IT'S STRIPED BASS POACHING SEASON--AGAIN--IN THE EEZ

 

The federal regulation found at 50 C.F.R. 697.7(b) is perfectly clear.

“Atlantic striped bass fishery.  In addition to the prohibitions set forth in [section] 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following: 

“(1) Fish for Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ.

“(2) Harvest any Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ.

“(3) Possess any striped bass in or from the EEZ, except for [a so-called “transit zone” in Block Island Sound, where striped bass fishing is prohibited, but striped bass may be possessed by vessels “in continuous transit” between Block Island and the mainland].

“(4) Retain any Atlantic striped bass taken in or from the EEZ.”

In the parlance used in the recently concluded debate over Addendum III to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, in the Exclusive Economic Zone—that is, generally speaking, those waters between three and 200 nautical miles off the United States coast—there is a permanent “no-target closure” of the striped bass fishery, where even catch and release fishing is not allowed.

50 C.F.R. 697.7(b) may be the most universally ignored fishery management regulation ever issued by NOAA Fisheries.

It was almost amusing, during the Addendum III debate, when members of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board tried to argue in favor of no-target closures as an effective means to reduce recreational landings and release mortality.

Members of the ASMFC’s Law Enforcement Committee repeatedly told the Management Board that large no-target closures, in areas where fish other than striped bass could be readily caught, were unenforceable.  A Law Enforcement Committee spokesman assured the Management Board at last August’s meeting that, after polling all of the Committee members, from all of the states with a seat on that Board, none could ever recall when a fisherman was successfully prosecuted for violating a no-target closure without that fisherman also having a bass in their possession.  The same was true of the no-target closure in the EEZ.

Yet there were nonetheless Management Board members who argued that the lack of enforceability shouldn’t be seen as a problem.

Emerson Hasbrouck, the Governor’s Appointee from New York, talked about something he called the “80-10-10 Rule, saying,

“For something that’s difficult to enforce, 80% of anglers will do the right thing for the resource and abide by the regulations.  10% won’t really know what’s going on or understand the regulation, and 10% will willingly violate it.

“I’ve got faith that anglers conducting the 70 to 90% of striped bass trips will do the right thing, to do their part to help rebuild the resource…”

From those comments, it’s very clear that Mr. Hasbrouck is completely unfamiliar with the fall fishery in the New York Bight, where violating the no-target regulations in the EEZ is a regular occurrence.

And Mr. Hasbrouck isn’t alone in his idealized view of striped bass anglers.  At the same August meeting, Joseph Cimino, the New Jersey fisheries manager, supported the concept of no-target closures, saying

“if any of you believe that the no targeting in the EEZ hasn’t reduced the amount of effort in the EEZ, I would be shocked, and I would love to hear it.  Because I think there is absolutely at the very least a shame factor of fishing in the EEZ.”

I suppose Mr. Cimino isn’t completely wrong, because ever since the EEZ was closed, I don’t bass fish out there, so effort was reduced by at least one boat and one angler.  I hope and expect that I’m not the only one.

But I’m probably part of a distinct minority.

The unfortunate fact is that the fall striped bass run along the New York and New Jersey coasts marks the start of poaching season in the EEZ, when hundreds of boats—perhaps thousands on a nice weekend, if everyone fishing along the entire expanse of the New York/New Jersey coast is taken into accout—have no qualms about targeting striped bass in technically closed federal waters if that’s where they need to go to catch fish.

As far as the “shame factor” Mr. Cimino referred to, it just doesn’t exist.  Shame is such a minor factor in the fishery that a New Jersey party boat recently appeared to openly advertise the good striped bass fishing in the EEZ, publishing both on its Facebook page and in what looked like an Internet chat board,

“Another incredible day on the water, over 60 jumbo stripers caught and released before we moved within 3 miles of shore and landed a dozen keepers!  [emphasis added]”r

Far from being ashamed, whoever maintained that boat’s Facebook page seemed downright proud of the vessel violating federal regulations that make it unlawful to “Fish for striped bass in the EEZ,” even if whatever bass caught are released.

Reading that post, it would seem that the boat was unabashedly encouraging anglers to book a trip to engage in precisely that unlawful activity.

And that one party boat is certainly not the only vessel violating the no-targeting regulation.

While there are generally no problems so long as the bait, and so the striped bass, remain close to shore, I frequently see EEZ violations when I take my boat out of New York’s Fire Island Inlet in late October or early November if the bait—typically sand eels, but often menhaden, too—is concentrated more than three miles offshore.  Somewhere, I even have photos I took a few years ago, of a number of party boats from Captree State Park, surrounded by hordes of private boats, all diamond jigging bass in the EEZ. 

