ASMFC 2022 Spring Meeting- Draft Amendment 7 Final Action

ASMFC 2022 Spring Meeting

Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board

Wednesday May 4, 2022 | 11:30 AM – 5:15 PM (1 hour lunch break included)

Webinar Link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6673024452273516048

By Taylor Vavra (Vice President/ National Board Member)

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon.” Tomorrow, May 4, 2022 the ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will meet to take final action on Draft Amendment 7. Let’s hope that there is a better future for Striped Bass beyond the horizon. At tomorrows meeting the board will take final action on Draft Amendment 7. It will put into action a monumental and comprehensive management plan with the hope of restoring the stock to abundance and preventing similar mistakes from reoccurring in the future. As expected, public comment and sentiment from individuals and organizations was largely in sync and only a few options revealed split preferences.

Stripers Forever supported the options which we believe will best serve the stock and do so in the quickest timeframe. There was good support for seasonal closures to help curb recreational release mortality, the majority in favor of spawning area harvest closures with no target closures coming in second. We will consider this a win as there were 3358 combined comments in support of the two options. We believe that no target closures would be easier to enforce and do less harm to pre-spawn and spawning fish whom could be mishandled in a catch and release scenario. Another win comes in the way of the majority in favor of a requirement for states to perform outreach and education efforts on best handling and release practices. We believe angler education is fundamental to reversing the impact of the recreational sector in regards to release mortality. Lastly, conservation equivalency saw almost unanimous support for the the most conservative options to limit and hopefully prevent the use of it by states who in the past may have taken advantage.

The supplemental materials for the meeting (link below) contains an overview and summary of the public comments received by the ASMFC. This document includes summary tables for each option and a brief descriptions of the option most favored.

We will be tuned in to tomorrows meeting and will be following up with a summary of what takes place and what we should expect in the future.

---

FINAL AGENDA

• Welcome/Call to Order (M. Gary)
• Board Consent
  • Approval of Agenda
  • Approval Proceedings from January 2022
• Public Comment
• Draft Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Final Approval Final Action
  • Review Options and Public Comment Summary (E. Franke)
  • Advisory Panel Report (E. Franke)
  • Law Enforcement Committee Report (K. Blanchard)
  • Consider Final Approval of Draft Amendment 7
• Review 2022 Stock Assessment Update Projection Scenarios (K. Drew)
• Consider Next Steps for Draft Addendum VII to Amendment 6 Possible Action
  • Motion from October 2021: Move to defer until May 2022 consideration by the Atlantic Striped Bass Board of Draft Addendum VII to Amendment 6 to allow further development and review of the transfer options
• Review and Populate Advisory Panel Membership (T. Berger) Action
• Elect Vice-Chair Action
• Other Business/Adjourn

---

LINKS:

• Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board- Main Materials (Draft Agenda/ Meeting Overview)
• Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board- Supplemental Materials (Draft Amendment 7- Public Comment Summary/Analysis/All Comments)

ASMFC Draft Amendment 7: Public Comment Guide

By Taylor Vavra

Vice President/ National Board Member

As we have said before, this is now an all hands on deck situation. The period of state by state public hearings on Draft Amendment 7 of the ASMFC’s Striped Bass management plan is underway and written comments are now being accepted with a deadline of April 15, 2022. It is vital that the public speak up and let the Commission know we are not happy and that we are paying close attention to their actions moving forward. The fact is, because of your collective support for stronger conservation in the early days of this process a year ago, draft Amendment 7 was pushed farther toward stronger conservation than it would have been without your involvement.

While the state by state hearings are a welcome and valuable part of the process, they do not provide the public with the ability to fully express their commentary on draft Amendment 7. We certainly encourage everyone to attend and participate either in person or online, the polls being conducted are a new and an interesting way to gauge overall sentiment on options within the amendment. We are strongly suggesting, even if you have attended a hearing, that you also submit written comments to the Commision. Your written comments can be generated on your own time and you can choose to either select all options, as we have done below, or pick out whichever options are most important to you. Those options should be preceded by a short summary of your feelings about how the board has handled the management of Striped Bass and how you would like them to handle it going forward.

