“Conservation” Equivalency or “Exploitation” Equivalency?
“Conservation” Equivalency or “Exploitation” Equivalency?
ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board Meeting on 2-5-15
By Ken Hastings, ASMFC Policy Coordinator of Maryland
Since the decision has been made by the Board to cut the coast-wide catch of striped bass (SB) by 25%, the member jurisdictions got a chance to propose the details of how they were each going to meet the new limits. In ASMFC terms, this is referred to “conservation equivalency.” In theory, it means that the states don’t have to follow the ASMFC guidelines for bag limits, sizes and seasons if they can come up with other ways to meet the same goals. Under this “give and take” arrangement between the governing Board and its members, less conservative approaches would not [knowingly] be approved.
The devil really is in the details as evidenced by the vast array of options presented by the members at the meeting on Feb. 5 in Alexandria, VA. Each member had multiple approaches to be considered and one had nine approaches to managing just the commercial quota. Altogether, there were over 50 recreational options and almost 20 commercial ones.
It is important to remember that the initial objective of the recent addendum was to reach a specific spawning stock biomass (SSB) goal by 2016. The 25% reduction predicted to reach the goal was based on data and assumptions threatened by massive uncertainties to the extent that the probability of reaching the 2016 goal was only 50% to start with. So, after years of debate and research, the probability of success for this “science-based” outcome was the same as the probability of getting a “heads” result from the toss of an unbiased coin before the Feb. 5 meeting. If conservation had been the true objective, one might expect that a higher percentage would have been selected to help swing the odds toward a successful outcome but it wasn’t.
Most of the meeting was spent lamenting the complexity of the options and the associated new uncertainties that would pile on top of the uncertainties plaguing the 25% decision in the first place. It was agreed that simple approaches would be easier for the fishermen to understand and for the police to enforce. The advantages of regional approaches with consistent rules for adjacent jurisdictions were generally accepted. Ease of enforcement (according to the enforcement committee) is better for bag and size limits than for slot limits. Having consistent rules for adjacent tributaries in the same jurisdiction is better than having multiple different sets of rules depending on where the fish are caught.
In some cases, the Technical Committee (TC) wasn’t able to predict variables like fishermen behavior. In the case of recreational poaching, for example, there is some prior year MRIP data regarding how many people kept too many fish or fished outside the size limits. While it is universally recognized that human nature probably precludes perfect compliance with any rule or law, and in spite of the 2013 MRIP data validating this premise for fishing, the TC assumed universal perfect compliance in evaluating the proposals for conservation equivalence. Most sources of compliance uncertainty were eliminated – intentional poaching, unintentional infractions based on ignorance of the rules, and law enforcement miscues over jurisdictional limits and conflicts for examples. A standard 9% was used for dead discards but it isn’t clear that a one-fish limit won’t encourage high-grading from the ice chest in order to maximize the size of that one fish. In the end, the TC admitted that they couldn’t scale the uncertainties because their magnitudes were too uncertain.
Since all of the proposals had been submitted to the TC in advance and were judged to result in at least the same conservation levels as the initial TC guidance, it appeared that all that discussion about uncertainty was just for show and everyone was going to get their choice of options from the laundry list they submitted. However, MD wasn’t completely happy with that approach and needed to squeeze just a little more out of their trophy season conservation equivalency by proposing a bag limit of one fish either between 28” and 36” OR one fish over 40.” Note that this is almost the same as one fish over 28” except for the four inches left out of the slot limit. Given all the uncertainties leading up to the 25% decision doomed to a coin toss success future, compounded by the uncertainties associated with the myriad of proposals, it seems unlikely that anyone understands SB population dynamics well enough to debate the four-inch part of the slot limit. The friendly amendment to change MD’s proposal seemed to be favorably received so the Potomac River Fisheries Commission threw their name into the pot as well.
It was like an hour plus of discussions about uncertainty and how to minimize it never happened. The motion, prepared before the meeting was called to order, was flashed on the screen, plus the MD/PRFC changes, and universally approved by the Board.
