asmfc winter meeting takeaways
February 18, 2020
It’s been two weeks since the ASMFC meeting on striped bass, bluefish, menhaden and others, and there’s been a decent amount of coverage on it already, but there are a few things that I think are worth emphasizing that maybe didn’t get quite enough attention.
Momentum is Building
This was covered pretty extensively by a number of people, but I think it’s worth calling out again because it’s really our only chance moving forward.
At least some Conservation Equivalency proposals, like New Jersey’s option to harvest fish from 24”-28”, were rejected, a first for the Commission. Protecting these smaller fish until they are AT LEAST large enough to spawn may be our last chance at a recovery in the near future.
Despite the fact that the end result wasn’t as good as it looked like it might be, the discussion amongst the commissioners during the meeting was precedent-setting. Led by commissioners from Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and a few other states, questions were raised about Conservation Equivalency proposals, and, for the FIRST TIME EVER, proposals were reviewed on a state-by-state basis and some were even rejected. Now, some of those gains were given back by what we’ll go into next, but this is a big deal, and it was due to feedback from concerned anglers and citizens in those states.
It might not be moving as fast as we would like, but change is happening, and the amendment discussion that will begin in May is either our biggest opportunity or our last chance to protect these fish before they completely collapse again. We cannot lose hope and must continue to stand up and speak up for striped bass.
The Commission Lost Sight of Its Mission with New Jersey
The Commission was on the right track, pushing hard for coast-wide consistency that would have improved the chances for the proposed slot to be effective. After rejecting New Jersey’s Conservation Equivalency proposals, the discussion changed from focusing on what was best for the fishery to what was fair to each state. As a result, New Jersey was provided the opportunity to come up with an additional Conservation Equivalency proposal that capped the harvest size at 40” or lower, granted only that it was approved by the Technical Committee.
This was deemed fair because of how large New Jersey’s reduction in harvest would have been under the ASMFC slot of one fish between 28”-35,” and because Rhode Island had been granted approval on a CE proposal that increased its slot to 1 fish at 30”-40.” What wasn’t discussed, however, is why the reduction would be so much higher in New Jersey than any other state, which puts a whole different lens on the discussion. The reason that New Jersey’s reduction would have been so much higher than other states (40%+) is because they kill more fish than any other state, and the reason they kill so many more fish is because they took advantage of Conservation Equivalency five years ago to make sure that was possible.
In 2015, the ASMFC completed another addendum to reduce harvest. To do so, it proposed reducing harvest from 2 fish at 28” per person per day down to 1 fish at 28” per person per day. In response to that, New Jersey submitted a CE proposal that would allow anglers to keep 1 fish from 28”-40” AND 1 fish 43” or larger per day. It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to understand that being able to keep 2 fish per day (3, if you’re including the state’s bonus tag program that allows those who purchased one to keep an additional fish from 24”-28” - this will remain in place, btw, and actually likely be expanded in terms of when it can be used during the year), while adding a restriction on fish in only a 3-inch range, would not result in the same reduction as being able to keep just one. Despite that, the proposal was approved by the Technical Committee and the Commission, and New Jersey has been operating under that premise for the past five seasons.
So with that, let’s revisit that whole discussion on what’s ‘fair’ for New Jersey and change the perspective to what’s ‘fair’ for the rest of the states that participate in the fishery. The states that have acted and continue to act in the best interests of the fishery (or at least more in that direction than NJ and MD have). What’s fair is that a migratory species, one that spends time in each state from North Carolina to Maine at different times of the year, is managed consistently across its range, and is managed in a way that prevents it from being overfished. What’s fair, is exactly what ALMOST happened a couple weeks ago, and that is that states looking to take advantage of a loophole in the system are turned down by the regulatory body in the best interests of all its participants and the fish itself. What’s not fair, is what actually happened, and the fact that we are now heading into another period that almost guarantees New Jersey and Maryland harvesting fish at a level that makes the intended coast-wide reduction impossible.
