FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - June 1997 Newspaper)
ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION SPRING MEETING
The ASMFC will have had their spring meeting by the time you read this newspaper. I will be giving a report at our monthly meeting. The committees that met the week of May 19 through May 23 are, Atlantic Menhaden Board, Tautog Management Board, Habitat Committee, Striped Bass Advisory Panel, Law Enforcement Committee, winter Flounder Management Board, Striped Bass Management Board, Management and Science committee, American Eel management Board, and the Weakfish Management Board. It should make for an interesting monthly meeting to cover these topics.
Below you will find the decision document for Addendum II. One of the Striped Bass Advisors E-mailed me this document or else would not have a copy. In reading the briefing book for the upcoming ASMFC meeting I noticed the advisors received more information that many of the commissioners. I asked Senator Bassano if he had received this information and he had not. How can ASMFC expect to receive informed input unless they make this information available to the general public? I was contacted by other people who are listed as "Interested Parties" and none of them had received this document. It is important that the commission make information readily available to everyone.
The document highlights the thinking process used by the fisheries managers in deciding how to manage Striped Bass in 1998. We should have a better understanding of what direction the advisors and state directors are headed after this meeting. Mike Burke, the JCAA Striped Bass Committee chairperson, would appreciate your comments on these proposals. I attended a meeting on May 2 with CCA chapters to discuss striped bass management and the overall operations of ASMFC. We had an interesting five hour discussion which laid the groundwork for other meetings.
The JCAA and ASA will be sponsoring a striped bass workshop the week of July 28 in Providence, Rhode Island. This is the site of the ASMFC meeting week which will begin on Monday or Tuesday. We will be looking at both long and short range management of striped bass and what the recreational community should be doing. There should be a definite date by the second week in June. You can contact me by phone or E-mail and let me know if you would like to meet on Sunday, July 27.
DECISION DOCUMENT FOR ADDENDUM II TO AMENDMENT 5 - INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR STRIPED BASS
INTRODUCTION
Amendment 5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass gave minimum regulatory requirements for state striped bass fisheries in 1995 and 1996, the first two years of Amendment 5 implementation. Addendum I to Amendment 5 specified regulations for the states in 1997. Addendum II must now be prepared to address striped bass fisheries in 1998 and beyond. Substantive discussion on several issues must occur between before Addendum II can be written. This document is intended to guide the reader through these issues and focus discussion by members of the ASMFC Striped Bass Board And Advisory Panel. The Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Subcommittee have already discussed the scientific and analytical issues at hand, and are finalizing a new Virtual Population Analysis (VPA). The VPA affords the states new opportunities to change policy and allocation regimes, and the technical staff are awaiting specific instructions from managers on regulatory frameworks to be run through the VPA. These runs would provide states with various poundage allocations that could be divided between user groups within each jurisdiction. The variety of regulatory standards that could be analyzed is almost limitless, and almost any reasonable coastwide system can be accommodated by adoption of the appropriate target fishing mortality rate (F). This necessitates clear, early, and deliberative discussion on the part of the Management Board and Advisory Panel that will generate specific instructions for the technical committees. The Technical Committee has preferred to wait for these instructions and generate allocation matrices, rather than expend time and effort on allocation proposals that may or may not be palatable to the states.
Issue 1
Are states prepared to immediately negotiate allocation of coastwide total allowable catch (TAC) between jurisdictions? Furthermore, are marine fishery agencies prepared to immediately negotiate in-state allocation between user groups (recreational, commercial, charterboat) for the states share of the TAC? This negotiation would have to occur prior to the adoption of Addendum II in the fall of 1997.
"Yes"
Interstate allocation options:
- Option 1: Base allocation on 1972-1979 reported commercial landings.
- Option 2: Base allocation on average total reported catch (including recreational release estimates) from 1990-1996.
- Option 3: Base allocations on state’s fisher population per unit coastline.
- Option 4: Divide TAC equally between jurisdictions, and allow transfer of quota between states.
- Option 5: TAC allocation could be broken up into producer areas and coastal areas based on migration patterns. Producer areas TAC could subsequently be divided on relative spawning area acreage.
"NO"
If VPA based striped bass management is attractive to the states, but more time is needed to make the necessary decisions, then they should consider stop-gap measures (e.g. status quo) for 1998 or longer. If the decisions involved in VPA management are insuperable, then the Management Board must agree to other long-term management regimes for Amendment 5.
