 |
 |
|
|
||
CCA/NY Testimony on Opening Netting in the Hudson
by Charles A. Witek, III
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association May 2001 Newsletter)
January 2, 2001
Temporary Advisory Committee on Hudson River Striped Bass
C/o NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-1020
Dear Committee Members:
Coastal Conservation Association New
York (“CCA NY”) is taking this opportunity to comment on the management of the
Hudson River stock of striped bass, with particular regard to suggestions that a
commercial striped bass fishery be created on the Hudson River.
BACKGROUND
The Hudson River is an important
spawning ground for striped bass, with approximately 25% of the total Atlantic migratory
population of striped bass produced in the river. During the late 1970s and 1980s, when
the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay stock drove down the striped bass population along the
Atlantic coast, bass from the Hudson River provided an important reserve as they
temporarily expanded their range and partially filled the niche left all but empty due to
the decline of the Chesapeake fish.
Now, after the striped bass population
has been rebuilt throughout its range, Hudson River striped bass are filling another very
important niche. They are providing a
high-quality recreational fishery to anglers who live in or visit the lower Hudson Valley. That fishery, in turn, is fueling a growing
recreational fishing industry that is important to the economically disadvantaged
communities bordering the Hudson River.
The relative
health of the Hudson’s striped bass population throughout the 1970s and 1980s can, in
part, be attributed to high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in the
river. After scientists found that striped
bass contained PCB levels well in excess of that deemed safe for human consumption, health
authorities outlawed commercial harvest. As a
result, Hudson River bass became the only migratory stock that was not decimated by
overfishing at that time.
Unfortunately, as the Hudson River has
grown cleaner, and levels of PCBs in striped bass flesh has purportedly declined; some
individuals wish to create a commercial net fishery in the river. Creation of such a fishery would neither be in the
best interests of the striped bass stock nor of the residents of the Hudson Valley, who
could reap the greatest economic benefit if the bass was managed as a recreational
fishery.
CURRENT STATUS OF THE STOCK
Today, striped bass of all ages and
sizes are abundant in the lower Hudson River during the appropriate seasons. The Hudson River supports an active recreational
striped bass fishery. On the whole, striped
bass anglers along the river have developed a strong conservation ethic, and catch and
release fishing is commonplace. There is no
legal commercial striped bass fishery in the Hudson River.
However, there is commercial fishing-related mortality, since many fish are
killed in gill nets set for other species and, as periodic arrests indicate, there is a
significant black market in striped bass illegally harvested from the river.
Although bass tagged in the Hudson
River have been recovered in states ranging from Maine to North Carolina, as a rule the
fish seem less prone to extensive migrations than are fish of Chesapeake Bay origin. Most fish probably do not venture beyond the
waters of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Because
the latter two states do not permit the commercial harvest of striped bass, and because
such harvest is prohibited in New York waters west of Wading River in Long Island Sound
and East Rockaway Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean. Hudson River striped bass are also largely
spared from commercial exploitation when they leave the river after spawning.
THE FUTURE OF THE FISHERY
The need for conservative management
Unlike the Chesapeake Bay stock,
which based its recovery on two strong year classes that occurred during the 1980s and
reached its present abundance after a record-high year class in 1993, the Hudson River
stock is not subject to wide swings in recruitment. While a regular pattern of recruitment
protects the Hudson River stock from extremely weak year classes, it also means that
managers cannot depend on the eventual occurrence of a dominant year class to remedy any
damage caused by overfishing. Instead, it is
likely that an overfished Hudson River stock will only be rebuilt through strict
regulation, enforced over an extended period of time.
Thus, it is prudent that the stock be managed conservatively.
There is a very real possibility that
even the current target fishing mortality level of F=0.31 is too high. At least three prominent members of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Striped Bass Technical Committee have argued for
a significant reduction in harvest. Continued fishing at the current level is very likely
to result in a decline in both the number and size of striped bass taken along the coast.
It now appears that fishing mortality would have to be reduced to F=0.20 to have at least
a 50% chance to maintain abundance at 1995 levels. A reduction in fishing mortality would
also be required if the coastwide population was to achieve the desirable age and size
stratification already found in the Hudson River stock.
That being the case, it is clear that striped bass in the Hudson River
should not be exposed to increased fishing mortality.
Bycatch and Discard Mortality
The argument most often made in favor
of creating a commercial striped bass fishery in the Hudson River revolves around the fact
that bass are already being caught and killed as bycatch in fixed gillnets set for shad. Proponents of a commercial fishery argue that, if
gillnetters are going to kill bass anyway, they might as well be allowed to sell the fish. That argument, while attractive on its face, will
not survive even casual scrutiny.