Here is the important part. Stripers Forever is not providing a form letter for you to copy and paste and send to the ASMFC. The reason behind this is the board has made it clear that form letters from organizations will not carry the same weight as those submitted by individuals writing in their own words. We could not disagree more with this policy. Capt. John McMurray (NY representative on the board and ASGA president) contested this openly with the board but unfortunately they choose to stick to their guns on this policy. It is vital that your comments be written in your own words. And while we provided some reasoning for our choices below you should not feel obligated to do the same in your submission to the commision.

Stripers Forever members were unified in our position that a ten-year equitable (recreational & commercial) harvest moratorium was needed. Many agreed with us, including other conservation groups and like-minded individuals, and they joined us in speaking out. The ASMFC took notice, and while they rejected the idea of a moratorium, significant changes were made to important provisions like restrictions on conservation equivalency, shorter triggers for mandated action, and a tacit acknowledgment from the Commission that recreational anglers have lost patience with twenty years of failure on the part of the ASMFC. We may be revisiting the implementation of a moratorium once the results of the next stock assessment are released in October 2022.

Our recommendation is to use these hearings and your letters to the Commission to turn up the heat. Let them know you are disappointed, angry, and paying close attention. Demand action and accountability to the Striped Bass’ dominant constituency. There are tens of thousands of us who want to see Striped Bass restored to abundance. We will no longer tolerate their failure. The bottom line is, your participation is more important than ever before, be part of the process!

Thank you for your support and dedication to the cause.

---

You may submit public comment by attending a public hearing held in your state or jurisdiction or mailing, faxing, or emailing written comments to the address below. Comments can also be referred to your state’s members on the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board or Atlantic Striped Bass Advisory Panel; however, only comments received at a public hearing or written comments submitted to the Commission will become part of the public comment record.

Mail:

Emilie Franke
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
1050 N. Highland Street, Suite 200 A-N
Arlington VA. 22201

Email: comments@asmfc.org (Subject: Draft Amendment 7)

Fax: (703) 842-0741

---

For reference, here are few common terms which will help you better understand the language used within many of the options.

• F– Fishing Mortality Rate
• FMP– Fisheries Management Plan
• JAI– Juvenile Abundance Indices
• SSB– Spawning Stock Biomass
• TC– Technical Committee

---

The goal was to be as brief and clear as possible while still providing some reasoning for the options supported. Here are the options that Stripers Forever will support in our formal letter to the ASMFC and options we suggest our membership also support:

4.1 Management Triggers

TIER 1 OPTIONS: Fishing Mortality (F) Triggers

– Option A: Timeline to Reduce F to the Target– SF supports Sub-option A1 (status quo): Reduce F to a level that is at or below the target within one year.

• • • • Reasoning: We believe that wherever possible the board should move as quickly as possible to reduce fishing mortality. Sub-option A1 offers the shortest timeframe to get it back below the target.

–Option B: F Threshold Triggers– SF supports Sub-option B1 (status quo): If F exceeds the F threshold, the striped bass management program must be adjusted to reduce F to a level that is at or below the target within the timeframe selected under Option A.

• • • • Reasoning: Best of the two sub-options, action will not be taken under B2 unless a two year average of F exceeds the F threshold.

–Option C: F Target Triggers– SF supports Sub-option C1 (status quo): If F exceeds the F target for two consecutive years and female SSB falls below the SSB target in either of those years, the striped bass management program must be adjusted to reduce F to a level that is at or below the target within the timeframe selected under sub-option A.

• • • • Reasoning: Best of the three sub options in regards to action trigger in the least amount of time. C2 requires 3 years of F exceeding F target and C3 has no trigger related to F target.

TIER 2 OPTIONS: Female Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) Management Triggers

–Option A: Deadline to Implement a Rebuilding Plan– SF supports Sub-option A2: Two-Year Deadline to Implement a Rebuilding Plan. The Board must implement a rebuilding plan within two years from when an SSB-based management trigger is tripped. A management trigger is not considered tripped until the Board formally reviews and accepts, if necessary, the results of the relevant stock assessment.

• • • • Reasoning: This option puts in place a two-year deadline to implement a rebuilding plan. A1 (status quo) does not put in place a deadline to implement a rebuilding plan.

–Option B: SSB Threshold Trigger– SF supports Sub-option B1 (status quo): If female SSB falls below the SSB threshold, the striped bass management program must be adjusted to rebuild the biomass to the target level within an established timeframe [not to exceed 10-years].

