BLACK SEA BASS: CUTTING THE BABY IN HALF

 

On the morning of December 17, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board agreed to increase 2026 and 2027 recreational black sea bass landings by 20%, adopting a compromise measure in the face of ambiguous scientific advice and substantial uncertainty.

Whether such compromise constituted a prudent, precautionary approach to black sea bass management or an unreasonably risky decision, whether it created any long-term hazard to the black sea bass or the black sea bass fishery, or whether it will still leave anglers fishing under unreasonably restrictive management measures are questions that the members of the Council and Management Board answered based on their own risk tolerance, their own views of the fishery, and their own concern for the long-term impacts of management decisions.

I first wrote about the impending decision about a month ago, in the context of the November 19 meeting of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel meeting, when many Advisory Panel members supported a 39% increase in black sea bass landings, despite the uncertainty involved.  At the time, I characterized their eagerness to see landings spike as “Imprudence,” and I’m tempted to characterize the recent action of the Council and Board in a similar vein, but that wouldn’t be completely honest, as the issue is complicated, and there are arguably justifications for the 20% landings hike.

Having said that, if I was in a decision-making position, I would have voted the other way, both because of the uncertainty and because of some additional factors that, in my opinion, were largely skimmed over in the Council and Board discussions.  But had I done so, I would have been in the distinct minority (the relevant motion passed by a vote of 15 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstaining at the Council, and 8 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention, and 1 null vote at the Board), and I understand what motivated the majority’s views.

Partly, it was the lack of any clear scientific advice.

In the case of black sea bass (as well as summer flounder and scup) the primary scientific advice comes from the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, which sets the annual catch limit, and from a relatively new innovation called the “Recreational Demand Model” which, among other things, predicts what future landings would be based on what past landings were under existing regulations.

That advice is then filtered through Council staff and the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee, composed of scientists from NMFS, the ASMFC, and interested states, which provides the Council and Management Board with firm recommendations on the appropriate management measures.

At least, that’s the way things are supposed to work.  This time, the process didn’t quite function as planned.

There was no one reason for the problems besetting the black sea bass management process; it was more a question of a number of current and potential issues all converging on managers at the same time. 

A new research track stock assessment, completed in 2023, and subsequent management track assessments, relied on something called the Woods Hole Assessment Model (WHAM) instead of the Age Structured Assessment Program (ASAP) that had been used before, which may have resulted in more accurate data, but also increased the uncertainty associated with some aspects of the assessment.

A government shutdown in the fall of 2025 made it impossible for managers to obtain preliminary recreational catch data for July and August, or revised data for the first six months of the year, in time to include it in the Recreational Demand Model; by the time the shutdown ended and the data became available, it was too late to include it in a new run of the RDM, even though the new numbers suggested that landings during the first half of the year were higher than originally thought.  Although Council staff noted that

“it would be preferable to update the model with preliminary wave 4 data and 2025 black sea bass size distribution information, it is necessary to move forward with the model with the information currently available,”

There was just no time to proceed otherwise.

In addition, standard practice is to update the Recreational Demand Model with projections of the size distribution of black sea bass in the upcoming year which, as a November 7 memorandum from Julia Beatty, the Council staff member responsible for black sea bass, to Dr. Chris Moore, the Council’s Executive Director, notes,

“is consistent with past practice and allows the model to estimate catch based on predicted future availability of different sizes of fish.”

But this year, the Scientific and Statistical Committee didn’t base its calculations on such projections, largely because projections of a declining biomass in previous years proved inaccurate, and drew significant criticism at the December 2024 joint meeting of the Council and Management Board.  That created a situation in which the SSC and the Recreational Demand Model analyses were out of synch, with only the latter considering the future availability of different-sized black sea bass, although, at the December meeting, Council staff raised the possibility that such mismatch might not create material issues.

Still, the increased uncertainty in the Recreational Demand Model’s estimate of 2026 recreational black sea bass landings raised a new question. 

Uncertainty in the Recreational Demand Model’s estimates of future landings is measured by something known as a “confidence interval;” the 80% confidence interval that has been used up to now embraces a range of values above and below the point estimate of future landings (in this case, 5.86 million pounds) which, collectively, have an 80% probability of including the actual level of 2026 landings.  The Percent Change Approach used to set future recreational landings targets for black sea bass is supposed to take such confidence interval into consideration.  If a future recreational harvest limit falls below the lower bound of the confidence interval, managers are required to take a specified action, usually the adoption of more restrictive management meaures.  If the future RHL falls within the confidence interval, managers are required to take a different, specified action, while if the future RHL falls above the upper bound of the confidence interval, yet another specified action, typically relaxing the existing rules, is indicated.

Perhaps because the stock assessment employed the WHAM rather than the ASAP model, the 80% confidence interval for the Recreational Demand Model’s calculation of 2026 landings was very wide, ranging between 4.22 and 8.50 million pounds, while the 2026 recreational harvest limit was 8.14 million pounds, just within the confidence interval’s upper boundary.  Pursuant to the Percent Change Approach, 2026 and 2027 recreational black sea bass landings target should remain unchanged from what it was in 2025.

However, the wide 80% confidence interval led to substantial debate at the November 18 Monitoring Committee meeting.

Four of the 11 Committee members present felt that a narrower, 75% confidence interval should be adopted, which would narrow the gap between the confidence interval’s upper and lower bounds to a range similar to that prevailing for summer flounder and scup when the 80% confidence interval was used.  They argued that a 75% confidence interval would allow recreational management measures to be liberalized (the 5.14 million pound recreational harvest limit would fall just above the 5.06 million pound upper bound of the 75% confidence interval), which they viewed as a good thing given the size of the stock.

Three of the 11 Committee members supported continued use of the 80% confidence interval.  One of those three argued that reducing the confidence interval to 75% could be seen as a move intended to create a particular outcome—more liberal regulations—and argued that any change in the confidence interval should be supported by a strong rationale, which seemed to be missing here.  Another felt that changing the confidence interval felt “ad hoc;” that is, that it was being done to achieve a particular purpose (i.e., to justify liberalization).

The remaining four Committee members claimed to be undecided as to the proper confidence interval, and recommended leaving the decision up to the Council and Board, feeling that it was inappropriate to recommend between 75% and 80% given the impact that selecting either one would have on the outcome.  One member suggested that, lacking a strong rationale to support either choice, the determination should be made “as a policy matter” by the Council and Management Board.