Of course, it isn’t quite over yet. The TC requested that the members get back to them with the options they finally select so the actual reductions can be validated. Since the options had already been validated, it isn’t clear what the TC plans to do with them after they are made into local rules and laws. They certainly can’t expect to influence the cascading uncertainties or to improve the probability of meeting the 2016 SSB goals that by now must be much worse than the unbiased coin toss outcomes.
Also, the Chesapeake Bay’s role as the primary producer area for coastal SB gives MD, VA and PRFC other Conservation Equivalency options since their resident stocks are smaller and allegedly dominated by male fish. They have always had their own reference points derived from local annual stock assessments but they lost that option with the new addendum. The TC has agreed to develop new reference points guidance for the Bay. Not to be left out of a chance to increase exploitation of SB, other places that may have some producer history (DE, Hudson River in NY, and NJ) want a piece of this action as well. Even NC may qualify so a subsequent addendum may be in the works after the May ASMFC meeting.
Perhaps the term “Conservation Equivalency” should be changed to “Exploitation Equivalency” because there seems to be precious little conservation embedded in this process.
2014 Annual Angler Survey Results
In 2014 we received 830 responses to our annual survey. 752, or 84% of the respondents, have fished for stripers for more than 10 years. This is a very experienced sample of the angling population, many of them fished for stripers throughout the good years of the 1990s and early 2000s then the subsequent decline. This year’s survey has again produced a good representative sampling of sentiments from fishers all along the striper’s migratory range, and as usual MA and NJ vied for the greatest contributions with 206 and 199 completed surveys respectively.
2014 was another year of declining sentiment. 88% of fishers reported catching fewer fish compared to just 2% reporting catching more. Also, 71% said they were catching smaller fish compared to only 15% claiming they were larger. It seems evident that most of the older, larger fish from the great year classes of the 1990s and early 2000s have been removed from the population leaving us with smaller fish and many less fish from the poor year classes that have generally characterized the fishery since 2003.
The survey shows that our members continue to believe we should not be harvesting large, breeding stripers, that they want to set aside a high percentage of the current commercial catch for conservation – and not harvest it themselves – and that they are willing to buy a stamp to finance the buyout of the commercial fishery.
We had survey results from 77 guides, which is down from 89 last year. Without a doubt the decline in striper fishing is hurting this valuable industry as well as the related fishing tourism and tackle businesses. The guides know how to fish their areas, though, and can usually produce the best results possible from their home waters. If you are thinking about a guided trip please check out the guides and tackle shops listed on the Stripers Forever website.
We will send this information to the press and to fishery policy makers everywhere. We hope that you will use this information personally to help us advocate for the goal of coast-wide striped bass game fish. Please share the results with your local fishing club, home town newspaper, and elected officials that you may know.
The complete 20 page PDF of the 2014 Annual Angler Survey is available below. You will also find both the questions and the responses listed by state. Comments we received from both anglers and guides are included; as usual there were some very good ones, and they have not been edited.
Another PDF document entitled Key Comparisons is also found below. Key Comparisons graphs out the answers to some particularly important questions. The questions that we use have been the same for the ten years we have been doing the survey.
Key Comparisons 2003 through 2014
If you have any questions about the survey please don’t hesitate to e-mail us at: stripers@stripersforever.org
2014 Annual Angler Survey
For most of us another striper fishing season is over and that means it’s time for our 12th annual fishing survey of our members. This survey is both a measurement of our members’ fishing success, the quality of the fishery, and a solicitation of their opinions on desired regulatory changes for the striper fishery. This survey is an important part of our work as it shows our fishery managers how the public perceives the trends in the quality of this important fishery.
We’re using an online survey from SurveyMonkey to make it easy to complete. The link below will take you directly to the survey. It will take you only a couple of minutes to fill in and submit your answers.
Your input is more valuable than ever. Please take the time to take the survey, your response plays an important role in the protection of Striped Bass. The more completed surveys we receive the better.
An additional way to help is to simply forward this entire e-mail to all of your fishing acquaintances. If you got this e-mail from a friend, it is because you are not in our membership database. Membership is FREE, and we do not sell anyone your e-mail address or other contact info. Please go to the membership page [ http://www.stripersforever.org/membership/ ] on the Stripers Forever website and sign up for free today. It takes less than one minute, there is no cost to be a member, and you can unsubscribe anytime you want.
