NOAA National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in the process of overhauling it recreational fishing policies. Stripers Forever sees this as an opportunity to create a new national policy that will guide and improve local fishery management decisions that have not been good for the needs or rights of recreational salt water fishermen.
Here are Stripers Forever’s comments to NOAA:
Stripers Forever, a conservation and recreational advocacy organization focused on striped bass along the East Coast offers the following comments on NOAA recreational fishing policy.
NOAA must stand up in the fishery management process for recreational fishing. On a local basis it is very difficult for recreational fishing to get the consideration it is due because commercial fishing has historically been seen as the more important use of the resource. Politicians are very slow to take new and forward thinking positions that they do not thoroughly understand, and these politicians control the appointment process for all aspects of local fishery management.
The federal government often has a different view of wildlife management than the states because it is not as easily controlled by small segments of the public. The history of waterfowl management provides one of the clearest examples of how the influence of the federal government was needed to change the fishery management practices within the states. Action by the federal government could now be very important in improving recreational fishing opportunities, and this would overall be very beneficial.
There are a number of strong justifications for giving a great deal more consideration to recreational fishing than it currently receives.
I. Issues that justify greater allocations and management consideration for recreational fishing.
A. Personal Use Allocations
SF sees recreational fishing as members of the public directly accessing for their own personal use and enjoyment a resource that all citizens have an equal right to. The precedents are clear in wildlife management that this individual right has the highest primacy when compared to other harvesting.
In many cases today we see commercial fishing quotas taking such a bite out of a scarce resource that a reasonable personal use harvest is not possible, and this is simply wrong. NMFS should stand up for the rights of individual citizens to have a fair harvest allocation before commercial fishing harvests the surplus – if in fact there is any surplus.
B. Conservation
Because of the comparatively inefficient and non-invasive equipment used by recreational fishers they do not take large percentages of a fish population from a defined area at any one time. Recreational equipment also tends to be far less harmful to the environment than commercial gathering techniques such as bottom dragging, nor does it cause ghost fishing issues that take place with the use of gill nets. Also, because there is no profit motive fishing will generally not occur beyond taking the bag limit. The greater conservation values in recreational fishing activity when compared to commercial fishing should be recognized and supported. If, for instance, a fishery or a fishing location cannot support commercial fishing activity recreational activities should not be automatically banned just because commercial fishing activities are not appropriate.
C. Economics
In most or perhaps all fisheries that are participated in by recreational anglers the public benefits by receiving a greater amount of economic activity than if the same fish were taken by commercial fishing. There is no justification for harvesting the fish commercially if it generates less economic activity than would be available through recreational fishing. In spite of rhetoric about providing seafood for people, all commercial harvest does when confronted with a limited resource is to take fish away from those willing to harvest their own and sell them to someone else. No additional seafood can be created, and less economic activity and jobs are produced in the process.
D. Social Benefits
The great American conservationist Gifford Pinchot said: “Conservation is the foresighted utilization, preservation and/or renewal of forests, waters, lands and minerals, for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time.” Surely our continued management of fish to fulfill the desires of the small number of people within the commercial fishing industry provides benefits for less people than a recreational fishery with many times the participants. For those fish enjoyed by recreational fishing it is obvious that the greatest social benefits can be achieved by optimizing the populations of those species to get the most public participation in the fishery.
E. Right Thing To Do
It is obvious to all thinking individuals that we should not destroy our populations of ocean fish, yet that is exactly what we have done. Commercial fishing interests have been able to leverage local politicians and on up the political ladder to have the greatest influence of any user group on the fishery management process. The result has been the essential destruction of our marine fish populations. Clearly these practices have to end and we need to rebuild our fishery populations. It will not be possible to do this and manage them allowing as much commercial harvest as we have in the past. NOAA has the ability to greatly influence the fishery management process for the better by adopting and promoting policies that recognize the rights of recreational anglers and the benefits of recreational salt water angling. Typically local fishery management has no guiding policies of any kind, and NOAA’s policies will become the benchmark.