Should the 75% confidence interval be selected, five Monitoring Committee members suggested that the Council and Management Board consider a 10% or 20% liberalization, rather than the 39% liberalization that the Percent Change Approach would allow; one member argued that the full 39% liberalization should occur.

Ultimately, when presented with the choice, the Council and Management Board opted not to address the confidence interval issue at all, but instead cut the baby in half, and increased recreational black sea bass landings by 20%.

Was that the right choice?

The majority of the two management bodies thought so, but as noted above, I disagree, and do so for multiple reasons.

My primary reason is because I believe that fisheries managers are focusing too much on the single statistic of spawning stock biomass, and not taking enough time to consider what that spawning stock biomass looks like.

According to the last research track stock assessment,

“across all stratification variables, maturity increased rapidly between ages 1-3 with an age of 50% maturity of approximately 2-years old and a length of 50% maturity of approximately 21 cm [approximately 8.27 inches].”

That’s a very small black sea bass. 

Fortunately, there are a lot of very small black sea bass around.  Recreational Demand Model results, published on October 24, reveal that black sea bass between two and four years old comprise about 20% of the black sea bass population when it measured in numbers of fish north of Hudson Canyon (although, if the upper bounds of the confidence intervals were considered, could theoretically constitute substantially more), with Year-0 and Year-1 fish making up most of the rest; black sea bass aged five or older seem to account for well under 10% of the population.  

That means that the age structure of the black sea bass population, or at least the northern portion of that population, is significantly truncated, with few larger—or, given the regulations in New York and New England, even legal—fish remaining in the spawning stock, which is largely made up of sea bass less than 15 inches long.

So, while the spawning stock biomass may be very high, and capable of maintaining itself over an extended period if conditions are right, due to the truncated age structure, it is also very vulnerable should conditions change.  And conditions might be changing right now.

A 2016 stock assessment noted that

“warm saline conditions improved juvenile survival,”

and then elaborated,

“Age 0 sea bass, which are generally less than 14 cm [5 ½ inches] when they leave coastal regions, tend to be more generally distributed across the [continental] shelf, perhaps due to slower swimming speeds.  Consequently their survival is related to conditions across the shelf.  If warm saline Gulf Stream water moves onto the shelf in winter, survival is high.  When cold conditions are the norm, survival decreases.”

For that reason, University of Connecticut Assistant Professor Hannes Baumann has commented that

“There are winners and losers when it comes to climate change.  Black sea bass are winners.”

However, even though northeastern waters have exhibited a long-term warming trend that is favorable to black sea bass recruitment, that trend can be interrupted by periods of cooling, and it appears that such a cooling period may already be underway.  Earlier this year, a publication released by the National Marine Fisheries Service, titled "2025 State of the Ecosystem, New England,” noted that

“2024 global sea surface and air temperatures exceeded 2023 as the warmest year on record, but colder than average temperatures were observed in the Northeast U.S.   Oceanographic and ecological conditions in the Northwest Atlantic were markedly different in 2024 compared to recent years.

“…Late 2023 and early 2024 observations indicate movement of cooler and fresher water into the Northwest Atlantic, although there are seasonal and local exceptions to this pattern.  Anomalously cold and low salinity conditions were recorded throughout the Northeast Shelf and were widespread across the Slope Sea for much of the year.  These cooler and fresher conditions are linked to the southward movement of the eastern portion of the Gulf Stream and possibly an increased influx of Labrador Slope and Scotian Shelf water into the system.”

A related NMFS press release stated that

“A companion longer-term outlook, also developed by NOAA scientists, suggests that more frequent inflows of cooler deep water may continue to temper warming in the basin for the next several years.”

The NMFS State of the Ecosystem report predicted that

“Long-term oceanographic projections forecast a temporary pause in warming over the next decade due to internal variability in circulation and a southward shift of the Gulf Stream.  [emphasis added]”

If the decade-long spike in black sea bass abundance has been the result of warm, saline water moving over the edge of the continental shelf during the juvenile fish’s first winter, it’s not unlikely that cooler, less saline water moving over the shelf throughout the next decade might lead to poor juvenile survival, and a sharp decline in black sea bass numbers.  The fact that the spawning stock seems to be concentrated in just three year classes of relatively young fish strongly suggests that if recruitment declines sharply, while fishing mortality remains high through 2027, the spawning stock biomass could decline quickly.

While that’s not an inevitable result, the truncated age structure of the spawning stock biomass makes it much more likely that such rapid decline could occur.

Even if that doesn’t happen, increasing the fishing mortality rate will inevitably result in further truncation of the age structure of the stock; absent measures such as slot size limits intended to focus harvest on younger elements of the population, such increases always have the greatest impact on the oldest age classes. 

Thus, James Gilmore, a Council member from New York and the former Director of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Marine Bureau, should have known better than to say that he was supporting the 20% increase in landings because

“I’m getting tired of catching three million little black sea bass because the biomass is so high,”

for by increasing the fishing mortality rate, he only makes it more likely that the larger individuals will be removed from the population, so that the only fish that remain would be the “little black sea bass” that are still protected and will make up nearly entire spawning stock.

A separate consideration militating against increased landings is that NMFS expects to have revised Marine Recreational Information Program data in place by 2026.  Such revised data will correct previous overestimates of recreational fishing effort, and thus recreational catch and landings, and so is expected to result in lower estimates of recreational harvest.  When that data is incorporated into the 2017 management track stock assessment, assuming that NMFS has the funding and the capacity to perform the assessment as currently scheduled, it will likely lead to the estimate of current spawning stock biomass, as well as the biomass target, being reduced from what it is today.

If that is the case, the current annual catch limit and related specifications, including the recreational harvest limit and recreational landings target, will almost certainly have to be revised downward as well.  Should that be the case, we are likely to see the liberalization in management measures put in place for 2026 and 2027 reversed, and replaced by increased restrictions for the 2028 and 2029 seasons, destroying the sort of regulatory stability that the Percent Change Approach was supposed to promote.

Worse, if the spawning stock biomass estimate is reduced as a result of the MRIP revisions, it will mean that the annual catch limit for black sea bass has been too high since 2017 or so, when the MRIP estimates had been adjusted upwards.  While that won’t matter too much on the recreational side, as the overestimate of both spawning stock biomass and recreational landings will more or less offset one another, it will mean that commercial quotas, which are based on the estimate of spawning stock biomass and the resultant annual catch limit, have been too high for a number of years, and will remain too high through at least 2027, raising the possibility that the stock might have experienced overfishing for part or all of a decade.