Issue 2:
Given the current knowledge of stock status and fishing mortality rates, do the states wish to change target fishing mortality rates for the current interim F of 0.33 halfway from transition to F-msy? For instance, states could adopt a target of F20, or F30, which would may fill the age structure in the population quicker than staying with Fmsy which focuses on maximized yield from a sustainable population size). In whatever scenario is chosen, how risk-averse do the states want to be in assessing Current F relative to reference point? there are statistical methods to determine how close states are to target F’s.
Issue 3:
Should the dual size limit standard for coast and producer areas be revised and/or should the variety of coastwide size limits be reduced? More uniform size limits would make annual assessments easier, and the size limits chosen for a coastwide standard ultimately determine the magnitude of the TAC. See Appendix 1 for recent length frequency information from the various state fisheries.
Note: Amendments 4 and 5 provide the following justification for smaller size limit standards in producer areas.
Smaller size limits in "producing areas" are necessary for the maintenance of historical fisheries on native fish which have primarily small fish available to them; in the Chesapeake Bay, most striped bass remain in the Bay for only 2 to 6 years before leaving to take part in the coastal migrations; large mature fish return each year for only a brief period to spawn in the Bay, returning to coastal waters after spawning.
Criteria which are acceptable to characterize areas where smaller size limits can be applied, pursuant to the above justification are as follows:
- Primarily small native fish are available in the defined area.
- Traditional fisheries in the area have historically targeted small fish. The defined area is one in which fish reside more or less continuously until they join the coastal stock at ages between 2 and 6.
I attended the Bluefin Tuna hearing in Toms River, NJ. All the presenters were unanimous in their recommendation that the purse seine quota should be reduced by at least 50%. I pointed out that these regulations and proposed rules should have been made in February or March and not during the fishing season. This is the time of the year that people make their money in our short season and they should not be spending their time at NMFS meetings that could have been held four months ago. The previous director of the highly migratory species had predicted this would happen but as usual NMFS did not pay attention. I hope Rebecca Lent will get this message loud and clear. The JCAA’s Highly Migratory Species Committee needs to meet to discuss the long and short term goals. I know this is not the most convenient time to have a meeting but we must all get on board if we are going to protect these species. Call John Koegler if you are interested in serving on this committee.
At the last JCAA meeting we reaffirmed our position that the elver fishery should be closed. Pat Donnelly and I attended the NJ Marine Fisheries Council meeting and listened to an interesting law enforcement discussion of the elver fishery. It is amazing the amount of time spent by the NJ law enforcement officers during the elver season. I presented the JCAA position and got sympathetic responses from some of the council members. They admitted that they had ignored my earlier warnings and were completely surprised by the number of people involved in this fishery. It reminds me of a television show I saw on sharks where the head of the Highly Migratory Species Section at NMFS had no idea that the shark fishery would expand so rapidly and collapse in such a short period of time. We will not see the results of this overfishing for six to seven years. I hope I will not see a television show then on eels and hear that we did not know the fishery would collapse in such a short period of time. My hope is that the NJ Marine Fisheries Council acts in a timely manner and shuts this fishery down. Years ago when we were concerned about weakfish, it took the NJ Marine Fisheries Council five years to act. By that time it was too late. There are new members of the Council who should take a lesson from their predecessors. The JCAA will be keeping an eye on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council to guarantee they proceed in a timely manner. If this doesn’t happen we will have to consider other courses of action.
I was contacted by Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press to express my opinion of the Army Corp of Engineer’s approval of the permits to dump hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated dredge spoils at the Mud Dump Prior to the September closing of this site. I expressed the outrage of JCAA and the NJ Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. Both organizations have been steadfast in their refusal to agree to the dumping of any additional contaminated dredge spoils in the Mud Dump. We have not changed our opinion just because of an agreement that we were not part of. it is very disheartening that both the dredging and dumping will occur during the fishing season. This will stir up the toxic muck in the Raritan Bay and make more toxic material available to fish feeding at the Mud Dump. We continue to ask Governor Whitman to keep her promise "that while she is Governor, no contaminated dredge spoils will be dumped in the ocean". Over the years we have all seen politicians bread promises time and time again. I hope Governor Whitman is among the few we can count on. Write Governor Whitman and call on her to continue to keep her promise.