Begin with the question of how a “bycatch
fishery” should be defined. Is the state
really talking about a “bycatch fishery” in this instance, when the poundage of
“bycatch” striped bass equals or exceeds the poundage of “targeted”
shad caught in the fixed nets, and when the market value of the striped bass “bycatch”
is perhaps twice the market value of the intentionally caught shad? CCA NY—and common sense—inevitably
answers no. What the state is creating is a
directed striped bass fishery on the Hudson River, and it is disingenuous to suggest
otherwise. The true bycatch will be shad. Managers could try to avoid a directed fishery by
establishing a very low bycatch allowance—perhaps 5% of a fisherman’s daily
catch—but such an allowance would neither satisfy the fishermen nor end the problem
of high discard mortality.
Philosophically, CCA NY is absolutely
opposed to rewarding fishermen for using “dirty” gear. Individuals who are granted the privilege of
harvesting a public resource, in this case a resource which the DEC believes is
overfished, and converting it into a vehicle for private profit have the obligation of
doing so by the least destructive means possible. Those
who deploy fixed gill nets for shad do not meet that minimum level of responsibility. While they only produce about half of the shad
netted in the Hudson River, they are the cause of over 90% of the striped bass bycatch and
commercial discard mortality. The use of such
wasteful gear is inexcusable in these times, when both the public and policymakers are
fully aware of the harm bycatch causes to the nation’s fisheries. Drift gillnets provide a relatively clean way to
harvest shad. Those who employ fixed nets do so with full awareness of the damage such
gear causes. They should not now be rewarded
for more than two decades of willful and wanton waste of tens of thousands of striped bass
by the creation of the proposed “bycatch” fishery.
The real answer to the bycatch problem
is the elimination of fixed gillnets in the Hudson River. Some
people argue that their use is “traditional,” and we have to agree. However, in this nation, it was also once “traditional”
to hunt bison for their tongues, to kill bull elk for their teeth and to slaughter egrets
on their nests for their plumes. Concerned
citizens stopped such abhorrent waste long ago. It
is now time for them to turn their eyes to the banks of he Hudson, to outlaw the use of
fixed gear so destructive that it destroys a pound of non-targeted striped bass—plus
whatever else runs afoul of its mesh—for every pound of shad taken to market. If someone were to suggest bringing the market
hunters’ punt guns back to the marshes of the Chesapeake, or the whalers’
harpoon to the seas off Long Island, conservationists throughout the nation would rise up
in righteous indignation. So should they
react to the attempt to resurrect the fixed-gillnet bass fishery on the shores of the
Hudson River?
In addition, fishery managers should be
concerned that the striped bass bycatch in the shad gillnet fishery is composed of small
fish. New York’s coastal gill net
fishery is permitted to target striped bass between 24 and 36 inches in length. In order
to help minimize the harvest of fish that fall outside of that “slot” size, they
are limited to using nets with a stretched mesh measurement of not less than 6 or more
than 8 inches. Shad gill nets, which target smaller fish, naturally feature a smaller
mesh. Thus, any “bycatch fishery” (and de
facto directed fishery) will be composed of shad-sized striped bass, many of which
have not yet had an opportunity to reproduce.
Managers should also be concerned with
latent effort in the shad gillnet fishery, since many individuals who hold licenses to
fish are not now active in the fishery, but could begin fishing at any time. Although estimates vary on the number of people
who now set gillnets in the Hudson River, most agree that there are probably about a dozen
participants in the fixed gillnet fishery. However,
CCA NY understands that as many as 300 people are licensed to operate shad gillnets on the
river. The opening of a profitable striped
bass “bycatch fishery,” is likely to entice a number of inactive license holders
to begin fishing. More nets would inevitably
lead to greater bycatch of striped bass, as well as a greater directed effort that could
easily exceed the proposed 47,000 pound quota before the fishery could be closed.
Appropriate use of the resource
Given public demands on the fishery and
the need to conservatively manage the biologically important and geographically
constrained Hudson River stock of striped bass, New York is well advised to manage the
stock strictly as a recreational fishery.
Such management is in the best economic
interests of the region. Marinas and tackle
shops along the lower Hudson River cater to bass fishermen, and many charter boats now ply
the waters of the Hudson River, carrying visiting bass anglers. A number of well-attended striped bass tournaments
have sprung up along the Hudson River, bringing tourist dollars to area businesses. As the angling press begins to carry articles
extolling the fishery, and word of it spreads within the angling community, more anglers
are venturing onto the river. If properly
managed, the Hudson River striped bass fishery can bestow a benefit on Hudson Valley
communities similar to that already enjoyed by northern towns who serve anglers seeking
the trout and salmon of Lake Ontario.