II. Additional issues that must be addressed to improve recreational fishing experiences and enjoy the associated benefits.
- “Willingness to Pay (WTP)” must be replaced with some other more practical allocation metric – one that the managers can understand and apply today. The fact that each individual recreational participant is a citizen with equal rights to all others must be recognized.
- Minimum standards for recreational fisheries must be established – a hard catch per unit effort (CPUE) should be set where possible to ensure an acceptable probability of catching a fish.
- Abundance must be evaluated in terms of the minimum catch per unit effort established for a “successful” recreational fishery in recognition of the fact that it takes more fish to have a successful recreational fishery. For fisheries participated in by recreational anglers it must be formally recognized that maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is not an appropriate concept.
- Better effort data must be continuously collected for the recreational fishery. MRFSS and MRIP have been relied on for years, not because they provided the best data but because they were easiest to implement.
- Recreational participation in the management process at the council and commission level must be increased. These venues are traditionally saturated by commercial interests. For many jurisdictions, there is essentially very little recreational representation at the ASMFC.
- We need to stop hiding behind phrases like “fair and equitable,” and words like “reasonable” that are poorly defined in the context of fisheries. The federal recreational fisheries policy should either stop using these terms or give them some teeth in practical terms that can influence policies. When the law says that allocation policies shall “Not permit a particular individual, corporation, or other entity to acquire an excessive share of fishing privileges,” what does the word “excessive” mean?
Sincerely:
Brad Burns President of Stripers Forever
You also have the right to make your own comments. Here is the link to where you can do that on your own.
If we don’t speak up we will be ruled by those who do. Let your opinions be known.
“Where have all the Stripers Gone?”
The most important game fish in local waters is in deep trouble. The writer, a renowned fisherman and longtime conservation columnist for Salt Water Sportsman, thinks he knows why. BY RIP CUNNINGHAM
EXCERPT:
“Scuttlebutt and bad news have the tendency to travel faster than good news or the real facts. That’s human nature and nowhere is it truer than around the docks, where all anglers become possessive about their favorite quarry. When something changes for striped bass, New England’s premier sport fish, and that change is perceived to be bad news, you can be sure the sky will soon be predicted to fall.
As this is being written, there is a sense that “the sky is falling.” Stripers are anadromous fish, meaning they breed in fresh water and live most of their mature lives in salt water. The fish we see around the Cape and Islands spawn in the Chesapeake Bay, and to a much lesser extent in the Hudson River, and migrate up the coast to Maine and beyond. At one time there may have been small local populations that bred in New England rivers, but industrial development extirpated virtually all of those stocks. Stripers can live to thirty years; the largest on record was a 125-pound female caught off North Carolina in 1891. On the Island, the largest fish entered in the Martha’s Vineyard Striped Bass and Bluefish Derby was a sixty-pound lunker caught by Dick Hathaway in 1978, though there is anecdotal evidence of larger fish that were not entered.
For many on the Vineyard and around the Northeast, the spring arrival of stripers is nothing short of a religious experience, and when something happens to delay or change that experience the news impacts the entire year’s fishing season. Perception soon becomes reality.Bad news is jet fuel for the internet, and by mid-summer alarmed anglers on the waterfront and the internet are howling: “Where are the fish? They haven’t arrived here yet.” “Is the population crashing?” “There aren’t any big fish.” “There aren’t any small fish!” “There aren’t any freaking fish at all!”
All of this is happening with striped bass now, at a time when some thought we might have turned a corner and headed in a sustainable direction. Overfishing and poor environmental conditions led to the collapse of the fishery in the 1980s, but through intensive management by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission the stocks began to rebound. Some states implemented moratoria on striper fishing; Massachusetts was not one of them, but between 1985 and 1993 the derby did its part by not including bass in the tournament. By 1995, the striper population was considered to be fully restored.
