John McMurray

If you’re an avid striper guy (my guess is you are if you are reading this) then by now I’ll bet you’ve seen the ASMFC press release regarding the new reference points for the striped bass fishery. If not, you can find it here: http://reel-time.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64183 Yeah, I know, it looks like it was written in another language right? I’ll do my best to try and interpret what it means.

First, if you are totally unfamiliar with the system you may be asking “What the H is a reference point?” Biological reference points are parameters that are useful benchmarks for guiding management decisions. Typically they are limits set by the best available science at the time.

Several new models were developed for use in the 2007 benchmark stock assessment which was released back in February, including the Forward-Projecting Statistical-Catch-at-Age model (SCA). The SCA is a significant departure from the virtual population analysis that had been used to assess striped bass stock status since 1997. It is an aged-based model that projects the population numbers-at-age forward through time, rather than backwards, as had been the case with the VPA.

So, without getting into too much detail and confusing not only readers but myself, my understanding is that the new SCA model indicates that a lower level of fishing mortality (“F”) at Maximum Sustainable Yield (the highest rate at which bass can be taken out of the stock without impairing its renewability through natural growth or replenishment).

Striped bass fishing is managed by target and threshold parameters (those reference points we were just talking about). Regulations are set so that fishing mortality does not exceed a fishing mortality target which is lower than the fishing mortality threshold. The fishing mortality threshold is essentially Maximum Sustainable Yield in this case. Such management provides a precautionary buffer which allows catch to exceed the target (which it has in many years) without ever exceeded the overfishing threshold.

So, the only thing particularly noteworthy with the new reference points is that the Threshold has changed. (As mentioned, fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield has been lowered.) The target, the fishing mortality number that managers shoot for has not changed at all. The failure to move the target in conjunction with the lowered threshold makes the difference between the two quite a bit smaller, meaning that a harvest that is only a little over the target could violate the threshold.

Since the threshold figure is the one used to mandate changes in regulations, the change brings the thresholds closer to current harvest levels. Although we are not overfishing yet, this makes future “overfishing” quite bit more likely.

Indeed, there seems to be abundant concern right now with the striped bass fishery, and quite honestly I share in that concern. The flyfishers and the light tackle crowd are experiencing it to a greater effect than others and those poor folks in Maine have had the worst consecutive two seasons since the 80’s.
But given the prevalence of localized pods of large fish (e.g. VA in the winter, Northern NJ in the Spring, Rhode Island in the Summer) and the widely accepted science which indicates that the stock is at a high level and, compared to other stocks, is doing well, I’m almost certain that managers will not change any aspect of striped bass management until we exceed the threshold in the coming years. These new biological reference points make that quite a bit more likely.

While indeed I would like to see more precaution exercised with the striped bass fishery (e.g. higher size, mandatory circlehooks in bait fisheries, the banning of Yo-Yoing etc.), managers are much more apt to concentrate their resources on fisheries which are truly in trouble and in which overfishing continues, and leave striped bass alone for the time being. And, if readers think the commercial fishing community and/or the charter/headboat fleet are going to voluntarily agree to stricter limits when there is no science indicating that they should be making such cutbacks, then they are sadly mistaken, especially in light of the hits such folks have taken on summer flounder, black sea-bass, scup etc.

I also think in large part angler’s attitudes have changed, mostly because of the anit-enviro propaganda perpetuated by the local fishing press. Because of the decidedly anti-conservation movement by a New Jersey-based coalition of commercial and recreational fishing industries to weaken the Magnuson Steven Act, any sort of precaution these days is looked on as “alarmist” and “radical” or “elitist.” I don’t think we could fill a room these days with anglers preaching conservation with striped bass like we did five years ago with the Amendment 6 hearings.

