Let’s Get a Few Things Straight

Full disclosure before I write one word… While there’s been a LOT going on with striped bass the last couple of years, I haven’t really been involved. I no longer have a seat at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission table, and I’m no longer associated with any particular advocacy group.

For the most part, that’s intentional. The politics, not to mention the misinformation and outright hate that gets propagated on both sides of the isle is, ahem, irritating.

The real reason though? Well, it’s mostly because I’m out spending pretty much ALL my time catching them, rather than talking about ’em. Because guess what… It’s been good. Like, real good. Last fall, all the way into December, was arguably the best we’ve ever seen on the South Shore of Long Island. I know I said that about last year, and probably the year before too. But really, it’s just gotten better. I’m talking feeding-frenzies that sometimes lasted the entire day. Honestly, at times it got kinda boring.

Does that mean all is well in the world of striped bass, and those scientists and conservation advocates, who aren’t out on the water all that much, just don’t see it? Certainly, perspectives are influenced by whether ya sit behind a helm or a laptop… but no, it doesn’t. Not at all.

Yeah, I’m a social media addict like most of y’all are, and while I’ve been trying my best not to pay attention, I can’t help but frequently see the misconceptions.

So… let’s try get a few things straight here, with a focus on the facts, rather than beliefs.

“Overfished” but rebuilding

Atlantic Striped Bass Female Spawning Stock Biomass and Recruitment

No… striped bass aren’t “endangered”… No reputable scientist, advocate or fisherman has said or is saying they are. Whether folks chose to acknowledge it or not, there seems to be a lot, and I mean A LOT, of fish around in some regions during certain times of the year.

Yes, there are places that have NOT had great concentrations. The Chesapeake region being the glaring example. But overall, it’s hard to ignore the fact that there are just more fish around than we’ve seen in quite some time.

Why? Well, there are at least 5 good year classes moving along the coast (2003, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018), and even a few 2000/2001s still around (those REALLY big fish). You’d be a fool to believe that an incredibly constraining slot limit (28 to 32″) isn’t keeping a LOT of fish in the water that would otherwise end up in someone’s cooler. While no one seems to be talking about it, estimated fishing mortality in 2024 is the lowest it’s been in the last 3 decades.

So yes, the stock IS rebuilding. In other words, increasing in size. And it has been for some time. That said, it has NOT reached the spawning stock biomass level that would determine it “rebuilt” (i.e. not overfished).

Still, projections show that the spawning stock biomass will reach the 1995 rebuilt level in 2025. In other words, we’re really close to the same spawning stock biomass when striped bass was previously declared rebuilt. But…the “spawning stock biomass” target is 25% higher than it was back then, and the management plan requires that we go the full distance by 2029. So here we are, under the gun, to get it to a historically high level by 2029, one that we’ve only seen four times in the 40-year time series.

That target? Indeed, it’s the “best available science,” and it’s what we have to work with right now, but some folks believe that maybe it’s too high. And that’s understandable, because it is an “empirical” reference point based on achieving 125% of the 1995 level, rather than a biologically based target. So, it kinda does make sense for the 2027 benchmark stock assessment to at least consider new science-based biological reference points. But that’s neither here nor there. Right now? 125% of 1995 level is the target based on the current best available science, and, ASMFC is, and should be, committed to achieving that goal.

The chorus amongst those opposed to additional conservation measures is that the data are wrong, because they see a ton around. Well, let’s be clear about something. Just because you might be seeing a lot of them, doesn’t mean everyone is. While the stock certainly isn’t declining (for now) it’s also NOT at an all-time high either.

What fishermen, with VERY narrow, often biased perspectives might infer about the health of the stock, is NOT, nor should it be, the sole basis for management action, or lack thereof. And I don’t think any objective rational person would think that it is.

Chesapeake recruitment

It’s common knowledge at this point that most (around 80%) of coastal striped bass are presumed to come from the Chesapeake Bay. Stripers are anadromous (spawn in fresh water/spend adult lives in salt). Takes one look at a chart to understand why such a large portion of the striped bass stock originates from there. Yes, there are other producer areas (i.e. the Hudson and Delaware watersheds), but again, look at a chart to understand scale.
Yearly sein surveys, sampling young-of-the-year striped bass at discrete locations, each spring, on the Chesapeake have been taking place since 1954. And… they have been surprisingly accurate at forecasting coastal abundance 6 or 7 years out.