So what is the problem today? Or more accurately, what are the problems? Not surprisingly for a migratory fish that relies on both rivers and the ocean and is fished by both commercial and recreational anglers, there are multiple factors involved. And as is often the case for an environmental issue, one’s opinion on which factor plays the largest role often depends on one’s particular perspective and bias. We all see things through our own eyes. The factors include, but are not limited to, several years of poor spawning success, too much fishing pressure on mature – eight-years-old and up – fish, and habitat and forage issues…”
Full article sourced from Martha’s Vineyard Magazine
ASMFC Public Hearings on Striped Bass Draft Addendum IV
Atlantic Coastal States Schedule Public Hearings on Striped Bass Draft Addendum IV
Arlington, VA – The Atlantic coastal states and jurisdictions have scheduled their hearings to gather public comment on Draft Addendum IV to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. The dates, times, and locations of the scheduled hearings follow.
Maine Department of Marine Resources
September 4, 2014; 6-9 PM
Orion Performing Arts Center
MSAD#75, Mt. Ararat Middle School
66 Republic Avenue
Topsham, Maine
Contact: Terry Stockwellat 207.624.6553
New Hampshire Fish and Game
August 27, 2014; 7 PM
Urban Forestry Center
45 Elwyn Road
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Contact: Doug Groutat 603.868.1095
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
September 2, 2014; 10 AM
Nantucket Community Room
4 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts
Contact: Jared Silvaat 617.626.1534
September 2, 2014; 6 PM
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Admiral’s Hall, 101 Academy Drive
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Contact: Jared Silvaat 617.626.1534
* MA DMF will also be seeking public comment on Spiny Dogfish Draft Addendum V at this hearing
September 3, 2014; 6 PM
MA DMF Annisquam River Station
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester, Massachusetts
Contact: Jared Silvaat 617.626.1534
* MA DMF will also be seeking public comment on Spiny Dogfish Draft Addendum V at this hearing
September 4, 2014; 6 PM
Viking Club
410 Quincy Avenue (Route 53)
Braintree, Massachusetts
Contact: Jared Silvaat 617.626.1534
Rhode Island Division of Fish & Wildlife
September 17, 2014 at 6 PM
University of Rhode Island, Corless Auditorium
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Contact: Nicole Lengyel at 401.423.1940
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
August 26, 2014; 7 PM
Marine Headquarters, Boating Education Center
333 Ferry Road
Old Lyme Connecticut
Contact David Simpson at 860.434.6043
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
September 16, 2014; 7 PM
Stony Brook University Wang Center, Room 201
Stony Brook, New York
Contact: Carol Hoffman at 631.444.0476
Click here for google map to Wang Center
September 23, 2014; 7 PM
NYSDEC Region 3 Office
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York
Contact: Kathy Hattala at 845.256.3071
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
September 4, 2014; 7-9 PM
Galloway Twp. Branch of the Atlantic Co. Library
306 East Jimmie Leeds Road
Galloway, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020
* Will immediately follow the NJ Marine Fisheries Council meeting
September 15, 2014; 7-9 PM
Toms River Town Hall
L. M. Hirshblond Room
33 Washington Street
Toms River, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020
September 9, 2014; 7-9 PM
Ridgefield Park Elks Lodge #1506
Corner of Spruce Avenue and Cedar Street
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission
September 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Silver Lake Nature Center (http://www.silverlakenaturecenter.org/)
1306 Bath Road
Bristol, Pennsylvania
Contact: Eric Levis at 717.705.7806
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
September 11, 2014; 6 – 8 PM
DNREC Auditorium
89 Kings Highway
Dover, Delaware
Contact: John Clark at 302.739.9914
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service
September 25, 2014; 6-9 PM
Cadby Theater, Kent Humanities Building
Chesapeake College
1000 College Circle
Wye Mills, Maryland
Contact: Michael Luisi at 410.260.8341
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
September 22, 2014 at 6 PM
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
2600 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor
Newport News, Virginia
Contact: Rob O’Reilly at 757.247.2248
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
September 23, 2014; 6 PM
222 Taylor Street
Colonial Beach, Virginia
Contact: Martin Gary at 804.224-7148
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
September 29, 2014; 6 PM
Dare County Government Complex
954 Marshall C. Collins Drive
Manteo North Carolina
Contact: Michelle Duval at 252.808.8011
The Draft Addendum proposes new fishing mortality (F) reference points, as recommended by the 2013 benchmark stock assessment, and associated management measures to reduce F to a level at or below the proposed target within one or three years. It responds to results of the 2013 Atlantic striped bass benchmark assessment indicating F in 2012 was above the proposed F target, and female spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been steadily declining below the target since 2006. This means even though the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, SSB is approaching its overfished threshold and stock projections show SSB will likely fall below the threshold in the coming years. In addition, a similar decline has been observed in total harvest. In response to these factors, the Draft Addendum proposes management options to reduce fishing mortality to the target level.