• • • • Reasoning: B2 offers no trigger related to the female SSB threshold. We believe that while an F trigger would likely be in place it is also important to keep an eye on and take corrective measures if the female SSB is in trouble.

–Option C: SSB Target Trigger– SF supports Sub-option C1 (status quo): If female SSB falls below the target for two consecutive years and the fishing mortality rate exceeds the target in either of those years, the striped bass management program must be adjusted to rebuild the biomass to a level that is at or above the target within an established timeframe [not to exceed 10-years].

• • • • Reasoning: Again, C1 offers the shortest time frame to rebuilding if the female SSB falls below the target. C2 requires 3 consecutive years and C3 contains no management trigger related to the female SSB target.

TIER 3 OPTIONS: Recruitment Triggers

–Option A: Recruitment Trigger Definition– SF supports Sub-option A3: The recruitment trigger is tripped when any of the four JAIs used in the stock assessment model (NY, NJ, MD, VA) shows an index value that is below the median of all values in the respective JAI from 1992-2006, which represents a period of high recruitment, for three consecutive years. The high recruitment reference period used for this trigger may be adjusted as recommended by the TC during benchmark stock assessments. This trigger alternative has a higher sensitivity than both the status quo trigger and sub-option A2 (Figure 1). This trigger alternative would have tripped six times since 2003: NY in 2006; MD in 2008; MD in 2009; MD and VA in 2010; NY in 2013; MD in 2014 (Table 2).

• • • • Reasoning: The status quo (current trigger) has only been tripped once in the time period between 2003-2020, clearly it is not sensitive enough based on where the stock is currently at. A2 would have tripped the trigger 3 times in that same time period. A3, while classified as a “high sensitivity trigger”, would have tripped the trigger 6 times in that same time frame. As with the other options supported, we believe the board needs to operate with more caution moving forward, being aware of and addressing years of low recruitment ASAP.

–Option B: Management Response to Recruitment Trigger– SF supports Sub-option B2. If the recruitment trigger is tripped, an interim F target calculated using the low recruitment assumption is implemented, and if F from the terminal year of the most recent stock assessment is above the interim F target, the striped bass management program must be adjusted to reduce F to the interim F target within one year.

• • • • Reasoning: In the past, the board has failed to adjust F to account for both good and bad year classes (recruitment). With several recent years of poor year classes we need the board to be more responsive to these shifts. B2 puts an interim F target adjustment in place if the recruitment trigger is tripped.

TIER 4 OPTIONS: Deferred Management Action

-SF supports Option A (status quo): No Deferred Management Action. If any (or all) of the management triggers are tripped following a benchmark stock assessment or assessment update, the Board is required to respond to that trigger regardless of when the last management action was implemented in response to any management trigger.

• • • • Reasoning: We cannot support any options which allow the board to defer action if a management trigger is tripped. Options B-F all allow for deferred action by the board in the event of a management trigger. Given where the stock is currently at, overfished with overfishing occurring,  the “Board’s concern about the frequent need for management action due to triggers tripping with each stock assessment update or benchmark” is quite frankly, absurd. Stock assessments are typically conducted every 2 years (COVID delayed the last one) and benchmark assessments every 5 years. If the board needs to convene and take action more frequently to maintain a healthy stock then so be it.

4.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures

Option B. Effort Controls (Seasonal Closures)

-SF supports Sub-option B2. Spawning Area Closures: The Board can select either or both of the following sub-options B2-a and B2-b. Multiple states currently have spawning closures in place with closure boundaries defined by those states. Existing spawning closures would be applied toward meeting the requirements of the selected option(s).15 Spawning area closures during the spawning season could contribute to stock rebuilding by eliminating harvest and/or reducing releases of spawning and pre-spawn fish. Reducing releases during this time is particularly important to reduce stress and injury to fish as they move into lower salinity spawning areas. If new information on the timing of striped bass spawning is available in the future, the TC would conduct a review of that research and recommend changes to the timing of spawning closures if needed. If this option is selected, CE would not be permitted.

