Lucky 7? Maybe!
Effective striped bass management requires some follow-through.
It has been a while since I have written about this fish. Even though they are dwindling in numbers, they are still one of the most soughtafter species. During my lifetime, they have seen all-time lows and all-time highs. Striped bass are without question an iconic species for the recreational fishing community and found in some form in almost every state.
As I write this, the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is putting together the Public Information Document (PID) for Amendment 7 to the Striped Bass Plan. This will begin the process of trying to figure out management measures to reverse the decline of striped bass. The 2018 Benchmark Stock Assessment indicated the stock was overfished (too many fish have been removed) and faced overfishing (too many fish being removed to allow rebuilding). The spawning stock biomass (SSB) had declined from a high in 2003 of close to 250 million pounds to 151 million pounds, requiring management changes to rebuild the population. The downward trend in SSB has continued because the recruitment of juveniles into the population has also declined. None of this bodes well for the future of this fish.
Once again, the ASMFC has done a reasonable job of pointing out the status of striped bass. It set forth some reasonable policies that would help stop the decline and start the rebuilding process. Why are we having this discussion? It seems the ASMFC does not want to follow its own policies. Put another way, each state seems to be primarily interested in keeping its ox from being gored. If the states focused solely on the rebuilding of the resource, we would be having a different discussion.
Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass Plan laid out a stock rebuilding program and triggers that would require action by the commission. That rebuilding
“Now we again face the specter of having to make management changes because the ASMFC cannot do its job.”
plan was straightforward and a requirement of the amendment. Yet when the triggers were pulled, commission members indicated the fishery had changed and they ignored the actions. Of course the fishery had changed—that’s what triggered the required action. Had it been implemented, we’d be in a different place. The fishery has substantially changed because of the commission’s inability to follow its own mandates.
So, now we again face the specter of having to make management changes because the ASMFC cannot do its job. The commission is using the PID to request thoughts from the public on what should be done to clean up this new mess it has made. Who is to say that a whole new management regime would not simply be ignored as well?
The answers are not really that difficult. Most of them are already in Amendment 6. Just take the required management steps the plan outlined and implement them. It is possible that because 18 years have passed, during which the stock has essentially been in decline, rebuilding in the required time frame is no longer doable. So, it may be time for radical action if there is a real desire to rebuild this valuable resource.
There are two avenues that will ultimately get the resource rebuilt. Both of them will require some level of pain and a completely different mindset toward management. The first is one I have proposed any number of times, and the second entails going back to the future.
Gamefish status would rebuild this resource over time, but not because it would radically change the catch level. On its face, it would not. It would succeed because it requires a complete change of management mindset. Currently, striped bass are managed for two different user groups. The net result is that neither group is happy, and the resource is in a prolonged decline.
A second avenue is to return to a zero-retention status—zero harvest and a ban of net gear capable of catching striped bass in spawning areas—until the year-over-year index goes above a level 8 for a three-year rolling average.
Yes, back to the moratorium, but one that would not allow states like Massachusetts any wiggle room to allow low-level harvest.
This is where we are today. Is the striped bass stock in the same dismal shape that it was in the late 1970s? No, it is not. But the dramatic decline in spawning-size fish means we are not too far away from those historic lows. Paying the piper now could be less painful than it will be later.
It will be hard to convince the ASMFC to go in either of these directions because that means the commission must recognize failure on its part. Heck, the ASMFC cannot even manage success, so recognizing failure is going to be a reach. But this fact does not mean that you, the largest user group of this resource, should not continue to ask again and again.