… And Maryland
These larger bass, the most fecund female breeders, are the ones that the slot is intended to protected. The ASMFC lost track of that when it came to Maryland’s Trophy Season. What’s fair is fair, we’re all fishing the same fish.
The ‘fair’ discussion didn’t end there, either. Maryland brought up what was ‘fair’ In regards to being able to kill larger striped bass during their trophy season because Maryland doesn’t have access to larger fish during much of the season because they migrate north. While that’s true, this in no way means that Maryland anglers should be able to harvest those larger fish. States to the north, which have access to those fish for longer periods of time, cannot, so why would it make any sense that anglers in Maryland would have a few weeks to target and harvest the larger fish?
Separately, the whole, ‘we don’t have access to large striped bass during the summer’ thing really strikes the wrong tone with me. Unlike CT and RI and MA, which really only have striped bass and bluefish (outside of bottom fish) during their entire inshore season, Maryland has access to southern visitors, red drum, speckled trout, cobia and jacks during the summer.
There are different fisheries in different places, but that shouldn’t grant any state the ability to harvest fish from a migratory stock that NO OTHER STATE has access to. Maryland has already been granted that, with the Chesapeake-specific regulations allowing for the harvest of smaller fish. To allow them to harvest the large breeders – the ones that the slot is specifically intended to protect – as well, is ridiculous, especially when it’s granted in the name of ‘being fair because the states only has access to those fish for a short portion of the season.’ Listen, I love fishing for striped bass and bluefish in the Western Long Island Sound, but would I trade a few months of it to have access to additional species, like big jacks, trout, red drum and cobia for example? Hell yes, sign me up for that.
There’s absolutely no sympathy for Maryland because they don’t have access to large striped bass all year – after-all, none of us do – and allowing these fish to be harvested in the state during the trophy season has got to stop if we’re working with a slot.
Accountability
Once again, any discussion about accountability measures is new to the Commission, and the fact that a motion to implement them was even voted on was a precedent-setting event. That said, the argument against won-out, with really no logic behind it. As Capt. John McMurray pointed out in his recap of the proceedings, Conservation Equivalency proposals are based on projected effort and harvest, which are derived using data from MRIP (the Marine Recreational Information Program). Despite that, the reason that accountability measures were voted down was because the argument was made that there’s not enough data to accurately analyze harvest to know whether the targeted reductions have been met. See the contradiction there? If MRIP is good enough to use to form Conservation Equivalency proposals in the first place, why would it not be good enough to judge their efficacy?
It’s no surprise that those states that pursued Conservation Equivalency options were against accountability, because they are not confident that what they’re proposing will work as they claim it will. If they thought otherwise, there would be no hesitation.
By implementing accountability measures, Conservation Equivalency might even have a future. There was a telling moment later in the day, when the Commission discussed bluefish and conservation equivalency proposals for the new regulations, and a Commissioner said something along the lines of ‘I don’t know how comfortable I feel about granting CE given what we just went through with striped bass, but since there’s accountability, I guess it’s ok.’ Maybe not exactly the attitude you would hope a regulatory body would take around a species it oversees, but it shows how accountability changes the discussion and forces states to act in-line with the targets of quotas and regulations. One or the other with striped bass. At a minimum, we either need to do away with Conservation Equivalency or implement Accountability. There’s no other way this will work.
It’s One Stock of Fish
At the end of the day, we all fish for the same striped bass. Whether you’re in Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey or Virginia, the striped bass population migrates up and down the coast. Accordingly, regulation of a fish that migrates like striped bass needs to be a consistent, coast-wide regulation for everyone. Further, we need a regulatory body that will stand behind the limits it has put in place. Right now, all we have is the ASFMC, and the future of striped bass is at risk.
If we don’t keep standing and speaking up, and increase the pressure on the Commission to do the right thing with the amendment process starting this spring, things are only going to get worse.
Stay tuned and be ready. We’re going to need everyone on this.