MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL AND ASMFC ADVANCE PLAN TO SPLIT RECREATIONAL FISHERY

 

On the afternoon of April 9, at a joint meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Policy Board, fisheries managers voted to move forward with an amendment to the management plans for bluefish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass which, if adopted, will grant special privileges to anglers fishing from for-hire vessels, in the form of higher bag limits, lower minimum sizes, and/or longer seasons, while relegating shore-based and private boat anglers to a sort of second-class status.

The effort was a long time in the making.  It arose out of the Mid-Atlantic Council’s “Recreational Reform Initiative,” a multi-year project that the Council describes as

“an effort of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to improve management of the recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish.

“The goals of the initiative are to (1) provide stability in the recreational bag, size, and season limits, (2) develop strategies to increase management flexibility, and (3) achieve accessibility aligned with availability/stock status for all four species.”

If you think that sounds a lot like the goals set out in the 2014 propaganda piece, "A Vision for Managing America's Saltwater Recreational Fisheries," put out by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, with the connivance and active encouragement and support of the recreational fishing and boatbuilding industries,  you’re on the right track.  Like the TRCP’s “Vision,” the Recreational Reform Initiative was an industry-supported effort to sidestep the clear legal requirements and strict scientific standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which was intended to allow anglers to kill more fish and, in doing so, generate more profits for the for-hire, boatbuilding, and fishing-tackle industries.

The American Sportfishing Association, the nation’s largest fishing tackle trade association and one of the prime movers behind the TRCP “Vision” document, has no qualms about touting its role in the Mid-Atlantic “reform” initiative, proudly stating that

“The initial focus of the recreational management reform initiative was a suite of harvest control rules (HCR) that incorporate more scientific variables when determining management changes for the recreational fishery than just a comparison between recreational harvest and the harvest limit…

“The American Sportfishing Industry (ASA) has worked for several years with coalition partners and the ASMFC and MAFMC to help advance the HCR approaches to final action and implementation.”

But now, the American Sportfishing Association might find that it shot itself in the foot, as both the Council and ASMFC work toward developing an amendment that will disfavor the shore-based and private boat anglers who, collectively, account for far more fishing trips, and purchase far more fishing equipment, than do those fishing from for-hire boats.

To put the issue in context, for the period 2021-24, shore-based and private boat anglers, fishing between Maine and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, accounted for 93% of all recreational fishing trips primarily targeting black sea bass, nearly 98% of all directed recreational trips for scup and summer flounder, and more than 99% of all such trips primarily targeting bluefish, thus clearly generating the lion’s share of the social and economic benefits that accrue from such fisheries.  Yet, the Mid-Atlantic Council and the ASMFC seem determined to reduce such anglers’ share of the landings of all four species, so that the handful of anglers fishing from for-hire vessels can take more.

The Council advises that it

“and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) Policy Board are developing an amendment to consider modifications to the recreational management program for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish.  Specifically, the amendment may consider options for managing for-hire recreational fisheries separately from other recreational fishing modes (referred to as sector separation)…”

It justifies such amendment by alleging that

“the two sectors have different motivations, preferences, fishing behaviors, operational needs, and data reporting requirements.  Some recreational fishery participants have expressed an interest in recreational sector separation, which would entail managing for-hire and private sectors of the recreational fishery separately.  This could potentially allow managers to better tailor management to the needs and preferences of each sector while allowing for improved utilization of data reported by the for-hire sector.”

However, the Council also recognizes that

“sector separation would also introduce complexity to the management process, and some stakeholders have raised concerns that it could create regulation imbalances and conflict within the recreational fishing community.  Sector separation may also require the use of data that is more uncertain when broken down by sector.”

In truth, sector separation, as it is being pursued in the Mid-Atlantic region, is just one more effort being promoted by the for-hire fleet, which might allow their customers to take home more fish than the regulations currently allow, in the hope that more fish might lead to more customer trips, and help to salvage an industry that has passed its prime, and is now experiencing a slow and probably inevitable decline.

That doesn’t mean that the concept of sector separation is inappropriate under all circumstances.  Back in 2014, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council adopted Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, which set up separate sub-allocations, within the overall recreational allocation, for the for-hire and private boat fleets.  That was done because, in the Gulf, the private boat fishery was chronically overfishing the recreational red snapper allocation, causing the federal red snapper season to grow shorter and shorter every year.  And while the federally permitted for-hire boats cold only fish for red snapper while the federal season was open, the private boats could retreat to state waters, where seasons were longer (in Texas, at that time, the season never closed) and continue to overharvest red snapper.  Because federal red snapper management considered landings on a Gulf-wide basis, regardless of whether the fish were caught in state or federal waters, the excessive state-waters landings led to shorter and shorter federal waters seasons, which threatened to put the for-hire boats out of business.

In the Gulf, sector separation was adopted as a way to restore a sort of parity between the for-hire and private boat fleets.