The Draft Addendum includes a suite of management options to reduce recreational and commercial harvest along the coast and in the Chesapeake Bay under three reduction timeframes. The timeframes include (1) reducing F to its target in one year with a 25% reduction in 2013 harvest in 2015 (2) reducing F to its target within three years with a 17% reduction in 2013 harvest in 2015, and (3) reducing F to its target within three years with a 7% sequential reduction in harvest for three consecutive years starting in 2015. Specific options to be considered include bag, size, slot and trophy size limits for the recreational fishery and quota reductions for the commercial fishery.
Given the Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River (A/R) stock of striped bass contributes minimally to the coastwide complex when compared to the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, and Hudson stocks, Draft Addendum IV proposes it be managed by the State of North Carolina using stock-specific biological reference points. These stock-specific reference points, which have been approved by the Board, would result in a separate quota that is set to maintain F for the A/R stock at its target level. The Board tasked the Technical Committee with the continued development of Chesapeake Bay-specific reference points for future use.
The Draft Addendum is available at http://www.asmfc.org/files/PublicInput/StripedBassDraftAddendumIV_PublicComment.pdf and can also be found on the Commission website (www.asmfc.org) under Public Input. Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on the Draft Addendum either by attending state public hearings or providing written comment. Public comment will be accepted until 5:00 PM (EST) on September 30, 2014 and should be forwarded to Mike Waine, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, 1050 N. Highland St, Suite A-N, Arlington, VA 22201; 703.842.0741 (FAX) or at mwaine@asmfc.org (Subject line: Draft Addendum IV). For more information, please contact Mike Waine, at mwaine@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.
STRIPED BASS NEED YOUR HELP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
Saving America from a Clean Chesapeake
Recovery of the estuary that provides 75 percent of the Atlantic striped bass population is being fought by 21 states, only one of which is in the watershed.
In February 2014, Florida joined a lawsuit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s belated effort to render Chesapeake Bay clean enough to be taken off the EPA’s “impaired waters” list by 2025. If this action seems inexplicable, rest assured that it is not. Columnist and novelist Carl Hiaasen has unearthed the answer: Because Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Florida Governor Rick Scott are “complete tools” and “pimping” for polluters.
Florida has no monopoly on tools and pimps. They abound in 20 other states whose attorneys general signed on to the same action. The amici curiae brief was filed to seek judicial relief from alleged hardships a clean Chesapeake would inflict on people who live not just in Florida but also Alaska, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Wyoming, Michigan, Montana, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina and West Virginia. Only one of these states—West Virginia—is (partly) in the Chesapeake watershed.
As Hiaasen notes, “You can’t make this stuff up.”
Click below to continue reading the full article
This excerpt is from the article “Saving America from a Clean Chesapeake” By, Ted Williams