Thank You,
Brad Burns, President and the Board of Directors of Stripers Forever
Chuck Furminsky of Fly Fishing Show shares letter to ASMFC
Chuck Furminsky of Fly Fishing Show, who is a avid striper fisherman, shares a letter he wrote to the commissioners of the ASMFC. Below is the content of the full letter:
November 11, 2014
The last several years I’ve fished harder and smarter, but my
success in catching stripers has not improved. It’s been so
disappointing my frustration has me analyzing the management of
the fishery and talking to many people who know way more than
me. I’d like to share some of my thoughts and experiences.
For the record, I am not an educated biologist with a PhD, nor do
not have access to the latest statistical fishery data. But I do spend
an in ordinate number of hours fishing for stripers and keep
updated with other passionate fishermen’s results.
There are common denominators that appear in regards to the
striper fishery on the East Coast. Although, I fish mostly from my
home in Ocean City, NJ, I travel to Cape Cod, the Vineyard and as
far south as North Carolina. Those excursions allow me to see
with my own eyes, hear directly from fellow striper fishermen, and
– probably most influential – discuss the striper fishery with the
fishing shops and charter captains. Sadly, everyone agrees. We
are in trouble.
The good years we experienced were so good, now that they are
gone everyone feels the loss. It’s no surprise the millions of
dollars spent for travel, motels, restaurants, boat investments,
hiring guides, chartering boats, tackle, and much more has
plummeted. The reason being we all invest in something we love
to do, but if the end result vanishes, there is no incentive to look
for sad experiences. Those who have the opportunity to make the
fishery work must realize we are depending on them to do
something. There have been meetings where the public can
address their views, but only a select group have the power to pass
the rules, establish catch limits, and manage the sport in a fair way
for sport fishermen and commercial fishermen alike.
There are many reasons – both simple and complicated – that have
damaged the fishery. Some are not able to be controlled, like
weather patterns, physical changes in the striper waters, as inlets
and beaches, and numbers of fishermen that seek out and harvest
stripers. However, these can all be influenced by proper
management to counter-balance the uncontrollable
happenings. Government fishery boards that have the
responsibility must act. It’s been too bad the process has been
slow and stagnant in many situations.
It seems that due to the range that covers the striper fishery, both in
spawning periods, and basic migration patterns, not one
management board can present an isolated plan. All the states
should work together with a plan that benefits everyone, not just
their state. The fish do not stay in one place, so their rules of
survival must be diversified and enforced over their entire range.
I don’t claim to have all the correct answers, but a few obvious
changes need to be implemented ASAP. Size and numbers of
stripers must be regulated for everyone, both recreational and
commercial fishermen. We can’t keep harvesting a dwindling
stock and pretend it won’t have a serious influence.
A friend and noted fishermen, who does have a doctorate in
biology, once quipped to me, “We don’t kill and eat the horse that
wins the Kentucky Derby, so why do we do it to the largest stripers
that could have produced tens of thousands of offspring?” It
makes you wonder whether perhaps a less productive younger
striper would be better than a cow female to harvest.
The period to respond to the striper fishery is now. In many cases,
it’s already passed. I would like nothing better to be wrong. But
we can’t sit on our hands. We also need to consider and hear
everyone’s voice. Too many politically-motivated decisions are
made that are beneficial to an influential, but powerful
minority. There is too much at stake for everyone where stripers
are part of their lives.
Not to be sarcastic, but there are bean counters who recommend
the final decisions. My suggestion is for those responsible to pass
the regulations to go out and speak to the passionate striper
fishermen. Every community has a person who lives the sport, a
shop that knows the daily facts on the striper fishery, and they will
have no reason to be dishonest or political. Someone sitting in
their office working on charts and statistical surveys on their
computer is only part of the decision process. Let’s consider every
opinion and stop analyzing and waiting.
Stripers and those that support the fishery need help. Now.
Sincerely,
Charles Furimsky
Fly Fishing Show Director
