Even the Score
Once abundant, bluefish are now in need of enlightened management.
Bluefish have been a staple of recreational fishing for a long time. Forty years ago, SWS wrote about the bluefish blitzes along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and suffered the wrath of some readers when it criticized anglers for catching so many that dumpsters overflowed with dead fish. Some erroneously wanted them caught to reduce the decline of striped bass. But most did not think there was any end to the bluefish population. Today we know better. Bluefish are overfished and need rebuilding.
The 2019 stock assessment determined that bluefish were overfished and too many fish have been taken out of the population. But they were not classified as overfishing occurring. Therefore, the harvest limits for the 2020-21 seasons will have reductions. For recreational users, the limit has been reduced by 18 percent. It could have been a lot bigger because, when this plan was first discussed, there was talk about transferring the unused (not landed) quota to the commercial sector. However, the new Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) showed the recreational catch was larger than calculated under the old data-gathering system. So the transfer was not made, and the commercial limit was reduced by 64 percent. I have a bias in support of the recreational sector, but I also think bluefish make a marginal market product. My father always said if you trip while carrying a bluefish from the fillet table to the frying pan, the fish would spoil. A slight exaggeration, but bluefish does not have a long shelf life.
The discussions about moving the unused recreational quota over to the commercial users point out a fault in management philosophy. More anglers release bluefish today than they did in the past, but this does not get recognized as a value. The system looks at the dead pounds on the dock. It will continue to be a long process to get this
CONUNDRUM: Does one user group have a right to more fish than another?
We have seen in the Gulf red snapper fishery how well sector separation has worked.
value recognized and included in the quota numbers. Managers like to think of catches being at “maximum sustainable yield” when “optimal yield” is a far better measure. Optimal yield looks beyond dead fish on the dock and actually puts value on recreational opportunities. In the Magnuson-stevens Act (MSA), the term “optimum” means the amount of fish that “will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities.” The MSA has recognized there is value to giving recreational users opportunities to catch fish. More needs to be done at the council and state management levels to make sure that recreational users get to benefit from releasing fish. What should not happen is the concept that recreational anglers are not fully utilizing their quota when they don’t put every last fish on the dock. This change in management philosophy should be a natural offshoot of the enhanced recreational catch statistics being collected through the MRIP. They are not perfect yet, but they certainly are better than they were.
The other part of the bluefish plan reduction for the recreational fishery is the daily catch limits. ▶arly in the process, the Mid-atlantic Council’s Bluefish Monitoring Committee recommended a three-fish daily limit coastwide. However, there was pushback from the advisory panel members and for-hire stakeholders. It was felt that for-hire users were being impacted by changes in other plans, and altogether there would be too much of an economic hit.
On top of that, the for-hire sector only accounted for 3.6 percent of coastwide landings. So, the recommendation was changed to a limit of five in the for-hire sector, and three for private anglers.
Now, I realize that I will get myself in hot water, but I remain unconvinced that different limits for different types of recreational users is a good thing. I understand that those in the forhire sector need to make sure they can survive economically. Yes, that’s important. But in the final analysis, they simply provide a platform for the individual angler to access fish. Yes, clients pay guides to take them fishing, but the private angler pays for his boat, insurance, taxes, fuel and dockage. On a per-pound basis of fish, likely a lot more. Why should the private angler be penalized? We have seen in the Gulf red snapper fishery how well sector separation has worked. I am willing to be convinced about changing my mind, but so far I have not been.
Hearings are scheduled before this will be in print, so make sure you check the regulations before you head out to get the blues.