-SF supports Sub-option B2-b. No-Targeting Spawning Closure Required: All recreational targeting of striped bass would be prohibited for a minimum two-week period on all spawning grounds (not necessarily the entire spawning area) during Wave 2 (March-April) or Wave 3 (May-June), as determined by states to align with peak spawning. States will determine the boundaries of spawning ground closures. Closures prohibiting recreational targeting on spawning grounds have already been implemented in Maine (Kennebec River), New Jersey (Delaware River), and Maryland (Chesapeake Bay) during part of Wave 2 and/or Wave 3 (Figure 4).

• • • • Reasoning: This is an important one! And while this is a complex section of Amendment 7 we believe it is vital to the recovery of the SSB and stock as a whole. Sub-option b2-a would prohibit harvest but allow for catch and release, b2-b would be a no targeting  closure and would provide the best protection for the SSB while they spawn. The option is somewhat open ended with the language calling for a “minimum two-week period,” we would like to see it closer to a four or six week period in order to see the best results and gain the most protection for the SSB. Many other species benefit from shortened seasons or spawning closures and Striped Bass should as well. Considering the stock is currently overfished with overfishing occurring, the least we can do is allow for uninterrupted spawning. The argument that Striped Bass would be a bycatch while fishing for Bluefish or other species is mostly null as Bluefish do not show up in great numbers until after this timeframe. The uncertainty regarding these options surround the definition of the spawning areas and the possibility that states may need to work together to provide the most amount of protection for the SSB as they stage ahead of the spawn and then move up into the river to do so. The best example of this is the case of the Hudson River where fish stage in Raritan Bay, New Jersey before ascending the Hudson River to spawn in NY. In a best case scenario this targeting closure would not only protect the spawning grounds but also the areas in which the SSB congregates prior to spawning, they go hand in hand. Despite these uncertainties we support these options with the hope that the TC and board will work together to develop these areas. Overall these options err on the side of caution but with the Striped Bass SSB and stock as a whole being in such a dire situation, we believe any gain, no matter how big is worth the risk involved.

Option C. Additional Gear Restrictions

-SF supports Sub-option C1: Recreational anglers would be prohibited from using any device other than a nonlethal device to remove a striped bass from the water or assist in the releasing of a striped bass.

-SF supports Sub-option C2: Striped bass caught on any unapproved method of take would be returned to the water immediately without unnecessary injury.

• • • • Reasoning: These options are a no brainer. Let’s prevent the use of gaffs for removing fish from the water in the event that they would need to be released as slot limits require more fish to be released. C2 would require non circle hooked fish (J-hook when fishing for other species) to be returned to the water as soon as possible and with careful handling. Both of these measures combat recreational release mortality which has been determined to have a large effect on F.

Option D. Outreach and Education

-SF supports Sub-option D1: States would be required to promote best striped bass handling and release practices by developing public education and outreach campaigns. States must provide updates on public education and outreach efforts in annual state compliance reports.

• • • • Reasoning: Another easy option. States collect license fees and we believe some of that money should be spent on angler education and more specifically catch and release best practices. Option D2 only recommends that “states continue to promote best striped bass handling and release practices by developing public education and outreach campaigns.” We believe that this should not just be a recommendation but a requirement. Angler education is an essential method to help curb recreational release mortality and ultimately help rebuild the stock to abundance.

4.4 REBUILDING PLAN

4.4.1 Recruitment Assumption for Rebuilding Calculation

-SF supports Option B: Rebuild female SSB to the SSB target level by no later than 2029. F rebuild is calculated to achieve the SSB target by no later than 2029 using the low recruitment regime assumption as identified by the change point analysis.

• • • • Reasoning: As we have mentioned, young of year over the past 3 years has been well below average. Combine this with the fact that Addendum 6 only addressed mortality and not rebuilding the stock and now we are in a terrible spot. The writing has been on the wall for years, if you were on the water it was clear that the stock was in trouble. Option B bases the rebuild of the SSB on the ‘low recruitment regime assumption,’ more in line with the poor year classes previously mentioned. It would likely achieve a lower level of removals and require more restrictive management measures.

4.4.2 Rebuilding Plan Framework

-SF supports Option B: If the 2022 stock assessment results indicate the Amendment 7 measures have less than a 50% probability of rebuilding the stock by 2029 (as calculated using the recruitment assumption specified in Amendment 7) and if the stock assessment indicates at least a 5% reduction in removals is needed to achieve F rebuild, the Board may adjust measures to achieve F rebuild via Board action.