I made sure to include my electronics in the pictures, so it was clear from my GPS that I was more than three miles from shore when I took the photo, and still on a southerly heading, and clear from my radar screen that the boats were somewhere in front of me, and so still farther into the EEZ than I was.  At the time that I took the photos, I had planned to send them to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s enforcement folks, but never did, figuring that they couldn’t get a conviction on the photos alone, but would have to see the no-target violations for themselves, in real time, before taking appropriate action.

And convictions, followed by severe and well-publicized penalties, are the only way that the striped bass poaching will ever abate.

What usually happens is that both private and for-hire boats begin by searching for bass within three miles of the beach.  Fishing is slow.  Then maybe someone looks out to sea and notices birds diving over breaking fish at the edge of the EEZ, or maybe they just venture farther offshore looking for bait balls and feeding bass.  They find a concentration of fish and begin to hook up.

Someone then spots the boat that’s hooked up, and goes out to investigate.  Then someone spots a few boats congregating in the same spot, and…

Yes, people know it’s illegal. 

But if you’re a for-hire boat, and your competitors are catching fish while you’re not, you stand a real chance of losing business if you don’t head out to the EEZ and put your customers on some bass.  If you’re a private boat, you see the for-hire vessels concentrated offshore, assume they’re on fish, and head out to join them.  The growing concentration of boats draws even more vessels, and there finally comes a point where even many of the fishermen who were originally hesitant to violate the no-target regulation, aware that less-conscientious anglers are enjoying good fishing and noting what seems to be a complete lack of law enforcement, decide to cross the line and become poachers themselves.

In the end, it’s all about active enforcement and holding poachers responsible for their actions. 

We learned that in Virginia over a decade ago, when poaching striped bass in the EEZ was running rampant, with anglers targeting the large concentration of fish that overwinter off that state’s coast.  There, the issue was not only recreational fishermen illegally targeting the bass, but illegally harvesting them as well.  Things became bad enough that NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement teamed up with the Virginia Marine Police to conduct an enforcement action targeting the violators.

Five Virginia charter boat captains were cited, and when charges were filed, they weren’t merely for violating federal striped bass violations.  The captains were also charged with violating the Lacey Act, which is a big deal for, as a press release issued by the United States Department of Justice explained,

“The Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase and fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any law or regulation of the United States, or to attempt to do so.  Such conduct constitutes a felony crime if the market value of the fish or wildlife is in excess of $350.  Under the Lacey Act, it is a ‘sale’ of fish or wildlife for any person, for money or other consideration, to offer or provide guiding, outfitting, or other services.

“Each of the captains, all of whom operated charters out of Rudee Inlet in Virginia Beach, was charged separately on Nov. 8, 2012, with violating the Lacey Act by selling charter fishing trips to harvest striped bass illegally in the EEZ, among other charges.”

The Lacey Act convictions made it possible for the courts to impose meaningful penalties, and not just the kind of small fines that could be written off as a cost of running a successful business.  Although the captains all decided to plead guilty to avoid the most severe consequences, even the negotiated settlements were severe.  In one case,

“Scott, captain of the Stoney’s Kingfisher, was sentenced to a $5,600 fine and $1,900 in restitution to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Scott was also sentenced to three years’ probation with special conditions prohibiting Scott from engaging in either the charter or commercial fishing industries, anywhere in the world, in any capacity, during the term of his probation.  Scott is prohibited from not only captaining a vessel, but also rendering any assistance, support, or other services, with or without compensation, for other charter or commercial fishermen.  [emphasis added]”

In another case,

“Lowery, captain of the Anna Lynn, was sentenced to 30 days in jail, followed by 12 months of supervised release with the special conditions that Lowery surrender his captain’s license to the U.S. Coast Guard and that he not be eligible for reinstatement of that license.  Lowery is also prohibited from engaging in the charter fishing industry in any capacity during the term of his supervised release.  [emphasis added]”

Penalties like that get people’s attention, and help to convince them that poaching striped bass is not a good idea.  From what I understand, vessels poaching bass in the EEZ isn’t a big problem off Virginia anymore.

Which is why we need the same sort of focused enforcement action, and the same sort of aggressive prosecution, in New York and New Jersey.  It will only take one or two such convictions, and one or two such penalties, to convince potential violators that even if law enforcement isn’t on the water every day, it’s not worth taking the risk that they might be out there on just that one day when a vessel operator, hungry for fish, might risk crossing the line into federal waters to pursue striped bass.

Without that sort of enforcement and resultant penalties, the poaching is going to continue unabated.

Because far too many striped bass anglers aren’t as altruistic as Mr. Hasbrouck appears to believe, and far too many of them feel no shame at all when they poach in the EEZ.