On December 16, 2024, conservation-minded striped bass
anglers waited to see whether the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
(ASMFC) Striped Bass Management Board (Management Board) would vote to reduce
2025 striped bass landings, and so make it more likely that the currently
overfished striped bass stock would be rebuilt by 2029, the deadline set by
the ASMFC’s striped bass management plan.
Those anglers were also eager to see whether the Management
Board would take any action to protect the 2018 year class of striped bass,
which will be the focus of recreational harvest in 2025. Such harvest may prove
problematic, as striped bass have experienced poor
spawning success in every year since 2019; removing a substantial
portion of the 2018 year class from the population could have a profound
negative impact on the future health of the striped bass stock and the future
sustainability of the striped bass fishery.
Concerned anglers were ultimately disappointed, as the
Management Board decided against imposing any new harvest reductions and chose
to leave the 2018 year class vulnerable to recreational fishermen in 2025.
Instead, it voted to initiate a new addendum to the management plan, which
might include new management measures for the 2026 season.
The Management Board’s failure to take any immediate action
at its December meeting could be attributed to confusing and inadequate
information received by the fisheries managers, insufficient time to develop
clear management options, and a recreational fishing industry that is becoming
increasingly opposed to striped bass conservation efforts. But in many anglers’
eyes, the inaction was due to the Management Board relapsing into its former
habits of deferral and delay, as it used the ambiguity in the available data as
an excuse to sit on its hands and do nothing.
Ambiguity pervaded the
2024 stock assessment update (2024 Update). Because Addendum
II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass (Addendum II) had been adopted less than a year
earlier, the ASMFC’s Striped Bass Technical Committee (Technical Committee),
which prepared the 2024 Update, didn’t yet have enough data to determine
whether the measures contained in that addendum would make it likely that the
stock would rebuild by 2029.
The Technical Committee did know that recreational landings
for the first half of 2024 were substantially lower than expected. If that
trend continued through the rest of the year, there was a 50-50 chance that the
stock would rebuild even if no management changes were made. But in 2025, the
strong 2018 year class would enter the 28- to 31-inch coastal recreational slot
size limit. That could cause recreational landings to increase significantly,
making it unlikely that the stock would rebuild on time.
Addendum II gave the Management Board the authority to adopt
measures to make rebuilding more likely by a simple Board vote, without having
to go through the formal public comment process that is normally required
before it adopts a new addendum. Thus, at the Management Board’s October
meeting, Nichola Meserve, a Massachusetts fisheries manager, declared that “The
only error I see is doing nothing…some type of action is necessary,” and moved
to hold an additional meeting in December 2024, to discuss new measures for
2025. The motion passed with strong support, but also met with strong
opposition from a few Management Board members who preferred to delay any
management action until 2026.
Prior to the December meeting, the Technical Committee
produced a
report that presented three possible scenarios, all equally likely and all
based on slightly different assumptions. Depending on which scenario one chose
to believe, the stock either had a 57 percent chance of rebuilding on time,
even if no additional management measures were adopted, or had only a 43 or 46
percent chance of rebuilding by 2029 unless landings cuts were imposed.
There was no clear path forward. The way was further
obscured by the report’s proposed season closures, which considered neither the
length nor the timing of recreational striped bass fisheries in different
states, and so would place a materially greater burden on some states than on
others. The report also presented options for both traditional no-harvest
closures, which still allowed catch-and-release fishing, and closures which
prohibited directed catch-and-release fishing as well, even though various law
enforcement officials noted that such “no-targeting” closures were, as
a practical matter, unenforceable.
Despite having only five days after the release of the
Technical Committee’s report to respond, the public provided 4,360
comments to guide the Management Board. 3,370 of those comments called
for the Management Board to adopt new management measures for the 2025 season,
while just 517 supported the status quo, making it clear that stakeholders
preferred immediate action over delay or inaction by at least a
6.5 to 1 ratio.
2,726 of the commenters believed that any reduction that was
imposed should apply to both the commercial and recreational sectors, while
only five asked that it apply solely to anglers. Emile Franke, the Fishery
Management Plan Coordinator for striped bass, noted in a
memo to the Management Board that “Most comments supported both
sectors taking even reductions (same percent reduction for each sector). A
small number of comments supported each sector taking a reduction based on its
contribution to total removals (e.g., commercial 1.5% and recreational 16%).”
Ms. Franke’s memo also noted strong opposition to
no-targeting closures in the ocean fishery, with 2,252 comments opposing
closures of any kind (perhaps an unreasonable position, given the few
alternatives available to the Management Board) and 640 specifically opposing
no-targeting closures. Of the 746 comments supporting no-targeting closures,
700 only wanted such closures applied to anglers fishing within the Chesapeake
Bay.
