“The phrase ‘axis of evil’ was first used
by U.S. President George W. Bush and originally referred to Iran, Ba’athist Iraq,
and North Korea. It was used in Bush’s
State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, less than five months after the
September 11 attacks and almost a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and
often repeated throughout his presidency.
He used it to describe foreign governments that, during his administration,
allegedly sponsored terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction.”
Never one to let a good phrase go
to waste, I
stole the ex-president’s phrase back in February 2021, to describe Delaware,
Maryland, and New Jersey, states which, in my view,
“constitute an ‘axis of evil’ on the [Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass] Management Board,
that will continue to threaten the long-term sustainability of the striped bass
stock unless they are decisively defeated.”
Unfortunately, although those
states have suffered a few setbacks in recent years, their decisive defeat has not yet occurred, while their performance at yesterday’s striped bass
management board meeting made it plain that they still constitute a serious threat
to the resource.
Next year, the 2018 year class,
the last reasonably strong striped bass year class produced on the East Coast,
will enter the recreational ocean slot size limit, and be vulnerable to recreational
harvest, even though maximizing the abundance of the 2018s may be the key to rebuilding the spawning stock biomass by the 2029
rebuilding deadline.
So it’s clear that the striped
bass stock is facing some serious challenges, and is in need of some help from
fisheries managers. But while many
members of the Management Board are girding themselves to face those
challenges, what was is also clear--at least to anyone who attended or listened in to
yesterday’s Management Board meeting--is that the representatives of three "axis" states—Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey—were doing all in their power to
delay or derail efforts to rebuild and conserve the striped bass.
Yesterday’s Board meeting was a
very drawn-out affair, with scientists and others presenting an broad array
of information relating to the stock assessment update, the likelihood of rebuilding
the stock by 2029, and the possibility of reducing the number of fish that die
after being released. It wasn’t until
about 5:00 p.m., three and a half hours after the meeting began, that Nichola
Meserve, a Massachusetts fishery manager, rose to observe that
“We are going to fall off our rebuilding
timeline for 2029,”
state that
“The only error I see is not acting,”
and make a motion that read,
“Move to schedule a special Striped Bass
Management Board meeting in December 2024 to consider Board Action in response
to the 2024 Stock Assessment Update. The
Board will consider action to revise the 2025 recreational seasons or size
limits and 2025 commercial quotas to achieve a 50% probability of rebuilding by
2029 under the “low 2024 removals with F increase in 2025 only” projection.”
Martin Gary, New York’s chief
marine fisheries manager, seconded the motion, observing that holding a
stand-alone Management Board meeting in December would provide time to obtain
stakeholder input, and perhaps hold an Advisory Panel meeting; he said that he
hoped that such meeting could be held in person.
Immediately, John Clark, a
Delaware fisheries manager, announced his intent to oppose the motion, arguing
that the spawning stock biomass reference points, which established both the
biomass target and the threshold denoting an overfished stock, were “exceptionally
high” (even
though such reference points were thoroughly discussed during the 2021 debate over Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Striped Bass, and supported by 2,668 of the 2,678—(99.6%)—stakeholders
who commented on the issue). He then
made the remarkable statement that if no further management action is taken,
the stock is still likely to be above the spawning stock biomass threshold,
“which is better than now,”
observed that fishermen are
already facing more restrictions than they did when the stock crashed in the
early 1980s, and called any further landings reductions an
“almost gratuitous cut,”
earning his state a prominent place on the
axis.
Not to be outdone, Michael Luisi,
the Maryland fishery manager, then sought to delay management action by making
a substitute motion that would maximize exploitation of the 2018 year class
when it entered the recreational ocean slot in 2025:
“Move to substitute and initiate an
addendum to address reducing total removals (harvest and discard
mortality/recreational and commercial) in the coastwide striped bass fishery
using the technical committee’s most likely projection scenario (F2024=Low
Removals, F Increases in 2025 Only and Returns to 2025 Low Levels) and a 50%
probability of achieving the spawning stock biomass (SSB) target level by
2029. The intent of this addendum is to
provide the Board with coastwide and regional alternatives for the recreational
and commercial fishery for implementation on January 1, 2026.”
By January 1, 2026, when Luisi's proposed addendum would become effective, the 2018s would be moving out of the ocean recreational slot, and most of the
damage would already be done.