Liberalizing recreational landings towards the end of that decade could only make the situation worse.

Given all of those factors, which only contribute to the uncertainty surrounding the state and the future of the black sea bass stock, I believe that liberalizing the recreational management measures for the 2026 and 2027 seasons was the wrong thing to do, and was a mistake that may come to haunt the Council and Management Board, perhaps as soon as 2027, when it begins setting the specifications for the 2028 fishing season.

Once again, we saw mangers’ bias toward increasing recreational black sea bass landings, driven solely by the size of the spawning stock biomass, without any critical analysis of how that biomass is structured and without giving much thought to any other contingencies, lead them away from a precautionary approach.

Having said that, it could have been worse.  There was surprisingly little support for the full 39% increase in landings that might have occurred if the Council and Management Board had decided to endorse a 75% confidence interval.  And the scientific staff, whether at NMFS, the Council, or the ASMFC, were informally charged with examining the confidence interval issue in more detail, to perhaps determine whether standards regarding the proper confidence interval to use might be adopted.

Plus, as Ms. Beatty noted at the December 17 meeting, given the 30% increase in the recreational harvest limit for 2026, had the Percent Change Approach not been adopted, and had the old approach of trying to craft regulations likely to result in landings that approach, but not exceed, the recreational harvest limit were still in place, the 2026 landings increase could have been larger than the 20% that was ultimately approved.

So there were certainly arguments that support the Council’s and Management Board’s decision.

It’s just that, when all of the facts and uncertainties were pooled together, it seems that there were far more arguments that supported the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NMFS CONFIRMS YOUNGER BLUEFIN TUNA SPAWNING IN THE SLOPE SEA

 

In 2016, a group of biologists, many but not all of whom were employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which they announced,

“We present unequivocal evidence that Atlantic bluefin tuna spawn in the Slope Sea, counter to the current assumption that the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea are the exclusive spawning grounds.  We also demonstrate that the age at maturity of western bluefin tuna is currently overestimated, that this stock exhibits size-structured spawning migrations, and that migratory connections exist between western and eastern Atlantic spawning grounds…The implications of our work are most pronounced for western Atlantic bluefin tuna, which have a life history less vulnerable to overexploitation and extinction than is currently estimated.”

The researchers’ conclusions were based on the presence of bluefin tuna larvae in a region known as the “Slope Sea,” an area at the edge of the continental shelf east of the southern New England and upper mid-Atlantic states, as such larvae were too small and too young to have drifted from known Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds.

The presence of the larvae led scientists to question the estimated age at maturity for bluefin tuna. 

For many years, no bluefin less than nine years of age were found to be spawning in the Gulf of Mexico, and electronic tagging data confirmed that such large bluefin migrated from maritime Canada and New England down to the Gulf in order to spawn.  Biologists thus assumed that western stock bluefin did not mature until they were at least nine years old, which was a stark contrast to eastern stock fish, where 50% of the population was believed to be mature when just four years of age.

The discovery of bluefin tuna larvae in the Slope Sea, combined with electronic tagging data and three different lines of biological evidence relating to bluefin reproduction, led the researchers to conclude that tuna as young as five years of age were spawning there.  They calculated that, based on conditions that existed when the research was done, more than half of all western Atlantic bluefin tuna reproduction took place in the Slope Sea, and not in the Gulf of Mexico.

Those findings had implications for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery, for if correct, they would allow biologists to use a lower average age at maturity in their calculations, which would likely increase estimates of both spawning stock biomass and the level of landings that such increased biomass could sustainably support.

The 2016 paper seemed to represent a real breakthrough in bluefin tuna science, but it initially led to substantial controversy.  Dr. Barbara Block, a biologist who has done substantial research on bluefin tuna, called the research “interesting,” but said that she needed more evidence, including seeing sexually mature bluefin in the Slope Sea, before she could agree that younger, but still mature, bluefin were spawning there.

Others went further.

Amanda Nickson, who was the director of global tuna conservation at the Pew Charitable Trust, warned against placing too much reliance on the new findings, saying that

“New science and new information is good.  What one has to be careful of is attempting to manage the Atlantic bluefin population from a single study.  The situation is always complex.”

Dr. Andre Boustany, a bluefin expert at Duke University, also advised that the study’s findings be used cautiously, noting that if bluefin really do mature at younger ages, that the historical spawning stock biomass was larger than previously believed; thus, the SSB target for a rebuilt stock would also be higher.

Contrary to those who believed that a younger age at maturity would allow a larger annual harvest, Dr. Boustany noted that

“If we’re trying to rebuild the population during a certain time frame, than we might need to actually reduce the amount of fish we’re catching now.”

Thus, it would be safe to say that, when the paper was first released, people had a lot of                questions, and many were unwilling to accept its conclusions.  The debate went on for nearly a decade, but over time, after additional research was published, the claim that bluefin tuna spawned in the Slope Sea became more and more accepted.

In 2021, a paper submitted to the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences described research conducted on bluefin larvae collected in the Slope Sea in 2016, three years after the collection of the larvae described in the original study.  The authors of that study found that

“The collections of Atlantic bluefin tuna larvae in the Slope Sea in 2016, together with the otolith analysis and particle tracking analysis that they enabled, support the conclusion that the conditions in the Slope Sea are suitable for their growth and retention, and that they originated from spawning within the Slope Sea.”

However, the 2021 paper limited its conclusions to the origins, distribution, and mean abundance of bluefin tuna larvae collected in the Slope Sea.  It did not address questions such as the size and/or origin of the adults spawning in that location, or the relative contribution that the Slope Sea spawners make to the overall western Atlantic bluefin stock, compared to fish spawning in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, but only noted that the presence of a Slope Sea spawning ground “may” contribute to the resilience of the stock. 

The authors acknowledged that

“An important open question is the abundance, distribution, and identity of the spawning adults in the Slope Sea.  How many adults are spawning there, and do they consistently utilize the suitable habitat…Are they western individuals that mature earlier than previously understood, or is there significant stock mixing occurring between eastern and western individuals?...”