In the Mid-Atlantic, parity already exists, with both for-hire and private vessels fishing under the same set of rules (with the exception of a handful of mostly state regulations that already favor the for-hires).  In the Mid-Atlantic, sector separation would be used to destroy that parity, and grab more fish for the for-hires at the expense of everyone else.

And that’s something that the for-hire fleet doesn’t even try to deny.  At the April 9 meeting, Adam Nowalsky, New Jersey’s legislative proxy at the ASMFC and a long-time advocate for the party and charter boat industry, noted that fisheries management was, in fact, a “zero sum game,” and that any extra fish that might be awarded to for-hire anglers had to be taken away from someone else. 

He went on to argue that there ought to be what he called a “needs analysis” that looked at the needs of anglers belonging to the different modes (shore based, private boat, party boat, and charter boat) with the focus on the anglers themselves.  He noted that the for-hire operators were “more akin” to commercial fishermen, in that commercial fishermen provided fish to the non-fishing public, while the for-hire operators provided access to the fish for the non-boat-owning public,

“who cannot seek out fishing opportunity for themselves.”

His arguments were all valid, as far as they went, but they left out one important point:  There are currently an abundance of for-hire boats based all along the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts, which provide opportunity for any anglers who choose to patronize them.  If those boats aren’t carrying enough passengers to remain in business, it’s not because anglers don’t have the access or the opportunity to fish, it’s because anglers choose not to take advantage of what the for-hire fleet offers.

Such choice could be made for many reasons.  The boats might cost too much.  They might be too difficult to get to (if you ever tried to drive out to Montauk, New York, particularly on a summer weekend—or, perhaps more importantly, tried to drive home from Montauk on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, and spent literal hours trying to get through the traffic jams in the various villages that dot Long Island's South Fork, you understand what “difficult to get to” really means). 

The loss of once-abundant fish species may make anglers less willing to spend the time and money on a for-hire trip.  For example, over the last few decades, just here on Long Island, we’ve seen the collapse of the winter flounder stock, which once supported fisheries in the early spring and late fall, when few other fish were available.  We’ve lost the summer cod fishery, which used to see boatloads of anglers catching big fish—a few over 50 pounds—while fishing in their shirtsleeves (we've lost almost all of the winter cod fishery, too, but that came a little bit later).  We’ve lost the winter tautog fishery, and seen the remaining tautog fishery decline significantly since the 1980s, although it’s showing some signs of rebirth.  We’ve lost the May/June pollock fishery at Block Island; and we’ve lost the winter whiting and ling fishery in the New York Bight.

Those losses can't help but hurt the for-hire fleet, even though it routinely campaigns against regulations needed to keep fish stocks healthy.

Angler preferences may have changed.  Night bluefishing used to be very popular, particularly off New Jersey and New York; now almost no boats pursue it.  And anglers may have more attractive fishing platforms available to them today.  When I was a boy, the wooden, 14-foot Old Town rowboat was probably the most popular fishing vessel, and even when I entered my 20s, most middle-class anglers operated relatively modest outboards that limited them to fishing inshore waters.  Today, boat ownership is more common, and many anglers of even modest means operate, or have friends who operate, very capable vessels, reducing their need to  pay for a for-hire trip if they want to venture onto the sea. 

Angling, like many outdoor activities, is also becoming less popular with younger people, who prefer more social activities, often conducted indoors.  That means that fewer families consider making a for-hire trip when they plan a family outing.  Even if a family might want to make such a trip, the atmosphere on many of today’s boats is not very family friendly.  When I was just six or seven years old, my parents thought nothing of taking me out on a New England party boat, but if the clientele on the boats back then was like it is on some boats today, such that captains are afraid to look into a customer’s cooler to count the catch because they’re worried about becoming the victims of violence, I suspect that my family, too, would have sought a different source of entertainment.

But the for-hire fleet tends to put all the blame for their troubles on needed regulations—which have undoubtedly dissuaded some harvest-oriented anglers from fishing—and argue that sector separation, that gifts them more liberal rules, is needed to save an industry which, with a business plan dating back to before the Second World War may, like American Motors, Sears Roebuck, and F.W. Woolworth, just be dying of obsolescence and old age brought on by a failure to change with the times.

Although Capt. Rick Bellavance, President of the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat Association, noted at the April 9 meeting that sector separation had “a lot of support” in Rhode Island, what he didn’t acknowledge was that such support, not only in Rhode Island but elsewhere along the coast, is largely limited to members of the for-hire fishery (which is natural, for who wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of a few additional fish?).   

But the comments received during the scoping process for the sector separation amendment tell a more complete story.  Over all, the Council received 124 written comments addressing sector separation, and another 53 comments were made (including some by the same people) at hearings held at five different locations along the coast.  Of the total comments received, opinions were about evenly split, with 78 commenters supporting sector separation, and 75 opposed. 

The next question was who supported and opposed the sector separation proposal.