Not surprisingly, the motion was
seconded by Delaware’s Clark.
In making his motion, Luisi
argued that the provision in Amendment 7, which was fully debated by the Board and
which allowed the Board to take immediate action in response to unfavorable
information in the stock assessment update “was an experiment,” (although one would think that, as in any experiment,
you need to fully carry it out to its conclusion in order to know whether or
not it would yield a favorable result), and said,
“We owe it to the public to be heavily
involved in the addendum process.”
To the best of my knowledge, he never also expressed the opinion that the Management Board owes it to the public to fulfill its obligation
to rebuild the striped bass stock by 2029.
Instead, he stated that
“I’m concerned about the longevity and the
durability of the actions that we take,”
which is a legitimate concern,
for it’s certainly nice to have management measures that don’t change from year
to year. But it’s far nicer to have management measures that actually achieve
their goals and provide the public with a fully rebuilt stock that, if the
Management Board does its job, will be healthy and sustainable in the long
term.
The debate on the substitute motion lasted a while, as supporters and opponents of the proposal motion rose to speak. One of the most interesting comments came from Chris Batsavage, the North Carolina fishery manager, who opposed Luisi’s effort to delay action.
He noted that the Management Board was
running out of time, and needed to move faster given the likely increase in 2025
fishing mortality that it was facing. He
noted that North Carolina no longer has an ocean striped bass fishery, in part
because
“There aren’t a lot of fish out there,”
and in so doing, pointed out that
not taking action to rebuild the population has real consequences.
But Pat Geer, Virginia’s fishery
manager, supported the substitute, largely for bureaucratic reasons, as his
state was already well into the process of obtaining 2025 striped bass tags for
its commercial fishermen. He suggested
that, while it might be appropriate to change recreational management measures
for 2025, commercial measures should not be altered until 2026.
Max Appelman, speaking for the
National Marine Fisheries Service, favored the substitute because it allowed
for more “robust public comment.”
But others disagreed. David Sikorski, the Legislative Proxy from
Maryland, argued that
“It’s more responsible to act more quickly,”
and to stop “playing games” with
the management process by adopting regulations that fall short of what is
needed to achieve their goals. He also
objected to those who tried to cause dissention within the angling community by
neatly dividing catch-and-release from catch-and-keep anglers, noting that
anglers often release fish on one trip, while keeping fish on another. He also noted that, because of existing
regulations, anyone who fishes releases fish, even if they are focused on
harvest.
Dennis Abbott, New Hampshire’s
Legislative Proxy, also opposed the substitute, saying that it represented
“a dereliction of our duty to protect the
2018 year class.”
In the end, although it had the support
of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, as well as the
support of NOAA Fisheries, Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission, the substitute motion failed on a 6 to 9 vote, with Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, the District
of Columbia, and North Carolina voting against, while the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service abstained.
At that point, Virginia’s Pat
Geer, driven by the bureaucratic issues he faced, made another motion to substitute
that read
“Move to schedule to substitute a special
Striped Bass Management Board meeting in December 2024 to consider Board Action
in response to the 2024 Stock Assessment Update. The Board MAY consider action to revise the 2025
recreational season and/or size limits and 2026 commercial measures with an
addendum for 2026 and beyond to achieve a 50% probability of rebuilding by 2029
under the low 2024 removals with F increase in 2025 only projection.”
Once again, Delaware’s Clark was
more than happy to second the motion.
Mr. Geer explained that he made
the motion because the states bordering the Chesapeake Bay couldn’t adopt amended
commercial measures in time to provide tags to their fishermen before the
fishing season began.
His plea drew some sympathetic
comments, but Ms. Meserve noted, in a comment that probably expressed the views
of the many people, both on the Board, in the audience, and on the water, who
are concerned with the striped bass’ future, that
“I remain disappointed and frustrated that
the states with writing on the wall”
are attempting to delay needed
management measures.
Mr. Batsavage expressed his agreement
with Ms. Meserves statement, and added,
“We shouldn’t let process get in the way
of conservation of striped bass.”
Still, Mr. Geer’s motion almost
attracted enough sympathy to pass, failing on a 7-7 vote, with the two federal
agencies abstaining. Along with the
expected favorable votes of Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey, it won the
support of New Hampshire, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, the District
of Columbia, and Virginia, while Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina voted against.
