are six people on the boat, they might be able to bring home eight fish instead of six fish, it’s not 12 but it’s 8.”

Of course, that still creates issues if a charter makes more than one trip per day, because the operator would then have to decide which trip will benefit from the extra striped bass allotted to the captain and crew.  For if a regulation allowed the captain and crew to keep one fish per trip, rather than per day, such rule would appear to conflict with Addendum II’s 1-fish-per-person-per-day bag limit.

Based on the comments that he made for the WMDT article, while Luisi isn’t happy about how Addendum II turned out, he seems resigned to complying with its terms.  However, there are others who want to see that Addendum go away, and have taken steps to make that happen.

On Tuesday, the Bay Journal reported that

“Two Maryland commercial fishing groups have filed suit challenging new striped bass harvest limits imposed on charter fishing business and watermen, arguing that they are ‘illegal, unnecessary, and improperly premised.’

“In a complaint filed March 8 in the U.S. District Court of [sic] Maryland, the Delmarva Fisheries Association and Maryland Charter Boat Association and two of their members contend that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission violated federal and state law and constitutions in ordering harvest reductions.”

The Bay Journal also reported that

“The lawsuit asserts that there is ‘no scientific or rational basis’ for the new harvest reductions to be applied to Bay fishers.  The coastal stock of striped bass is no longer experiencing overfishing, the groups note.  And while the total harvest and mortality of fish increased 32% coastwide in 2022 over the previous year, the groups say it has been steadily declining in the Bay since 2017…

“The lawsuit contends that the commission violated its own rules in adopting the charter catch limit by counting the votes of two federal agencies, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, a bi-state body.  The commission’s bylaws say that only states with an interest in the fishery may recommend changes, the lawsuit says.”

One Angler’s Voyage will publish a more detailed analysis of the complaint in that action in an upcoming edition, so at this point will only note that such complaint makes a number of dubious factual and legal assertions, and observe that the claimed decline in Bay charter boat landings, while real, is probably better attributed to the current, five-year-long period of striped bass recruitment failure in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay, rather than to any restraint on the part of the charter boat fleet that might merit special consideration for the for-hire sector.

In support of the lawsuit, Delmarva Fisheries’ Newberry claimed,

“Watermen, waterwomen and charter boat operators already face a huge and growing number of obstacles in their world.  For them and for all Marylanders, it will be a tragedy of epic proportions if this mandate stands.”

Maryland Charter Boat Association members have made similar arguments, with the Bay Journal noting that one Severna Park captain claimed that bass

“have ‘never been more plentiful’ than now in his portion of the Bay,”

while

“Brian Nesspor, a Rock Hall fisherman who joined in the lawsuit, said in a deposition that striped bass have been abundant in the Bay the last three to five years,”

claims that seem inconsistent with the declining trend in Maryland’s recreational striped bass landings, and might even be deemed incredible in light of the striped bass’ overfished status and recent recruitment failure. 

For as Tina Berger, ASMFC’s Communications Director, told WMDT,

“Striped bass continue to be over-fished despite a series of management changes to decrease fishery removals since 2020.  The latest measures build upon the 2023 emergency action and aim to reduce fishing mortality and support stock rebuilding by 2029.”

The sooner that everyone—including some of the self-centered folks down in Maryland—get behind the ASMFC’s efforts to reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the stock to its target level, the better things will be, both for the bass and for those who pursue them.