Assuming you’ve been following this at all, it’s not exactly news that the last 6 years of juvenile abundance surveys were pretty bad. We haven’t seen that sort of recruitment failure since, well, since the striped bass stock pretty much went off a cliff in the 80s.

Why is that happening? The science is pretty clear at this point that it’s due to environmental conditions that just aren’t conducive to young-of-the-year production/survival.

The point of all this, though, is that regardless of whether or not the spawning stock biomass target is maybe too high (although still the best science), it does indeed make sense to protect those fish that we can right now, so when or, ahem, IF environmental conditions become better for young-of-the-year survival, then a significant number of spawning fish are around to produce healthy year classes.

That said, we should also understand that there’s no “stock recruitment relationship” with striped bass. In other words, it doesn’t take a large spawning stock to produce good young-of-the-year numbers. In fact, significantly lower levels of spawning stock biomass have resulted in strong year classes (e.g., 1993, 2015, 2018).

Regardless, the point here is that even an extraordinarily high number of spawning females will NOT fix the recruitment problems in the Chesapeake. And we should be very clear that the Commission does NOT have the wherewithal to fix recruitment… All they CAN do is control fishing mortality.

Climate change?

I don’t care if ya believe in climate change or ya don’t, or who/what’s causing it. Clearly, it’s become a ridiculous political hot potato. But it is almost a certainty that a shift in environmental conditions in the Chesapeake (i.e. warm, dry springs) are what’s causing recruitment failure. Is this simply a multidecadal oscillation, and we’re seeing a swing in conditions similar to what lead to recruitment failure in the 80s? Or is it indeed warming that’s causing such changes?
Doesn’t matter… because, like I said, it’s not something anyone can control… least not in the short-term.
Some folks seem deadest in the belief that with clear warming trends, spawning age striped bass are just moving north to find more suitable spawning habitat. And that’s a reasonable assumption given other species’ center of abundance have undoubtedly shifted north (e.g. summer flounder, black seabass, etc.).

But a couple of things here. One, assuming that this is indeed the case, stripers just don’t have the real estate north of the Chesapeake. Like I said before, it’s a matter of scale. Two, there is no evidence to support the claim that spawning age stripers are picking new areas to reproduce. Young-of-the-year surveys in the Hudson and Delaware have NOT shown an uptick in juvenile abundance. If anything, they appear to be trending downward also, although not with near the velocity as the Chesapeake.

So, while it’s nice to think that maybe the Hudson and Delaware will pick up the slack, well, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Lastly, I’ve seen more than one person point out the increase in striped bass abundance in Canada. As far as I’m aware though, that is a genetically distinct stock that does NOT mix with our fish down here.

Let’s be very clear though. Yes, continued fishing mortality may prevent us from getting to a historically-high spawning biomass target by 2029. But it is NOT crashing the stock as those pushing a moratorium hard would have ya believe. If, or, ahem, when the stock does crash, it’ll likely be because the Chesapeake just isn’t producing the fish that it should be.

Finger pointing

LOTs of this kinda thing on social media lately.

Why are stripers in trouble? Why are we facing what are very likely gonna be seasonal closures in the future?

Well, let’s look at this from all sides.

Atlantic Striped Bass Commercial Landings and Discards & Recreational Landings and Release Mortality

Seems to be an awful lot of anglers unjustly pointing the finger at the commercial side of things. The landings data are VERY clear though that this just isn’t the case. Commercial fisheries for striped bass add up to around 10% of fishing mortality. State commercial fisheries are managed by strict quotas and rarely do they go over them. If they do, there are paybacks the following year. So really, the commercial striped bass fishery is NOT responsible for any of the overfishing that’s occurred over the last decade or so. Where the overfishing has occurred is unquestionably on the recreational side.

So, when folks talk about “fairness” and “equity” in reductions, well, there are certainly managers who believe fairness/equity means not penalizing the folks who aren’t responsible for where we’re at now.

Furthermore, folks seem to be prone to pointing the finger at the charter/party boat fleet. I mean, it’s probably not helping their image when they post photos of a bunch of dead bloody fish on the deck. I do understand why they do that, as it helps them fill the boats, but , well, it makes a lotta people angry. But the truth is that, according to the data, the charter/party fleet accounts for even less of the fishing mortality than the commercial folks. So, while those photos may cause some heads to shake, the truth is that they are NOT the big contributors.