Yet Delaware’s Clark made one
more attempt to disrupt the process, moving to amend the original motion so
that the phrase “commercial quotas” was replaced by “commercial measures.” Mr. Sikorski seconded the motion, making
clear that he did so only for the purposes of discussion.
Clark argued that, instead of
reducing the commercial quota, the Management Board should require that all
commercially-caught bass be tagged at the point of capture (as they already are
in many states) instead of at the point of sale. He alleged that such point-of-capture tagging
would prevent fish from being sold to illicit buyers without being reported,
and would reduce actual commercial landings more than a quota cut would.
Some Board members expressed
opposition, arguing that there was no time to consider measures other than
quotas, but once again, the motion failed on a tie vote, with eight in favor
and eight opposed.
At that point, Ms. Meserve’s original
motion was finally on the table. 14 jurisdictions
voted in favor; even Maryland conceded defeat and voted its approval. New Jersey was the sole state to vote
against, while the Delaware delegation was split and, unable to reach a decision,
cast a “null” vote.
Despite Delaware’s, Maryland’s, and New Jersey’s efforts to disrupt the process, in just a couple of months the Management Board will address 2025 management measures for both the recreational and commercial fisheries. Hoipefully, it will make meaningful changes to the managment plan.
But based on other comments made
at yesterday's meeting, the opposition to effective management action will not go away.
Even before Ms. Meserve made her
original motion, opposition to such measures began.
Delaware’s Clark tried to argue that, ten years after the first halting measures to conserve the stock began, the spawning stock biomass appeared to be following “a natural population cycle," going up and down. He claimed that
“we can’t guarantee anything by keeping [the spawning stock biomass] at a very high level,”
and fretted that
“People are going out of business,”
while asking
“Do we have any sense of whether the stock
would recover if spawning stock biomass went down even further than it is now?”
a question that caused a member
of the Technical Committee to remind him that biomass is what people are
fishing on, that a decrease in biomass means that fewer fish are available
to fishermen, and that poor recruitment will not support the current level of
fishing pressure. But such response had
no impact, with Clark suggesting, as he had in the past, that the biomass
reference points should be lowered to allow higher harvests, and that
“We have been very precautionary [about
the impact of management on striped bass].
We need to be precautionary about what we are doing to people.”
The importance of a healthy
striped bass stock to the people who fish for them apparently did not cross his
mind.
Adam Nowalsky, New Jersey’s Legislative Proxy, took a different tack, trying to cast doubt on the data and the need for further management action.
He first tried
to question the importance of the juvenile abundance index, asking why the
trends in the JAI data did not exactly track the trends in recruitment of Year
1 bass into the population. After being
told that the differences could be due to either “noise” (that is, uncertainty)
in the data or to mortality events during the juvenile fish’s first year, he then
tried to raise doubts about the Year 1 recruitment, noting that years with
notably high recruitment, to which he attached the disparaging label “outliers,”
skewed the time series mean upwards. He asked if it was possible to adjust or remove such high recruitment years,
apparently without regard to whether such estimates accurately reflected
the recruitment in the relevant years, in order to reduce the time series mean,
an action which would degrade the accuracy of the time series as a whole and,
in a period of low recruitment, make the stock look healthier than it actually
is.
He claimed he was questioning
such data because he was
“Looking for another way to possibly
interpret this information to…stabilize the fishery,”
a somewhat cryptic way of saying
that he was looking for a way to keep management measures unchanged and avoid
putting needed conservation measures in place.
Such intent to avoid adopting such needed became obvious later in the
meeting, when Nowalsky asked,
“As we sit here today, does the management
plan mandate a reduction in 2025?”
He was undoubtedly hoping for an
answer of “No,” although the real answer to that question was, of course, up to
the discretion of the Board, based on how it applied the information presented
by the Technical Committee to the language in the management plan.
Thus did the Management Board members from Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey attempt to prevent the Board from adopting new management measures for the 2025 season.
So far, their efforts have failed. But when the Management Board next meets, to
put needed rule changes in place, we can be certain that the three states will
again try to frustrate the rebuilding effort, in order to provide their stakeholders
with a few more dead bass for a few more years, until the stock buckles under
the strain.