• • • • Reasoning: A new stock assessment will be published in October 2022 and depending on the outcome it may have a massive impact on the measures being put in place by Amendment 7. It is an unfortunate situation and likely could have been avoided if the board took action sooner but it is a concession we should be willing to make to prevent a further delay in developing and putting into action an addendum to Amendment 7. As noted it appears the board is willing to allow some sort of public involvement in the process. “Under this option, public comment could be provided during Board meetings per the Commission’s guidelines for public comment at Board meetings, and/or public comment could be provided in writing to the Board per the Commission’s timeline for submission of written public comments prior to Board meetings.”

4.6 ALTERNATIVE STATE MANAGEMENT REGIMES

4.6.2 Management Program Equivalency (Conservation Equivalency or CE) | Option B. Restrict the Use of Conservation Equivalency Based on Stock Status

-SF supports Sub-option B1. Restrictions: CE programs would not be approved when Sub-option B1-a: the stock is at or below the biomass threshold (i.e., overfished). CE programs would not be considered until a subsequent stock assessment indicates stock biomass is above the threshold level.

• • • • Reasoning: While we were hoping to see conservation equivalency completely removed from the management process, that is not an option within Amendment 7. The TC has stated that the implementation of CE in the management process is unquantifiable and will likely cloud the regulations put in place by states to reach the overall reductions necessary. Option B, sub-option B1 provides the most limitations to the use of CE by states, some of whom have taken advantage of it. The stock needs to be managed for abundance and therefore we need to let the Commision know that CE has no place in a stock that is overfished with overfishing occurring. If you only choose to speak on or select a few options from A7, this should certainly be one of them.

4.6.2 Management Program Equivalency (Conservation Equivalency or CE) | Option C. Precision Standards for MRIP Estimates Used in Conservation Equivalency Proposals

-SF supports Sub-option C3: CE proposals would not be able to use MRIP estimates associated with a PSE exceeding 30.

• • • • Reasoning: This is the most conservative option available as as stated in Amendment 7 “NMFS warns that ‘[MRIP] Estimates should be viewed with increasing caution as PSEs increase beyond 30. Large PSEs—those above 50—indicate high variability around the estimate and therefore low precision.'”. We want to make sure the CE is only accessible if tightest estimate and least amount of risk.

4.6.2 Management Program Equivalency (Conservation Equivalency or CE) | Option D. Conservation Equivalency Uncertainty Buffer for Non-Quota Managed Fisheries

-SF supports Sub-option D3: Proposed CE programs for non-quota managed fisheries would be required to include an uncertainty buffer of 50%.

• • • • Reasoning: An uncertainty buffer refers to the previously mentioned unquantifiable results of states putting CE in place as pointed out by the TC. What this means in simple terms is, if a state wants to make use of CE they will need to plan for a buffer to account for possible overages of F. In other words it could be thought of as a tax for using CE. This will hopefully discourage states from using CE in the first place. We would like to see the biggest buffer possible (50%) put in place to dissuade states from trying to use CE. If they do opt to use it the 50% buffer would hopefully counteract the potential overages in F.

4.6.2 Management Program Equivalency (Conservation Equivalency or CE) | Option E. Definition of Equivalency for CE Proposals with Non-Quota Managed Fisheries

-SF supports Sub-option E2: Proposed CE programs would be required to demonstrate equivalency to the percent reduction/liberalization projected for the FMP standard at the state-specific level.

• • • • Reasoning: This is a bit convoluted but the bottom line is that this essentially undoes an unfortunate series of events that transpired during the addendum 6 process. New Jersey felt that the coastwide 18.5% reduction based on harvest was unfair as it translated to a larger reduction for them due to the complication of the slot limit. The board sided with New Jersey who then ultimately failed to meet its goals and in the end took no reduction.

---

This concludes the section of draft Amendment 7 options for which the ASMFC is seeking public input. This was a beast of a document and we did our best to distill it into something of value for our Stripers Forever members. Our greatest hope is that you be a part of the process and make your voice heard, no matter what your opinion may be. If we all band together and let the commission know we expect accountability and change it may happen. We will be working hard to generate awareness about Amendment 7 through our normal communications channels. Sign up to receive our emails (free) and follow us on Instagram (@stripersforever) as well as Facebook. As we move beyond Amendment 7 look for updates on all legislative action regarding Striped Bass, especially the next stock assessment in October 2022.