Who is? Well, it’s the rest of the recreational fishery. The guys that don’t technically make a living from the resource. And it ain’t even the people that try to limit out each time they go. It’s the catch and release guys too. In fact, 40% of fishing mortality currently comes from fish that don’t make it after they’re released. No, that doesn’t mean that 40% of the fish released die. It’s estimated that 9% of them do though, yet when you multiply that across recreational fishing effort, it adds up!

Additionally, there seems to be more than a few folks who are pissed off about current and future constraining measures, who are blaming them on the “conservationists” (i.e. “liberal elites”) telling managers that they HAVE to implement constraining regulations.

Come on, man… that’s not how things work. It’s not the insistence of any particular group of people that drives management, or at least it shouldn’t be. Of course, engagement and public comment matters, but at the end of the day it’s the science that drives management, NOT what a certain group of people with limited views (i.e. special interests) want.

And lastly, I saw at least one post recently that indicated that the great majority of the public wants regulations liberalized, and that the fishing community is just being bullied by a minority. Well, that just doesn’t appear to be true. If you do even a cursory analysis over the last decade or so, on just about EVERY striped bass management action, public comment has been overwhelmingly in support of conservation measures. Yeah, maybe that’s driven by those special-interest groups initiating aggressive letter writing campaigns, but then again, it does seem that most anglers, at least in my little world, would rather have a good day catching (and releasing) striped bass than taking home a bunch. That’s neither here nor there though. And really, when folks complain about lopsided public comments, it’s true that there really isn’t much diversity. Just about all of them seem to come from the far left and the far right, and ya really don’t see comment letters from the average Joe.

But no… It’s not the “liberal elite” driving the decisions being made on striped bass. No advocacy group, no ENGO, no person or group of people caused this. The science is the science and generally that’s what managers are reacting to, rather than any particular group’s campaigns.

December striped bass board meeting

If you’ve made it this far, I’m guessing ya know that the Commission met in December, with the intent of deciding whether to initiate emergency action to curtail striped bass fishing mortality in 2025, as there was more than one projection suggesting that the probability of achieving the spawning stock biomass target by 2029 was below 50% (Note: there was one projection that indicated the probability above 50%).

Yet, to achieve a significant reduction in fishing mortality that might bring us to a 50% probability (under most of the projections), we were looking at some pretty severe options to constrain the fishery. Including what would very likely be some no-targeting closures (meaning ya can’t even be out there practicing catch and release) for a certain number of days a year, which frankly would be really bad for the recreational fishing period, and, well, in my opinion, not really necessary.

For one, the practicality of such a regulation is in question. It’s legitimately unenforceable, and there’s nothing to stop folks from saying they’re just targeting a different species. And I do believe the assumption that most people will be compliant, just because it’s the law, is a downright false one. I mean, ya don’t gotta look any farther than the circle hook/bait regulation that was put into place several years ago. Snag-and-drop fishing (throwing a weighted treble hook into a menhaden school snagging one and letting it swim) is pretty much the standard out here during certain times of the year. I honestly don’t know ANYONE who complies with that regulation… because there’s no one enforcing it, ahem, because it’s unenforceable.

With all that said, if discard mortality is tallying up to 40% of all fishing mortality, and we’re only asking the folks who harvest fish to take on the burden of constraining regulations (i.e no-harvest closure), well then how is that fair? I really hate to say it, but maybe it isn’t.

Guides/charter-boats will be hurt the most by a no-target reg, because we kinda have to comply. No way I could get away with saying I’m out there fishing for “bluefish” when people know damn well that I know there ain’t no bluefish out there. And even if I chose to be noncompliant, I couldn’t promote good fishing on social media, which honestly drives business. So clearly, my opinion on the subject is extraordinarily biased.

Still, from a practicality perspective it’s ridiculous, and likely won’t do much if any good. But from a fairness perspective? Well, I get why some Commissioners are pushing it so hard, and why others seem to increasingly be agreeing with them. And frankly, that’s REALLY scary!