In short, I do think we’re seeing the signs of trouble with striped bass, but I don’t think there is much anyone can do about it at the moment, save getting folks to talk about it. If or when the ASMFC is forced to act in the coming years, I just hope it’s not too little too late. I truly hope we don’t travel down that same road.
For more info on bass, see my July/Aug 2008 Flyfishing in Saltwaters column: http://www.nycflyfishing.com/2008%20Status%20of%20the%20Striper.htm

Just this week a summary report of the most recent Summer Flounder Stock Assessment Workshop was released. It’s a difficult read for a civilian but it looks as if the only real change is an increase in the natural mortality estimate (the number of fish that die from natural causes). It follows to reason that this drives a significant drop in the long term number of fish that could be achieved under a management plan. Still with me? Yeah, it’s boring and sometimes confusing stuff, but important nonetheless.

So, if you’ve been following the summer flounder issue at all, you know that by law the fluke population has to reach a certain level (a scientifically determined rebuilding goal) by the year 2013. Reaching this goal was requiring some very significant cuts in landings and the commercial and recreational fishing industries weren’t very happy about that.

So now, with the natural mortality estimate significantly increased, the rebuilding goal is significantly reduced, thus, according to the new model we are closer to the rebuilding goal than we initially thought. The Jersey fishing press is screaming victory, saying they were right all along, but my interpretation is there isn’t much for those folks to celebrate about, and really they weren’t right at all. I’ll get to that in a second.

A long time industry supporter told the Asbury Park Press “We’ve been fishing under this system for all this time, and they suddenly sat down and used different numbers, What a hoax!” Well, let’s be honest here. It’s likely that the natural mortality number wouldn’t have changed if those industry reps didn’t secure one of their scientists a seat at the stock assessment table.

There are already a good number of folks who believe that the increase in the natural mortality variable was political. I spoke to one scientist today who said that natural mortality estimate is pretty darn high on the scale, and went on to describe it as “absurd”. I’m not sure I agree with such strong words, especially in light of all the supporting documentation that the higher mortality rate is indeed plausible. But, there has been a ton of political pressure on managers to increase harvest, so I can understand this view. According to insiders, NOAA wasn’t happy about the natural mortality tweak nor was it wholeheartedly endorsed by the review committee, but they didn’t think it was inappropriate, and saw no reason to reject the option. But indeed I have to say that it appears politics is playing a role in a system that is supposed to rely on un-bias science. With all this being said however, the option did pass a peer review. If NOAA Fisheries says this is the best available science, then we need to follow it, and I’ll wholeheartedly support it.

What is paramount in all of this is the integrity of the peer-review process. I spent the last couple of years supporting the prior rebuilding target of 197-million-pounds, and the resultant management measures, because they reflected the best available science, as represented by a peer-reviewed stock assessment. A faction of the recreational fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry attacked the science as “bad” without offering anything else in its place, and I opposed that approach because I believed it was wrong. Now, we’re looking at a significantly lowered target and folks are cheering, because they feel that their attack on the prior target of 197 million pounds was vindicated. Some folks on the other side of the spectrum are upset, because they feel that the 197 million pound target was improperly undercut. Both are overlooking the fact that the essential process remains the same, and that both the prior 197 million pound and the present 131 million pound targets reflect the best available science at the time the calculations were made.

We always have to remember that, if researchers are doing their jobs, every year brings additional data and additional knowledge. In 2011, we’ll have even more information, and can probably expect additional tuning of the reference points. Undoubtedly that’s a good thing, and it shows that indeed the system does work and that it is already sufficiently “flexible.” Thus, there is absolutely no need for a “Flexibility” Amendment to fisheries management law currently being pushed by some. Such an amendment is shortsighted and would essentially bring us back to the pre-1996 days of perpetual overfishing.

Now, back to the victory celebration columns. As mentioned, if natural mortality has been underestimated and the fishery is less productive than previously thought, that will lower the rebuilding goal. The bottom line is that, while the rebuilding target is lower, harvest is ultimately also lower than it would be under the old rules.

In other words, if the fishery is eventually declared fully rebuilt with the lower goal, we won’t see much looser regulations than what we have now, where as if the stock had been rebuilt to what scientists had said it could be rebuilt to under the old system, anglers could have enjoyed far more liberal size and bag limits had the initial rebuilding goal been met. Of course this begs the question, could that prior goal have been achieved if we had followed the plan and didn’t overfish every year. Guess we’ll never know.