As the December 16 webinar meeting began, more than 550
people were listening in.
The Technical Committee presented its report to the
Management Board and answered a number of questions. Immediately thereafter,
Adam Nowalsky, New Jersey’s Legislative Proxy, made a motion
to initiate an addendum to support striped bass rebuilding by
2029 in consideration of 2024 recreational and commercial mortality while
balancing socioeconomic impacts. Options should include, if needed, a range of
overall reductions, consideration of rec vs comm contributions to the
reductions, rec season and size changes taking into account regional
variability of availability, and no harvest vs no target closures. Final action
shall be taken by the Summer 2025 meeting to be in place for the 2026 rec and comm
fisheries.
The motion was seconded by John Clark, a Delaware fisheries
manager who had long
opposed any reductions in striped bass landings.
Both Nowalsky and Clark cited uncertainty in the Technical
Committee’s report as justification for delaying action, arguing that such
delay gave scientists more time to gauge the impact of Amendment II. They also
observed that, if the most optimistic of the Technical Committee’s three
possible scenarios proved accurate, the striped bass stock would probably
rebuild on time without the need for additional action.
Nichola Meserve responded with an elaborate substitute
motion which proposed a nine percent reduction in recreational and commercial
striped bass landings, and also addressed the perceived inequities in the
seasons proposed by the Technical Committee, split the coast into two regions
divided by the Connecticut/Rhode Island border, and set other state- or
region-specific requirements. Her motion was seconded by Cheri Patterson, a
fishery manager from New Hampshire.
Megan Ware, the Maine fishery manager who chairs the
Management Board, then initiated a general discussion, and invited amendments
to both the main and the substitute motions.
Ray Kane, Massachusetts’ Governor’s appointee, reminded the
Management Board that “We’ve heard from the public already that they want
action from this Board,” and noted that delay would earn the Management Board
little new information. Despite his comment, it soon became evident that many
of Management Board members were deaf to the public comments.
An initial motion to limit the commercial quota reduction to
a meaningless one percent barely failed on a seven-to-seven vote. A second
motion, to limit such reduction to five percent, made by Emerson Hasbrouck, the
Governor’s appointee from New York, passed with 10 votes in favor and just four
opposed.
Soon after, New Jersey’s Nowalsky ignored both law
enforcement advice and 3,000 public comments, moving to amend the substitute
motion so as to allow the use of no-targeting closures in coastal fisheries and
in Virginia’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Nowalsky, long an
adamant opponent of more restrictive management measures, effectively
admitted that his motion was meant to be a thumb in the eye of conservation
advocates, noting that “People who support conservation at any cost are backing
off” once no-targeting closures are put on the table.
Hasbrouck seconded the motion, saying that it “addresses an
issue that has been concerning me, and that issue is equity versus inequity;”
he felt that it is unfair to allow catch-and-release fishing when
harvest-oriented anglers can’t put dead fish on the dock. Somewhat
surprisingly, given the
unenforceability of no-targeting closures and the strong public
opposition, the motion passed with nine votes in favor and five opposed.
At that point, debate on the amended substitute motion
began.
Doug Grout, New Hampshire’s Governor’s appointee, citing
both the need to meet the rebuilding deadline and the threat posed by recent
years of low recruitment, warned “If we don’t approve an action today we will
do nothing to address the increase in harvest that will occur in 2025.” Chris
Batsavage, a North Carolina fishery manager, expressed concern about the
future, observing that “we could be looking at some pretty lean times after
2029.”
Other members of the Management Board had no such worries.
Joseph Cimino, New Jersey’s fisheries manager, said that because of Nowalsky’s
amendment, his views on the substitute motion were “going from strongly opposed
to opposed,” and felt that “the stock can handle” the consequences of any
delay. Maryland’s Luisi argued that the various management measures adopted
since the early 2000s “added complexity” to the management plan, and said that
the substitute motion constituted “complex analyses piecemealed together,”
while an addendum provided the opportunity to be “creative” with new management
approaches.
But perhaps the most remarkable opposition to the substitute
motion came from Michael Waine, a spokesman for the American Sportfishing
Association (ASA), the recreational fishing industry’s largest trade
organization. Following up on the ASA’s comments opposing landings reductions
in 2025, Waine said:
…I think the public process is really important for such a
significant decision of season closures…And so, I think giving the addendum the
opportunity to consider this more thoroughly, really develop options out that
the public can consume and provide input on is the best way best path [sic]
forward. You know, I think about [sic] you guys know I am a part of a lot of
these fisheries management discussions, and this is probably the most unique
fishery that ASMFC manages, especially recreationally. And I look at
the public comments, and I know there’s millions of striped bass anglers out
there. Millions. And I’m only seeing twenty five hundred comments from a lot of
the same people that we know have been commenting. And so, as an organization,
we’re going to work with our members to try to get more people integrated into
this process. We know that the recreational fishery is very diverse, and I
don’t feel the public comments really are a good reflection of that diversity.