Some of those questions might have been answered in a paper published in 2023.  Titled “Evidence of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) spawning in the Slope Sea region of the Northwest Atlantic from electronic tags,” and appearing in the February 16, 2023 edition of ICES Journal of Marine Science, the paper said that, based on the results of electronic tagging,

“Our findings complement the larval analyses of [the papers published in 2016 and 2021], providing detailed behavioural data for the adult spawners that these [papers] inferred were present.  However, most of the spawners we identified were >10 years old…and, therefore, these results to not support [the 2016 paper’s] hypothesis that the [Slope Sea] is primarily a spawning ground for smaller individuals, nor do they support the argument for a lower age at maturity…Although our tagging is biased toward larger individuals, between 1996 and 2020 we added tracks for 123 fish tagged in the west at <10 years old, of which 73 extended into June the following year…A total of seven of the 73 were classified as [Slope Sea] spawners, the same as the proportion across the entire dataset.  Furthermore with the identified [Slope Sea spawners comprising only [about] 12% of [North Carolina]-tagged fish (and [about] 6% of those tagged in the [Gulf of St. Lawrence]), we do not find support for the contention that the [Slope Sea] spawning ground may be responsible for a more significant portion of western spawning than the [Gulf of Mexico].”

So, by 2023, biologists were beginning to build a consensus that the Slope Sea was definitely a spawning ground for bluefin tuna, but had not come to agreement on its importance, nor on the size or origin of the tuna spawning there.

Finally, on December 4, 2025, NMFS issued a press release announcing that

“Longline Sampling Confirms Young Bluefin Tuna Spawn in the Slope Sea.”

The release went on to describe NMFS researchers making two trips to the Slope Sea in the summer of 2025.  The purpose of the first trip was to sample bluefin caught on commercial longlines.  The samples taken appear to confirm that younger bluefin tuna are, in fact, spawning in the Slope Sea.

Scientists sampled 90 bluefin tuna—42 females and 48 males—ranging in size from 38 to 110 inches, with an average length of 72 inches, and

“observed multiple reproductive statuses associated with spawning,”

although those visual observations will be confirmed through further laboratory study.

The second trip to the Slope Sea collected thousands of bluefin tuna larvae.  As NMFS explained,

“The team is using genetic information across life history stages—from larvae to adults—to examine kinship, or the relationships between different fish.  They are using a technique called close-kin mark-recapture.  They’re also looking at how much mixing is occurring between the eastern and western Atlantic stocks.

“Analyzing these relationships will help us better estimate population size and resolve the 40-year-old mystery of tuna stock mixing in the West Atlantic.”  

Some of the initial results of the new NMFS research were presented and discussed at the 2025 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which occurred in late November, where a modest increase in the western Atlantic bluefin tuna harvest was approved.

The recent NMFS research largely confirms the conclusions reached in the original 2016 paper which announced the discovery of a new bluefin tuna spawning ground in the Slope Sea, which is utilized by bluefin notably smaller than those which spawn in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are still some questions that need to be answered, but the history of Slope Sea bluefin research, from the initial paper published in 2016 to the latest NMFS research, provides a good example of how fisheries science is developed, how it progresses and, most recently, how such science is used.

 

 

 

 

WHAT IS A FISH?

 

At the October 2025 meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, that Board rejected a proposal to reduce striped bass landings and so make it more likely that the stock will rebuild by the 2029 deadline imposed by the fishery management plan.

But it wasn’t a naked rejection.  Included in the motion to reject additional restrictions on the striped bass fishery was a proposal to create a “Work Group” charged with developing a white paper that could be used to inform future management decisions.  More specifically, as noted in the motion that created it,

“The goal of this Work Group is to consider how to update the [fishery management plan’s] goals, objectives, and management of striped bass beyond 2029, in consideration of severely reduced reproductive success in the Chesapeake Bay.”

The same motion directed the Work Group to include six specific topics in its discussions.  One of those topics was to

“Formally review hatchery stocking as both a research tool and a management tool for striped bass w/cost analysis.”

I have to admit that I cringed more than a little with respect to that topic, particularly to its mention of hatcheries as “a management tool” because I view hatcheries as an admission of abject failure, a concession that fisheries managers have failed in their efforts to maintain a fish stock or, at least, a concession that managers have experienced a failure of will, and will no longer make the effort to maintain a fish stock through natural means.

Instead, they turn to what are essentially factories designed to manufacture legions of man-made fish, to support unnatural fisheries where the primary intent is not to maintain fish populations that will perform their traditional roles in the ecosystems where their species evolved, but merely to entertain and enrich the people who participate in and profit from their capture.

And when we get to that point, the question needs to be asked, “Are they really fish at all?”

I recently came across an article written by John Waldman, a professor at New York’s Queens College.  Titled “The Natural World Vanishes:  How Species Cease to Matter,” it appeared in the April 8, 2010 edition of Yale Environment 360.  In it, Professor Waldman observed that

“Abundant research has shown that a fish is not a fish is not a fish,”

and quotes Richard Judd, who wrote in his book Common Lands, Common People:  The Origins of Conservation in Northern New England,

“An artificial resource maintained in a habitat no longer capable of spontaneous growth, fish became a property of the state rather than an element of the providential natural landscape.”

Thus, a hatchery fish, regardless of the species, is no longer a natural resource.  It is merely an object, existing without any meaningful context at all.

Mr. Judd’s comment is the sort of thing that I wish I had said first, because it perfectly sums up my views toward hatcheries and hatchery-based fisheries.

Still, others feel differently, and as striped bass reproduction grew ever worse, and the abundance of striped bass declined, it was inevitable that the topic of hatcheries would be raised, both by managers and by fishermen.

It’s not a new concept.

Maryland opened its Joseph Manning Hatchery in 1980, and although the facility has been and still is used to propagate a number of warm-water fish species, back in the mid-1980s one of its primary purposes was to produce striped bass in an effort to rebuild that stock, which had collapsed.  While it’s probably incorrect to say that Maryland’s stocking was ineffective, at least one scientific paper, “A Case History of Effective Fishery Management:  Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass,” which appeared in the May 1999 edition of The North American Journal of Fisheries Management, noted that

“Hatchery-reared striped bass were stocked in the Chesapeake Bay beginning in 1985 and may have accelerated recovery, though the benefits of stocking were far outweighed by the benefits of reducing fishing mortality.  [emphasis added]”

A striped bass hatchery was also built on New York’s Hudson River during the 1980s.  Costing 5.8 million dollars, it was funded by five electric power companies as part of a legal settlement between the companies, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, and concerned environmental organizations.  The hatchery effort was described in a June 8, 1986 article in the New York Times.