Thank you again for your support!

---

LINKS:

Draft Amendment 7: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/61fd9572AtlStripedBassDraftAm7forPublicComment_Feb2022.pdf

State by State Public Hearing Schedule: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/621e9697pr05_StripedBassAm7PublicHearings_revised.pdf

ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Draft Amendment 7 Presentation (video): https://youtu.be/tjUw92-Xl-4

ASMFC Draft Amendment 7- Statewide Public Hearing Schedule

States Schedule Public Hearings on Atlantic Striped Bass Draft Amendment 7

---

Arlington, VA – The Atlantic coastal states of Maine through Virginia have scheduled hearings to gather public input on the Atlantic Striped Bass Draft Amendment 7. Some hearings will be conducted via webinar and some hearings will be conducted in person. Additional details on participating in the webinars can be found later in this release.

Webinar Instructions:

ASMFC 2022 Winter Meeting- Summary

STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT BOARD- January 26, 2022

The ASMFC Winter Meeting convened this past Wednesday, January 26 for what was largely a procedural meeting in advance of drafting Amendment 7 to the Striped Bass management plan. There were a few notable revisions to the Amendment which we discuss below.

There is some good news, most importantly, Draft Amendment 7 was approved to be released for public comment before the ASMFC meets for its spring meeting in May of 2022. Assuming approval, the plan will not go into effect fully until 2023. That is because state fisheries regulations are already in place for this year and some of the provisions will have to be formally adopted by various legislatures along the coast. That is the nature of process and more reason why greater urgency is needed to make a difference quickly.

Draft Amendment 7 will be released soon; we will then review and follow up with a full breakdown of the various sections and provide some direction on how to comment. There are four main issues the board approved for development in Draft Amendment 7; Management Triggers, Measures to Protect 2015 Year Class, Recreational Release Mortality and Conservation equivalency. What follows is our summary of the primary items discussed, the decisions made, and our position.

MANAGEMENT TRIGGERS

The first issue discussed was management triggers, this was a very complicated section. The CliffsNotes breakdown here is that this section could possibly delay action by the board by setting requirements for the timeline that triggers a rebuilding of the stock. As written, it would require 3 years of data to declare overfishing and kickstart a rebuilding plan. The consensus of the angling public is that the ASMFC has failed to move fast enough to recover the stock. As we have previously mentioned, the stock was declared overfished in 2018, a little over 3 years later and we are still working on a draft amendment. This section would only further delay action.

The good news here is that Megan Ware (ME) and John McMurray (NY) immediately voiced opposition and a motion was made to remove it from the draft amendment. The board needs to move as quickly as possible if there is any indication that the stock is in trouble and in our opinion, there is little downside to erring on the side of caution. The motion passed (10-6-0-0) and it has been removed, this is a real win for conservation.

YEAR CLASS PROTECTIONS

A recent addition to Draft Amendment 7 was protections for strong year classes (rec size and bag limits), more specifically for the 2015-year class.  There is some data which suggests that this would not make a difference in the recovery of the stock, and that the ASMFC already missed its opportunity to protect the 2015-year class.. The Plan Development Team (PDT) suggested that this be removed and that is just what happened.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that, rather than protect a single year class, focus should be on better overall protection for all fish that run a harvest gauntlet as they migrate from the Chesapeake and up along the coast. If the idea is that stronger overall protections are needed, we support that. But we’ll see what the actual language is when the draft is made public before we offer a position for public comment.

CONSERVATION EQUIVALENCY (CE)

While there was no real discussion or changes made to the CE section of the amendment, there is an important and notable option we were all happy to see. As many of you already know there is consensus amongst almost every conservation organization that CE is often misused and abused, we would all like to see it off the table all together. While that is not the case there is some good news in the way of options B, C and D. With option B1, CE can be restricted if the stock is considered overfished, the SSB (spawning stock biomass) is below target or if overfishing is occurring. Options C and D offer restrictions based on MRIP data (needing to be more precise) and buffers to make up for the fact that CE effect can often be unquantifiable. In that case, a state applying for CE would essentially be hit with an additional reduction to make up for uncertainty of CE.