I mean, for years the talking-heads have been saying no-target closures will never happen – and while I was kinda taking the opposite view… that they absolutely will if we continue down the road we are on – I was honestly hoping that they were right and that I was wrong. But if you take the December board meeting’s conversation at face value, well it certainly seemed to be headed that way.

But let me get to the point of this section.

In the end, seasonal closures, particularly no-target closures are a BIG, like, really big decision point. And most commissioners seemed to believe that it’s maybe one that should be better vetted through a more thorough addendum process, rather than rushed with a board action for 2025.

Furthermore, I’m not sure that we really know for certain that overfishing was occurring in the fall of this year. If I understood the conversation, an initial look at the survey data seems to suggest that landings weren’t terribly high (even though, anecdotally, on the water, they certainly did appear to be). Plus, by going through the addendum process, we’d have a more complete data set to work with. Additionally, the Commission would be able to vet the proposed regional structure, which frankly makes little sense to me as states to the north with shorter seasons would be unfairly penalized.

In short, by waiting, the Commission would have more and better information to make decisions that carry such gravity.

Still, some are saying it’s just another excuse to delay action at the behest of the industry (i.e. “kick the can”). Personally, I don’t see it that way. For the time being, there isn’t any catastrophic threat to the stock. One year of keeping the current, very constraining slot limit in place, without seasonal closures, may expose more of a strong 2018-year class to harvest, but I really doubt it’s going to wipe them out as some are suggesting. Keep in mind that we do have several healthy year classes that fall outside of that slot which escaped less restrictive measures.

Is no action in 2025 taking on more risk and perhaps jeopardizing meeting the rebuilding target by 2029? Maybe. But really, the alternative we were looking at may have been untenable.

Honestly, the way I see it, we probably dodged a bullet. Should those no-targeting closures get traction, and they certainly seemed to have some at that meeting, then it’ll be awfully hard to stop the momentum. And while everyone kept saying that they would never happen, well, we actually got really close last week.

The managers

Lastly, let’s talk about the managers, and then I’ll attempt to wrap all of this up.

Depending where you sit, they are either a bunch of jerks intent on taking away people’s right to harvest, or even play catch and release. Or, they are a bunch of spinless slugs kowtowing to industry pressure to do nothing.

If ya spend any real time with these people, ya know that neither is true. While there are a few managers who often appear to be agenda driven, they are the exception. The great majority are good folks, most of them scientists/fishery biologists, trying their absolute best to balance stakeholder needs with the sustainability of the resource. Absolutely, some lean one way, while others lean the other, but all in all, the state managers in particular have a REALLY hard job. Whatever decision they ultimately make, they’re gonna make at least one stakeholder group really angry. And it is a constant struggle for them to understand all the nuances involved with fishery management (and there are a ton) and ultimately make a just and right decision, not just for the stakeholders involved but for the long term health of the stock. And that often takes not just a lot of work, but it takes guts.

For the most part, I have nothing but respect for those guys, so it annoys me when social media heroes bash them, or call the entire system a “circus” just because they didn’t get what they want. Yes, the Commission has had a sordid history of avoiding tough decisions, so I do understand the sentiment. But this wasn’t one of those instances in my opinion.

The addendum in 2025

Moving forward, there will be the usual folks saying the usual things. Some of which have little understanding of the science, or even how the management process works, and some that do understand the nuances, and just don’t care, evidently wanting what’s best for them and to hell with everyone else. I mean that’s always the case. And the usual people will have their armchair-quarterback opinions on what should have and what should be done.

We should all understand though that this is a public resource and one stakeholder doesn’t have a right to it any more than another, and it’s very clear the Commission is prepared to balance all those user groups. So, watch what you wish for.

Currently, the Commission is proceeding with caution… like it should be. As this addendum develops, there will be a LOT more contentious debate. My recommendation is to get your information from more than one source, do your research and take your time to understand the tradeoffs involved with each decision. Understand that this is all very nuanced. And just because you have strong opinions on what should happen from here on out, doesn’t mean they are the only ones.

Lastly, we should also understand that if we want a fishery at all in the near future, then we better damn well figure out a path forward… one that ensures that there is not only an abundance of fish in the water for us to target, but that, as anglers, we actually have sustainable access to them.

Because without a sport fishery, you lose folks who actually care about the resource. And at that point, it’s kinda over for striped bass.