“’Our goal is always the same—to stock 600,000 fish,’ explained Bruce Friedmann, hatchery manager…The first year we produced 63,000 fish, the second year 156,000.  Last year we produced 293,000.  We’re hoping to continue that trend,’ to reach the 600,000 goal…

“…[S]ome biologists are turning to the restoration project as an important way to help the beleaguered bass species.  Others say that the hatchery programs are an expensive way to do it.  One biologist called the hatchery striper ‘a gold-plated fish…’

“New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation is evaluating the hatchery program.  ‘It’s a very expensive way to put fish back into the river,’ said Robert Brandt, aquatic biologist for the state agency.  ‘From hatchery to river it costs about $1 a fish, and there’s a question of whether these fish are viable once they’re in the river.’…”

The Hudson River hatchery apparently failed its evaluation or, at the least, was found to be an expensive luxury after the striped bass stock began to rebuild in 1989; the hatchery was closed soon after.

While it’s possible—and probably likely—that hatchery technology has substantially improved, and become more efficient, since the Times article appeared, if the best a Hudson River hatchery can do is produce about 600,000 fish in a year, that hatchery would still be producing fewer bass than local anglers remove from the population annually.  New York anglers harvested about 433,000 striped bass during the 2024 season, and probably killed another 359,000 as a result of release mortality in the same year, thus providing more evidence that reducing fishing mortality, rather than manufacturing striped bass, is the more effective way to rebuild the striped bass population.

And hatchery programs are expensive. 

Assuming that there were no changes in the efficiency of hatchery operations, the $1 it cost to produce each bass stocked in the Hudson in 1986 would equate to $2.85 today; stocking 600,000 bass in the mid-2020s would thus cost over $1.7 million per year.  Recreating the hatchery that cost $5.8 million in 1981 would cost more than $20 million in today’s dollars—and that assumes that the computerized equipment that would certainly be used to run hatchery functions today had the same relative cost as the gear used to operate the facility during the early 1980s.

Which makes reducing fishing mortality not only the more effective, but probably also the less expensive, way to rebuild the striped bass stock.

Of course, there will always be voices from the recreational fishing industry and various “anglers’ rights” organizations that will support the introduction of manufactured fish, including striped bass, into the nation’s waterways as an alternative to natural reproduction, in order to keep the sales of fishing gear high and keep anglers’ coolers full.  

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department freely admits that it uses artificially raised red drum, spotted seatrout, and southern flounder

“to ensure that harvest levels are sustained and stocks are replenished.  [emphasis added]”

However, there is little evidence that hatcheries, unlike lowered fishing mortality rates, have ever led to stable, sustainable, naturally-reproducing stocks of any popular commercial or recreational fish species. 

The first hatcheries used to stock Pacific salmon in United States waters appeared during the 1870s; in the 150 years since, more and larger hatcheries have continued to pump man-made salmon into Pacific coast rivers, but none have managed to rebuild a single salmon run, of any species, to the point that it could be sustained by natural reproduction alone.  Instead, despite the millions of dollars spent to dump millions of man-made salmon into rivers feeding into the Pacific,

“NOAA Fisheries has listed 28 population groups of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.”

It is difficult to believe that reducing fishing mortality on at least some of those population groups—those devastated by dams blocking their access to historical spawning grounds being, perhaps, an exception—before they declined to the point where an Endangered Species Act listing was justified, would not have been a more effective management approach than just manufacturing more salmon to dump into the rivers.

Yet, there are those who just like to catch fish, and don’t care what hatcheries cost taxpayers or what impact they might have on native fish.  For example, the Coastal Conservation Association’s Oregon chapter

“supports the important role hatcheries have to play in providing harvest opportunities while conserving, sustaining, and rebuilding salmon and steelhead stocks.  We also support efforts to improve the efficacy of hatchery programs to ensure that, consistent with native fish conservation, opportunities are not unnecessarily constrained.”

Such language, while providing lip service to conservation considerations, leave little doubt that “providing harvest opportunities,” while ensuring that angling “opportunities are not unnecessarily constrained,” are the organization’s primary considerations. 

While it is impossible to predict anyone’s response to a situation with complete certainty, it seems likely that, if given the choice between a reduction in fishing mortality that would shut down the recreational fishery for an indefinite period of time, but eventually rebuild native salmon runs, or continuing hatchery production and maintaining “harvest opportunities” but leave the native runs wanting, they’d opt to keep the hatcheries pumping out fish.

I would choose otherwise.

People fish for different reasons.  Some fish for food, some for entertainment, some to spend time with family or friends.  Some are driven by ego, while others seek solitude and peace.

I understand all of those motivations, and all of them are, or have been, a part of my own motivation, too.  But, for the most part, I fish to touch the wild.

There was something about angling that always appealed to me, even when I was very, very young.  As I got older, the ability to get out on the water, learn how the marine ecosystem worked, and how fish—and most particularly, for many years, the striped bass—related to seasons and light and tides, the movements of baitfish, and all of the other factors that affected their behavior, fascinated me, and took me into a place where all of the concerns of school and, later, of work and all that involved, went away, and I could concentrate on more primal and, to my mind, far more real, concerns.

With that came a deeper understanding of the fish themselves, where they bred, how they migrated, and what they required to maintain themselves and support viable fisheries. 

It’s probably a difficult thing for a non-angler to understand—although I think most hunters would get it—but to use hard-gathered knowledge and execute a plan that results in meeting a wild creature on its home ground and bringing it successfully to hand, ignites an atavistic satisfaction, a feeling of being in touch with an ancient world that those who spend their time in more civilized pursuits will never know.

To have the wild removed from that pursuit, to know that the fish in my hand was unnaturally manufactured by man, no different than a golf ball or computer game that was produced solely to entertain, would strip the moment of wonder, and cause me to wonder whether the pursuit had any meaning at all.

For by seeking fish that are, as Mr. Judd called them, “an element of the providential natural landscape,” I become a part of that landscape as well. 

And it is in that landscape, and not in some unnatural vista where only factory-produced semblances of fish hold sway, that I choose to reside.

 

 

 

 

WHAT DO STRIPED BASS FISHERMEN REALLY BELIEVE?