For in the world of striped bass,
they represent the axis of evil, and that is what they do.
We must never let them prevail.
Charles, thank you for the meeting summary; however, I'm a bit perplexed on why push for a 50 percent success rate on rebuilding SSB by 2029? That implies to me that there is a 50 percent chance it will not be successful. Can't measures be taken to increase the odds? Thank you. Jim Simms
ReplyDeleteOne oif the things the Technical Committee was tasked with was to also calculate measures with a 60% probability to see what they would look like, although if the workload proves too heavy, that might not happen.
DeleteBut generally, that's just the standard that has been used at the ASMFC for a very long time--except, of course, for Addendum II, which had less than a 50% chance of success--and it has become habit. There are people who seem to be trying to move that probability up a bit, but they're going to have to overcome substantial institutional inertia.
This may be a naive question, but what is driving those folks to adopt such an anti-conservation stance? How would they justify it?
ReplyDeleteIt’s largely done to satisfy their fishing industry, which often takes a short-term view, although personal philosophy also plays a role.
DeleteNew Jersey had a politically-connected for-hire fleet, and a big, umbrella organization purportedly representing anglers that had always taken an extremely pro-harvest stance, regardless of species. In addition, Nowalsky is an ex-charter boat captain who now teaches people wanting to get into the industry at a community college, and he supports the short-term, maximized kill approach.
In Delaware, concerns for the industry is also the driving force, with Clark often calling for reducing the biomass reference points and increasing the fishing mortality reference points in order to allow a bigger annual kill. In recent years, he has been the most aggressive supporter of that approach.
It’s much the same in Maryland, with its heritage of commercial fishing, with Luisi always seeming to express the concerns and take the side of the watermen, whether commercial or for-hire, and subordinating the interests of the private angler. He seems to worry more about watermen disappearing than bass disappearing, rarely if ever acknowledging that if the latter occurs, the former is probably inevitable.
To your last point, don't these folks realize that a diminished resource means fewer trips taken, less tackle bought, and a overall poorer fishing experience for thousands of anglers? I have a hard time understanding the dissonance.
DeleteIt’s just a focus on the short term. “we know we can make money today. Who knows what will happen tomorrow.”
DeleteEconomists have written papers about it, calling the phenomenon “Discounting the Future.” I wrote a post about it five or so years ago.
Charles: Looks like we all got it wrong since Tom Fote is considered a Conservationist!! Check this proclamation posted on some NJ Website/News Letter/News Release:
ReplyDeleteASMFC Striped Bass Board Meeting Report – Key Takeaways (November 2024)
Overview:
Tom Fote, a longtime advocate for recreational anglers and sustainable fisheries, offers a critical perspective on the recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Striped Bass Board meeting. With over four decades of experience, Fote has been a leading voice in striped bass conservation and played a pivotal role in creating the New Jersey Striped Bass Gamefish Bill, banning the commercial sale of striped bass in the state. As one of the earliest advocates for striped bass recovery, Fote remains dedicated to ensuring that management decisions reflect the interests of recreational anglers, environmental realities, and community needs.
Closing Thoughts:
As a pioneer in striped bass conservation and an advocate for recreational anglers, Tom Fote’s leadership has shaped New Jersey’s fisheries policy. His report serves as a call to action: The recreational fishing community must unite, prioritize environmental solutions, and demand inclusive management processes. Fote’s legacy—marked by the passage of the New Jersey Striped Bass Gamefish Bill—shows that when anglers work together, they can achieve lasting change. Now is the time to reclaim that collaborative spirit to protect the future of striped bass and the interests of recreational anglers.
Emphasizing the Gamefish Bill is a perfect description of Fote's approach to conservation: Take the fish away from the commercial fishermen, so that anglers can kill them.
DeleteIn all the years I have listened to him at various meetings, I don't think I have ever heard of him supporting the science or restrictions if it led to recreational landings. He was always looking for some way to maintain, if not increase, the recreational kill. On the other hand, if you wanted to close or reduce a commercial fishery, he was always on your side.
I still remember when he opposed restrictions on red drum, because it would hurt New Jersey's "subsistence fishermen." I called it the Tom Fote diet plan: Restrict your food intake to New Jersey-caught red drum, and you would most certainly lose a lot of weight--quickly.