That question was answered at the April 9 meeting, when Council staff put up a slide showing that of 110 written comments (it’s not clear why all 124 weren’t counted, unless the other 14 addressed issues other than sector separation, which isn't unlikely) 49 supported sector separation and 61 did not.  Of the 49 comments supporting sector separation, 37 were submitted by for-hire operators or related organizations, just 4 were sent in by anglers, 2 by “other” organizations and 6 by persons of unknown affiliation.  On the other hand, of the 61 comments opposing sector separation, 37 came from private anglers or related organizations, 2 from for-hire fishermen, 2 from commercial fishermen, and another 20 from parties whose sector affiliation was unknown.

So, in the end, sector separation was very strongly supported by the for-hire operators, who were responsible for about 2.3% of all trips that primarily targeted summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, or bluefish over the past four years, and very opposed by the shore-based and private boat anglers, who paid for and benefitted from the other 97.7% of the trips.

That, in itself, might have been enough to doom sector separation in some people’s minds, but it was clear that the Council and Management Board were going to, at the least, compose a draft amendment that will be released for additional public comment.  So the next thing they needed to contemplate was what that amendment was going to say.

At that point, New Jersey’s Nowalski made a motion to include “mode management” in the draft. 

“Mode management” would allow both for-hire and private anglers to be included in the same allocation of fish.  That way, the extra fish given to the for-hire mode would be taken directly away from everyone else, and if the more relaxed for-hire regulations resulted in a significant overage, the ensuing accountability measures would apply to the shore-based and private boat anglers, too, even if they didn’t contribute to the overage at all.

The alternative to “mode management” is true sector separation, in which the current recreational allocation for each species is split into two separate allocations, one for the for-hire fleet, one for all of the other anglers.  That way, if either the for-hires or the shore based and private boat anglers exceeds their allocation, only the responsible sector would be held accountable.  So long as the allocations were based on what each sector caught in the recent past, such sector separation wouldn’t result in the for-hires taking fish away from anyone; they would have to structure their separate regulations in a way that would keep them from exceeding their landings target each year.

Thus, mode management would allow the for-hire fleet to benefit from more relaxed regulations and additional fish, without having to accept any additional responsibility or regulatory burden, so it was no surprise that they favored such an approach.  Since Nowalsky's motion was only made for the ASMFC, Greg Hueth, a New Jersey party boat captain, made the same motion for the Council to consider.

Fortunately, other people had other ideas.  Michael Luisi, a Maryland fisheries managers, offered a substitute motion for both the ASMFC and the Council:

“Move to substitute to direct the [Fishery Management Action Team]/[Plan Development Team] to further develop issue 1, recreational sector separation with all approaches described in the document.  [emphasis added]”

Nowalsky predictably spoke against the motion to substitute, admitting that the intent of his original motion was to keep separate allocations and separate annual catch limits for the for-hires and for the rest—the great majority—of anglers out of future discussions.  He noted that a majority of the public comments made with respect to the issue supported mode management, although he failed to note that the vast majority of those comments came from the for-hire sector.  And he expressed concern that looking at the separate allocation issue would take additional time.

Michael Pentony, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, said that he would have supported the mode management motion, but was concerned that putting separate allocations on the table could draw out discussions, because allocation debates were historically “challenging,” while Anna Beckwith, a Council member from North Carolina, conceded that the managers would probably end up choosing mode management, but still wanted to see a complete analysis of the possible options.

When the vote was finally taken, the motion to substitute was narrowly approved by the Council on a 10 to 8 vote.  It found somewhat better support at the ASMFC, with 11 members voting in favor, including Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Virginia, and North Carolina, and 6—Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and NMFS—voting against.  After that, it easily won final approval, with a 17 to 1 vote at the Council and a 14 to 3 vote at the ASMFC, where only South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida remained opposed.

With the Council and ASMFC having responded to the scoping comments, it is now the duty of the two organizations’ staffs to compose a draft amendment, which will be reviewed and modified by both the Council and ASMFC at their August and December meetings.  At some point in early 2026, a final draft of the amendment will be approved for release and public comment, which will occur during the spring and/or summer of that year.  Assuming that managers decide to move forward with a final amendment, that document will be approved in the second half of 2026, and referred to NMFS for approval, with the final implementing regulations issued in the first half of 2027.

What will the final outcome be?  While it’s still too early to make any accurate predictions, the Council and ASMFC will probably adopt a mode-based management system that allows the for-hire fleet to take fish from the rest of the angling population, without holding that fleet accountable for any overages that such system might cause.  Instead, all anglers will be held collectively responsible for any excess landings attributable to the for-hire boats. 

While that might seem inequitable, it is a nearly inevitable outcome when the deck is stacked against the shore-based and private boat anglers who, despite their dominance of the recreational fishery, don’t hold a single recreational seat on the Mid-Atlantic Council.  For when the for-hire fleet holds all of the cards—and the recreational fishing industry controls all the recreational seats—it’s a near-certain bet that the majority of anglers aren’t really in the game at all, and are just being set up to lose.