 

When the striped bass management debate heats up, and managers debate the need for more restrictive management measures, various special interest groups within the recreational fishery come to the fore, each one claiming to speak for the striped bass angler.

We saw this in the recent debate over Addendum III to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. 

It is difficult to forget the comments of Michael Waine, a spokesman for the American Sportfishing Association, at the December 16, 2024 meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, when the addendum was first proposed.  At that meeting, Waine tried to discredit the many comments made by anglers who supported management measures that would have protected the large 2015 year class during the 2025 season, while saying that he, the American Sportfishing Association, and its members would generate comments from other anglers who might constitute a silent majority who did not agree with those who put their thoughts on the public record:

“I look at the public comments and I know there are millions of striped bass anglers out there, millions, and I’m only seeing 25-2800 comments from a lot of the same people that we know have been commenting.  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 like the public comments really are a good reflection of that diversity.  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 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 the same all the time.  Find the people who care about the resource, and value it in a way that their voices should be heard too…”

Then, in the written comments sent in ahead of the October 2025 Management Board meeting, we saw the American Sportfishing Association joined by the Boat Owner’s Association of the United States, the Center for Sportfishing Policy, the Coastal Conservation Association, the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, and the National Marine Manufacturers Association as signatories to a letter opposing the 12% harvest reduction that had been deemed necessary to rebuild the striped bass spawning stock by 2029, which declared that

“We represent the entire recreational fishing and boating community, including businesses that serve all anglers, regardless of economic background or preferred fishing technique.  [emphasis added]”

Of course, they never quite explained exactly who appointed them to represent us all, nor why they believe we all consented to such representation?

When you consider that four of the six named organizations are trade associations serving their member businesses rather than anglers, and a fifth, the Boat Owner’s Association of the United States, is also closely tied to the boating industry, having entered into an agreement to

“exclusively promote West Marine’s boating equipment to Boat Owner’s Association members,”

in return for West Marine promoting

“services offered by Boat America and memberships in the Boat Owner’s Association of the United States (an affiliate of Boat America which was not acquired [when West Marine purchased other Boat America assets, which included its retail, catalog, and wholesale operations])”

it certainly seems like such groups are representing their own interests, and aren’t all that concerned with what striped bass anglers might want.

The sixth signatory, the Coastal Conservation Association, is an “anglers’ rights” organization with, at best, a trivial presence in the states with a striped bass fishery, having only a very small chapter in New Hampshire and small chapters in Maryland and Virginia.  Although it once had chapters throughout much of New York and the coastal New England states, those chapters faded away, largely due to the national organization catering to its large Gulf Coast membership and exhibiting little consideration for northeastern concerns.  The fact that the current CCA website states that

“by 1985, chapters had formed all along the Gulf Coast.  By the early ‘90s, the South- and Mid-Atlantic regions had CCA chapters, in 2007 Washington and Oregon chapters were formed and in 2015 the CCA California chapter was created,”

without mentioning the five (four now defunct) northeastern state chapters at all pretty well says all one needs to know about CCA’s presence and involvement with anglers on the striper coast.

But recently, a contingent of recreational striped bass fishermen have been given a chance to speak for themselves, as part of a study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and other academic institutions, the results of which were published in the paper “Understanding beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes of anglers in the Striped Bass recreational fishery along the Atlantic coast of the United States,” which appeared in the November 2025 edition of the journal Marine and Coastal Fisheries.

The researchers explained that

“The online survey launched on May 1, 2023, and was open for responses until October 15, 2023, coinciding with the Striped Bass angling season along the Atlantic seaboard.  Recreational anglers 18 years and older who had experience targeting Striped Bass along the Atlantic coast of North America, spanning from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada to Georgia in the United States, could take the survey.  The survey was administered through the Qualtrics online survey platform, and the methodology was approved by the University of Massachusetts Amherst International Review Board…Survey distribution was carried out by a range of angler organizations (i.e., American Saltwater Guides Association), industry groups (i.e., Cheeky Fishing, Patagonia Fly Fishing), nonprofit organizations (i.e., International Game Fish Association, Keep Fish Wet, Stripers Forever), and fishing clubs (i.e., Cape Cod Salties, Cape Cod Trout Unlimited, Osterville Anglers’ Club, Cape Cod Flyrodders) that shared the survey via social media platforms (i.e., Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook), email, and e-newsletters.”

The survey results provide an insight into how anglers view the state of the striped bass stock and the efforts made, or not made, to conserve it.

One of the survey’s more interesting findings was how anglers perceived the current health of the striped bass stock.  68.3% of the anglers who fished with spinning or conventional gear were “somewhat to extremely satisfied” with their current fishing experience, although only 57.2% of fly fishermen shared that view.  The researchers noted that

“Fishing quality was mostly rated as fair to very good from the 1990s to present, although respondents reported a significant decline in angling quality from the 2000s to the 2020s.”

It was also interesting to read that

“Anglers with fishing histories dating back to the 1970s generally ranked fishing quality in the 2000s and 2020s lower than anglers with shorter fishing histories.  This suggests a loss of intergenerational knowledge transfer and possible ‘shifting baselines’ phenomenon, where more experienced anglers have witnessed a decline over time while newer anglers might lack the reference points for previous conditions. [citation deleted]” 

As someone who caught his first bass in 1960 or ’61, and who was at least a once-weekly participant in the fishery by the summer of ’67, and who fished just about every day that I wasn’t attending classes in high school, college, or law school during the 1970s, I don’t find that surprising at all. 

The survey also explained why angler satisfaction can be a deceiving metric.

“Overall satisfaction with fishing quality varied by gear preference, with anglers using conventional tackle being generally more satisfied than fly anglers.  This may be driven by spin anglers reporting higher angler catch rates than fly anglers.  Fish often aggregate in preferred habitats, and technological advancements, especially for boat-based anglers, enable more efficiency locating fish.  This can mask signs of overexploitation, as catch rates remain stable despite actual decreases in fish abundance, a phenomenon known as hyperstability.  Their seasonal nearshore migrations and fidelity to specific spawning grounds allow Striped Bass to be reliably targeted by anglers across diverse environments and with various tackle types, making them particularly vulnerable to hyperstability.  Further, angler perceptions of good fishing quality may be skewed by the fishery’s current reliance on the last robust year-class of 2015.  Biological assessments reveal that this perception of good fishing quality is misleading because of the limited success of specific spawning events…  [citations omitted]”

Despite the perception held by many anglers that fishing quality remains fairly good,

“Concern about the state of the fishery was generally high among anglers and increased as anglers became more committed to fishing.  More dedicated anglers often develop a stronger connection to their environment and are more attuned to ecological issues and changes within the fishery, resulting in a heightened sense of stewardship among experienced anglers.”