These options will be our only way to combat the misuse of CE and they will make states reconsider requesting it in the first place. We will go into more detail explaining each option when we give our summary and recommendations for comments on Draft Amendment 7. If we all rally together and speak up there is a real chance we can hit CE where it hurts and that is another win for conservation.

REBUILDING PLAN

As we have said on more than one occasion, the ASMFC is behind the 8-ball when it comes to rebuilding the stock within the required 10 years. The stock was declared overfished with overfishing occurring back in 2018, it is now 2022 and without the unknown variable of the October 2022 stock assessment it is unlikely that it will be rebuilt before 2029. The slide below shows what will happen if the stock assessment indicates that Amendment 7 as-is will be sufficient for rebuilding and what will happen if it does not. If Amendment 7 is unaffected by the assessment there will be no changes, if the rebuilding target will not be met then there would be a need for an addendum to achieve the rebuild.

The inherent problem with the second outcome is that 2023 will be spent developing that addendum and regulations would likely not be put into place until 2024, if we are lucky. With the possibility of only five years to rebuild something had to give. That is when we saw the motion (below) from Mike Armstrong (MA).

This is a one-time measure tied to the results of the 2022 stock assessment and would give the ASMFC the ability to adopt an immediate 5% harvest reduction while the full response to a potential stock emergency is drafted for consideration. Stripers Forever voiced support for this motion because it allows for decisive action in the event that the stock assessment indicates that Amendment 7 will not rebuild the stock by 2029. Thankfully the motion passed by consent of the board.

RECREATIONAL RELEASE MORTALITY

With the current mortality of recreational C&R fishing at 9% and a very large number of anglers choosing to fish (even when practicing catch-and-release), the overall impact on the stock is huge. As you see in the slide below, there are four options for helping to ease this burden on the stock.

Option D, outreach and education, is a no brainer and we would expect little to no push back on support of this option. In our opinion this should a given and both the ASMFC and states should pursue this path, we have strongly suggested it in the past and we will ask that you do so again when the time comes to comment on Draft Amendment 7. Conservation organizations like Stripers Forever have been leading the way on angler education and for improving catch-and-release practice. Support from the ASMFC and individual states would be a welcome addition to the effort.

Where things get a little complicated and confusing is option B, effort controls (seasonal closures). If you fish or live near a major spawning area in the early spring you have probably been witness to the pressure put on these fish as they stage, spawn and then redisperse to continue their migration north. Each spring the NY bight is a prime example of this, and the fish take a beating, especially the large breeders as they stage in Raritan Bay, NJ. It does not take a scientist to come to the conclusion that if these fish were left alone their spawning success would increase. With the stock overfished and overfishing occurring any help is extremely important and we believe that the impact would be substantial.

Things start to go off the rails when it comes to defining these spawning areas. Seasonal closures to spawning locations would be left up to the states. This is both dangerous and confusing. While spawning areas and restrictions are well-defined in the Chesapeake, this is not the case in Delaware Bay or the Hudson River. It also leaves vulnerable fish that gather in places like Raritan Bay as New Jersey would likely argue that Raritan Bay is not a spawning ground.

While that debate continues, Raritan Bay is a staging area for stripers headed up the Hudson, and anglers targeting fish pre- and post-spawn would need to be considered. Any measure that is not regarded as equitable could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable fish. In addition, the board would be asking states like New York (Hudson River) and New Jersey (Raritan Bay) to work together to define this area and potential overlaps as described above. In the past this type of effort has not worked out and it would not be wise to attempt to go down that road again.

It is important that the board define these areas to remove the possibility of issues as described. We cannot leave it up to the states to determine where these closures should take place. When the time comes for public comment, we will dive even deeper into this issue and ask that you comment in favor of well-defined seasonal closures.

IN CONCLUSION

When the complete draft of Amendment 7 is made public (as announced today, on or before February 4th), we will review and provide guidance for the public comment period. We welcome your input and insight throughout this process. The public’s opinion has had noticeable effect on the direction of this Amendment, and members of Stripers Forever, who spoke boldly in favor of a ten-year harvest moratorium, has influenced the direction of Amendment 7.

Thank you for your continued support of Striped Bass and of Stripers Forever.

Taylor Vavra & Mike Spinney