Opening a commercial striped bass
season on the Hudson River could reduce the economic benefits of the recreational fishery
by making fewer fish available to anglers, without creating a countervailing economic
gain. Since that fishery has already
been closed for health reasons 25 years ago, no one is now fishing commercially for
striped bass on the Hudson River. Thus,
keeping the commercial fishery closed deprives on one of their livelihood, while opening
the fishery is likely to damage existing businesses supporting the recreational sector.
In the commercial fishery, the value of
each fish is low. Recreational fishermen seek
the experience of angling, and may pay hundreds of dollars and not kill—or even catch—a
single striped bass. A commercial fisherman
values his catch at, perhaps, $2.50 per pound, and must kill many fish in order to gain a
meaningful benefit.
There is also the question of whether
Hudson River striped bass is even marketable. In
an article that appeared in the February 23, 1999 edition of The New York Times, reporter
Andrew C. Revkin raised this point, suggesting that that, to avoid any negative
connotations in consumers’ minds, the fish would have to be labeled just “wild
striped bass,” to conceal their Hudson River origins. At a time when the state
continues to issue health advisories limiting the amount of Hudson River striped bass that
can safely be eaten by the general public, and recommending that women of childbearing age
and other vulnerable segments of the population eat none at all, such deceptive labeling
would certainly be unethical, and provides yet another argument as to why such fish should
not be offered for sale. In CCA NY’s view, until such time as the New York State
Department of Health sees fit to remove all
health advisories from striped bass caught in the lower Hudson River, or until the warning
is required to be conspicuously posted on every
package, every advertisement and every menu containing Hudson River striped bass,
the state would be derelict in its duty to protect the well-being of New York’s
citizens if it allows Hudson River striped bass to be sold.
The state would violate its solemn ethical and moral obligations if it
allowed the sale of tainted fish to unsuspecting homemakers who, ironically, would be
purchasing it in the belief that they would be providing a “healthy” meal of
fish for their families.
CONCLUSION
The Hudson River stock of striped bass
is important to both the coastal migratory population of striped bass and to the people of
New York, most particularly those who reside in the lower Hudson Valley. Prudent management dictates that the stock be
managed conservatively, yet in a way that maximizes citizens’ access to the resource
and the economic benefits derived from such access. Creating
a commercial fishery for Hudson River striped bass, even if such a fishery is limited to
bass allegedly taken as bycatch in shad gillnets, is not consistent with such a management
scheme.
In truth, we are not comfortable with
assurances that any commercial fishery will be limited to the currently proposed 47,000
pounds. We view the current proposal merely
as a “foot in the door,” which commercial interests will use to seek expanded
quotas in years to come. Once Hudson River
bass are declared “safe” enough to enter the stream of commerce, the clamor to
increase the quota will begin on the river, just as it has on the coast. We would be surprised, in fact, if the coastal
clamor had not already entered the discussions of the Temporary Advisory Committee.
If the state of New York demonstrates
that it gives more weight to the desires of a tiny handful of fishermen—none of whom
is dependent on selling Hudson striped bass for any part of their income and none of whom
has legally sold Hudson-caught bass in 25 years—then it does to the opinions of
thousands of anglers who will or already have registered their opposition to opening the
commercial fishery in their comments, their letters and in petitions presented to the
Temporary Advisory Committee, why should those anglers, and the uncounted others unaware
of this meeting or unable to comment, believe that it will not give similar weight to
requests to increase the quota in the future.
At the very least, the state owes the
anglers, conservationists and concerned citizens of New York a demonstration of good
faith. If the proposed commercial fishery is
truly to be capped at 47,000 pounds, we ask the Department of Environmental conservation
to approach the legislature as they do on so many other matters, and seek a bill that
would enshrine such a cap in law, thus preventing its increase by this or future
administrations. If they are willing to do
this, those concerned about the future of the commercial fishery will be forced to admit
that it is unlikely to expand, and would be compelled to reconsider their positions on the
matter. However, if the state is unwilling to
make such a simple gesture, in which it would concede nothing under discussion today,
those who view the current proposal as a Trojan Horse, intended only to open the gates to
future exploitation, will see ample justification for their fears.
Under such circumstances, which still
prevail today, and for the other reasons set forth above, CCA NY remains adamantly opposed
to creating a commercial striped bass fishery on the Hudson River.
Thank you for considering our
position on this matter.
Yours Truly,
Charles A. Witek, III
Chairman, Fisheries Committee