Given that concern, it’s not surprising that anglers are largely supportive of regulations intended to conserve the striped bass resource.

“In Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, the majority of anglers considered the slot limit for Striped  Bass to be either appropriate or too loose while they viewed the one-fish bag limit and the gear regulation (i.e., only inline circle hooks when fishing with natural bait) as appropriate.”

The study noted that surveys conducted a decade ago in Massachusetts and Connecticut found less support for the one-fish bag.  What it did not acknowledge was that, prior to 2015, a two-fish bag limit had been in place for two full decades, so going to a one-fish bag represented a substantial new restriction on recreational landings; after ten years (eight years at the time the survey was taken), anglers have become used to the smaller bag limit, and probably no longer consider it a serious imposition on their ability to harvest striped bass. 

The survey suggests that the seeming current acceptance of the one-fish bag limit

“could be reflective of an increased proclivity towards catch and release among our surveyed demographic driven by sampling bias from our distribution methods, though a strong catch-and-release ethic exists among anglers that target trophy-sized Striped Bass, stemming from concerted management and angler efforts during the stock collapse and moratorium of the 1970s.  Alternatively, as harvest regulations have become increasingly strict, mandating more fish be released, the angler attitudes captured in this survey may be evidence of a shift towards an increased catch-and-release mindset compared with previous studies conducted a decade ago.  [citations omitted]”

When all of the information was tallied, the researchers were able to conclude that

“Considering that the majority of respondents acknowledged the necessity of regulations and expressed a desire for those regulations to be grounded in scientific research along with the strong support of the ASMFC emergency action, it is clear that at least a subset of Striped Bass anglers along the eastern seaboard are highly invested in the stewardship of this fishery.”

The question that still needs to be answered is just how large that subset of anglers dedicated to stewardship might be.  The researchers openly admit that

“it is noteworthy that over 70% of responses stemmed from anglers primarily fishing in New England, particularly Massachusetts…Although virtual snowball sampling schemes [which this survey apparently was] depend on participants sharing the survey within their networks to increase sample size, which can introduce sampling bias, this geographic distribution of respondents is not surprising given the majority of Striped Bass angling effort is concentrated in New England.  [citation omitted]”

However, that latter statement is inaccurate, as a slight majority of striped bass angling effort has, at least in recent years, been concentrated in the mid-Atlantic, which was responsible for about 52% of the directed striped bass trips in 2021, 59% in 2022, 56% in 2023, and 53% in 2024.  So it is at least possible that, if a more representative number of mid-Atlantic anglers had been sampled, the results of the survey might have been somewhat different.

The researchers also admit that

“our findings may be subject to sampling bias as responses could be skewed deeply involved (i.e., avidity bias) and conservation-minded anglers.  This can likely be attributed to the highly specialized and conservation-oriented angler organizations…fishing companies…and nonprofit organizations…that aided in distributing the survey link.  This may have resulted in an overrepresentation of fly fishers in our survey population compared with the overall fishery.”

Another possible source of bias, which the researchers didn’t acknowledge, was that the sample of anglers surveyed probably included a higher percentage of anglers with some sort of post-secondary education—91.92% of the respondents had at least “some college,” while 71.36 had either a bachelor's or post-graduate degree—than would be found in the general striped bass angling population, a factor that also could have skewed the results toward support for striped bass conservation and science-based management policies.

So, the study’s findings can certainly be challenged

Still, it at least provides a look into how one subset of the striped bass fishing community views the health of the striped bass stock and the value and direction of striped bass management.

And for that insight alone, it will help to inform the management debate.

STRIPED BASS: CAMERAS (AND BAD FISH HANDLING) KILL

 

It gets kind of ridiculous, particularly in these days of a 28- to 31-inch slot size limit for coastal striped bass.

Somebody catches a big fish, a bass likely to break 40 pounds, and maybe even break 50.  After a long fight, they bring the bass into the boat or drag it onto the beach, then start digging for their phone or  camera as the fish lies gasping on the deck or the sand, trying to breathe.  Eventually, the photos are taken, with the bass kept out of the water for a minute, two minutes, or more as the angler strikes multiple poses for multiple snapshots before finally putting the fish in the water where it can, hopefully, finally take a good gulp of water and start breathing again.

At times, the bass just lies there, floating on its side, and when that happens, more times than not, the angler will sort of swish it back and forth in the water for 30 seconds or so, hoping that it might revive itself and slowly swim off into the distance.  Sometimes, that happens, and when it does, the angler will assure anyone who asks that “It swam away strong.”

When it doesn’t, and the bass continues to float, the angler might swish it back and forth a few more times, and if continues to lie prostrate on the ocean’s surface, console himself by saying, “Sometimes that will just happen.  There’s nothing that I can do.”

But some recent research provides reason to question whether any of those statements are really true.

As I have noted in previous blog posts, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has stated that

“The recreational [striped bass] fishery is predominantly prosecuted as catch and release, meaning the majority of striped bass caught are released alive either due to angler preference or regulation (e.g., undersized, or the angler already harvested the daily bag limit).  Since 1990, roughly 90% of total annual striped bass catch is released alive of which 9% are estimated to die as result of the fishing interaction (referred to as ‘release mortality’ or ‘discard mortality’).  In 2024, recreational anglers released alive an estimated 19.1 million fish, of which 1.7 million fish are assumed to have died.”

Since those 1.7 million bass that died after being released are approximately equal to the number of bass harvested by recreational fishermen in 2024, and are more than 2 ½ times as many bass as were killed in the commercial striped bass fishery (landings and discards combined) in the same year, they definitely affect the state of the stock.  Taking reasonable action to reduce release mortality thus makes sense.

Unfortunately, too many anglers don’t really understand what “reasonable action” involves.  A few years ago, in an effort to maintain a sustainable fishery, they have replaced harvesting fish with something that well-meaning folks titled “C.P.R.”, with the three letters standing for “Catch.  Photo.  Release.”