And so, where is the opportunity to get those individuals into this process?
Where is the opportunity to give folks the chance to get involved and engaged?
I don’t think it’s on the fly with this substitute motion, and I challenge the
Board to go the addendum route and reach out to the constituents that they
haven’t heard from. Don’t talk to the same folks that you’ve been
talking to all the time. Find the people who care about this resource and value
it in a way that their voices should be heard, too. And that’s what we’ll do as
an organization ourselves. [emphasis added]
There was unintended irony, as Waine seemingly told the
Management Board to ignore what he was saying (“I am a part of a lot of these
fisheries management discussions…Don’t talk to the same folks that you’ve been
talking to all the time”). But his request that the Management Board ignore
stakeholders who had taken the time to learn about the issues and make their
views known, because some imagined, Nixonian silent
majority might disagree, was sincere and a cause for concern.
Dennis Abbott, New Hampshire’s legislative proxy, who noted
that the Management Board had received 4,000 public comments, asserted that
“contrary to Mike Waine, you’ll never get one million comments.” He warned that
the public has already blamed the ASMFC for “kicking the can down the road”
with respect to striped bass management, and that they’d blame the ASMFC once
again if no action was taken.
In the end, whether because the various amendments to the
substitute motion had turned what had been an elegant solution to a
multifaceted problem into a quagmire likely to cause intense and possibly
fruitless debate between the states in each region, or whether the proponents
of the proposed new addendum simply convinced a majority of the Management
Board that their approach was best, the substitute motion failed on a vote of
four in favor and eleven opposed, while the original motion to begin the addendum
process found broad support, with only Maine and New Hampshire voting against
it.
Waine’s supposed silent majority notwithstanding, many
striped bass anglers were disappointed by the outcome. Nelson
Sigelman, an angler and outdoor writer from Martha’s Vineyard, observed,
“The history of fisheries management is a tale of half-measures taken to
appease various interest groups who all want a slice of a diminishing pie.
Tough action is put off every year, and the pie gets smaller.”
His words were kind compared to some on the popular striped
bass fishing website Stripersonline.com, where anglers
made such comments as:
“and the word today is Malfeasance, wrongdoing or misconduct
especially by a public official.”
“The states did not have the courage to vote for
conservation today. They did nothing.”
“Pathetic. Congrats to all involved.”
“Somehow, someway the asmfc needs to go. I don’t know how
that happens but there is not a path forward with them running things.”
Responding
to such public sentiment, Megan Ware said:
We want to thank the thousands of members of the public who
took the time to provide thoughtful comments ahead of the Board meeting. We
understand that many will be disappointed in the Board’s decision to initiate
an addendum versus taking immediate action. However, after deliberating for
more than three hours about the path forward, the Board came to the conclusion
that that the best course of action is to proceed with an addendum which will
allow for clarity on 2024 removals and additional analyses.
While her attempt at damage control will probably do little
to assuage the public, a more important question is what the decision to delay
management action means for the striped bass.
At this point, it’s impossible to say.
If the Technical Committee’s most optimistic scenario proves
true, the striped bass will still have a slightly better than even chance to
rebuild by 2029. That scenario depends on fishing mortality remaining low for
the rest of 2024, rising by 17 percent in 2025, and then dropping back to 2024
levels for 2026 through 2029.
2024 landings will probably be at least as low as the
Technical Committee has predicted. But such low landings were unexpected, and
if it turns out that 2024 landings were atypical, and if landings levels
increase to more typical levels in future years, the fishing mortality
assumptions underlying the proposed new addendum will be overly optimistic. In
that case, any management measures included in the proposed addendum will
probably not be restrictive enough to rebuild the stock on time.
If that happens, the Management Board will only learn of the
problem after the 2027 benchmark stock assessment is released. The Management
Board will have little time to implement measures capable of rebuilding the
stock by the 2029 deadline, and any such measures will probably be far more
restrictive than the nine percent reduction recently rejected by the Management
Board.
They might even be restrictive enough that the Management
Board decides to ignore the rebuilding deadline, despite the explicit language
of the management plan.
Thus, December 16’s decision to delay management action
might well determine whether the Management Board will meet its rebuilding
deadline. If spawning success remains poor, that decision might also determine
the health of the striped bass stock, and the sustainability of the striped
bass fishery, in the 2030s, if not beyond.
We can only hope that the cost of delay doesn’t prove
disturbingly high.
-----
This essay first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which can be found at
http://conservefish.org/blog/
No comments:
Post a Comment