Although the effort was well-meaning, and was intended to offer an alternative to catch-and-kill, the emphasis on photographing one’s catch turned out to be a bad idea, particularly in the social media age, when websites such as Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and others have become flooded with still photos and videos of not-particularly-notable striped bass being waved around in the air, lying on people’s laps or on the decks of boats, or stretched out, sand-covered and gasping, on an ocean beach.

It didn’t take much thought to realize that such poor handling practices weren’t good for the striped bass, although we couldn’t really quantify just how bad they might be.

But now we know, thanks to a paper titled "Effects of capture and handling on striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the recreational fishery of coastal Massachusetts,” which appeared in the August 2025 issue of the journal Fisheries Research.  It provides a pretty good understanding of just how much handling, and how much time out of the water, a striped bass can take.

As explained by the paper’s authors,

“Understanding how striped bass respond to capture and handling, particularly air exposure, is crucial for improving management and angler practices to maximize post-release survival.  This study evaluated the physical and physiological condition of 521 striped bass subject to catch-and-release angling across different gear and tackle types and five air exposure treatments using reflex action mortality predictors.  A subset of striped bass (n=37) caught on conventional gear and double treble hook lures were fitted with triaxial accelerometer biologgers to assess short-term post-release activity across three air exposure treatments…

“The integration of reflex action mortality predictors (RAMP) and triaxial accelerometer biologgers has become a reliable method for evaluating the cumulative effects of capture and handling on fish during release.  Assessment of RAMP involves evaluating the presence or absence of multiple (usually between 2 and 5) reflexes identified to be consistently present in vigorous individuals.  Previous studies provide evidence that these tests are often predictive of short-term post-release behavior and/or mortality.  Triaxial accelerometer biologgers effectively quantify fine-scale activity, behavior, and short-term mortality of fish after release.  These biologgers are attached to fish in a minimally invasive manner and measure acceleration (g) across three axes (x, y, z).  When combined with RAMP assessments, they provide detailed insights into additional aspects of the angling event and environmental conditions, helping to bridge critical gaps in our understanding of how fish respond to capture, handling, and recovery.  [references omitted]”

All of the fish sampled were caught, using standard conventional and fly fishing techniques, between May 6 and October 24, 2023, and between May 5 and July 3, 2024, off the coast of Massachusetts.  Researchers measured both the fight time and the handling time.  The fish ranged in size from 10 to nearly 40.5 inches in length, with the mean size of the fish caught on conventional gear just under 28 inches and the mean size of the fish caught on fly gear about three inches smaller.

The researchers found that the time handling fish out of the water mattered. 

A lot.

 

As noted in a description of the study provided by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (the lead researcher is a member of the UMass/Amherst staff)

“The stripers were divided into groups that remained out of the water for 0, 10, 30, 60, and 120 seconds before being thrown back.

“This was the first time that air exposure was scientifically and systematically tested to see its effects on striped bass…

“[The researchers] discovered that air exposure was the most significant factor influencing striped bass stress and post-release swimming activity.  Higher water temperatures, fighting for longer periods of time and getting hooked somewhere other than in the jaw all increased their recovery time.

“Fish released immediately or after only 10 seconds retained most of their reflexes and recovered quickly, [one of the researchers] said, adding that ‘stripers that had been out of the water for 60 seconds took 8-10 minutes to swim similarly to the low air exposure group.’

“In addition to finding fish out of water for 120 seconds never fully recovered during the 20 minute monitoring time, they also found that the bigger the fish, the greater toll of being hooked, landed, and released.  Reducing angler impacts on big fish, particularly females, is critical to the future of the population.”

The current slot limit was put into place to protect the older, larger female striped bass, which are believed to produce more eggs, larger eggs, and eggs more likely to produce viable fry and are, particularly given the current period of poor recruitment and abundance decline, deemed to be too valuable to intentionally kill.

But the efficacy of that slot limit can be, and very possibly is being, substantially reduced when those older, larger striped bass—perhaps the “50” that an angler has been seeking for the past two or three decades—are unintentionally killed by anglers who land them after a difficult fight, drag them into a boat or onto the shore, and then keep them out of the water for an extended photo session.

And even though smaller bass are probably somewhat more resilient, the Internet hero and self-declared “influencer” who walks around on a jetty with a Go-Pro attached to his head, or who has cameras set up on his kayak, so that he can film every 10-pound bass that he catches for his YouTube channel isn’t doing the stock too much good, either.

So if we really want to help the striped bass, the first step is to keep the cameras at home, so that fish can be released as quickly as possible, preferably without taking them from the water at all.  To all of those folks who are about to object that they’re fishing from boats, and have to bring the bass on board in order to unhook it, I’ll only say this:  I’m fishing out of a 32-foot Topaz, a traditional inboard sportfisherman with its rails a long way from the water.  And just about every week during the summer, I take out a team of researchers from Stony Brook University, who manage to bend far over those rails to perform surgery on sharks that might be small, or might weigh upwards of 300 pounds, along with taking blood and tissue and fecal samples.  If those researchers can cut open the abdomen of a shark, insert an acoustic tag, and then sew the fish back up before release, if they can find a blood vessel in that shark, insert a needle and take the needed sample, and if I can snap the hook with a bolt cutter and then reach down with a pair of needle-nosed pliers to remove the remains of the barb from a shark’s jaw, then an angler can lean over the side of the typical outboard with the same sort of pliers—or perhaps a dehooker—and unhook a striped bass without removing that fish from the water at all.

And to those surfcasters who fish from jetties and rock ledges, and say that they can’t safely perform an in-water release much of the time, my question is whether, after they unhook the fish up in the rocks, they feel confident that they are going to get a good release on a fish that might need some reviving before it swims away.  Because if someone truly cares about the striped bass’ future, as so many surfcasters claim to do, tossing a fish back in the water in the mere hope that it survives should not be good enough.  They should either fish from places where a good release—preferably an in-water release—is possible under existing conditions, or not target striped bass in such places at all.

As anglers, we are by far the greatest source of striped bass fishing mortality, responsible for 86% of all such mortality in 2024, and an even greater proportion in previous years.  With the striped bass facing an uncertain future, we are ethically obligated to minimize that mortality to the extent that we can.  As the recent research shows, proper fish handling, which includes foregoing long, out-of-water photo sessions of the fish that we catch and keeping bass out of the water for the shortest possible time, can help keep mortality down.

For while the original form of C.P.R. may help the victim of a drowning or heart attack, the kind of C.P.R. that’s applied to striped bass too often leads to unintended death.