Fisheries Management & Legislative Report

I am reprinting last month’s article about striped bass since this edition goes to the shows and will reach a broader audience.

As you will see in the article I wrote last month that we have reprinted below, I believe that environmental issues in the nursery areas and a lack of forage species are the chief contributors to poor recruitment in a number of stocks.

1. Weakfish: When the ASMFC put in place regulations to rebuild the weakfish stock, we were initially encouraged. The weakfish began to expand their range and they were caught as far north as Rhode Island and Massachusetts. I remember the day Jim White called me to tell me he caught an eleven pound weakfish in Narragansett Bay. We believed the weakfish stock was rebuilding. We were seeing very good recruitment with small fish in the bays and estuaries. We were not, however, seeing the fourteen and fifteen inch fish. The Board initially continued to believe there was nothing wrong with the stocks. However, suddenly we were not seeing the small fish or the big fish. As fisheries managers and scientists we could not explain this change. So we reduced the catch to a very minimal level and announced the decrease was caused by some unexplained natural mortality. Even with the strong restrictions, we have not seen a turn-around on the weakfish stocks. We are limited to a 100 pound bycatch and one fish per angler.
2. Summer Flounder: We began seeing an increase in the spawning stock biomass to the highest level. However, we did not have good recruitment. The scientists attempted to explain this by saying that there is no correlation between the spawning biomass numbers and recruitment. Of course they didn’t determine that it was okay to have a smaller spawning stock biomass and allow a greater harvest. It is amazing to many of us that the old belief is that larger fish lay more eggs leading to a larger recruitment. Quite the opposite seems to be happening in summer flounder. We have a large number of fish in many year classes but this has not led to a large recruitment.
3. Winter Flounder: Another stock that depends on the bays and estuaries as a nursery is winter flounder. ASMFC has reduced the catch to almost zero. And yet we have not seen any increase in the stock size. The problem was exacerbated last year when NMFS allowed 5,000 trip limits on winter flounder with not scientific justification.
4. Bluefish: We had huge numbers of bluefish in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s with no size limit, bag limit or season limit recreationally or any commercial restriction. In the early 90’s we put in a 10 fish bag limit and restricted the commercial fishery. We are not seeing the increase in the number of bluefish that we should see due to the restrictions on fishing.
5. Striped bass: We know that in order for striped bass to reproduce, we need specific water conditions. We also know that even in good years, there needs to be enough food for them to eat. Again, we know the recruitment doesn’t directly depend on the spawning stock biomass. If you look at the tables below, you will see that we have high enough levels of spawning stock biomass to produce the highest year class possible. What we don’t know is how many of the striped bass in the spawning stock biomass are Hudson River and Delaware River stocks. Without that information we may be making decisions with incorrect figures. We need to know the contribution of the coastal migratory stock to figure this out. We need to know how big the Hudson and Delaware River stocks are. This is important because the Chesapeake Bay stock has different patterns of migration. That could explain why the numbers vary greatly by area. Although ASMFC, over New Jersey’s objections, deleted consideration of the Hudson and Delaware River stocks, there is no way to gather accurate information with the current management plan. We also don’t know how the survival rates for the young of the year may vary in the Chesapeake Bay or the Hudson or Delaware Rivers. The states, in conjunction with ASMFC, need to commit money and personnel to do the research necessary to answer some of these questions.

I could list more and more species that heavily depend on the bays and estuaries for their nursery area. Since we don’t have management plans for most forage species and do not know the health of these stocks that is an area that requires attention. The species that have management plans are shad, river herring, Atlantic herring and menhaden and three of those are way below their previous levels. How healthy are the bay anchovy stocks, the killifish (Mummichog) stocks, silver sides stocks and many other species that provide forage in the nursery areas? We all remember when the price of killifish rose dramatically due to decreasing stocks. The question I have been asking for the last 20 years is, “What is the carrying capacity of the bays and estuaries at their present levels of degradation?” When we do fisheries management plans, we are always shooting for the highest spawning stock biomass that is possible. For example, the proposed number for summer flounder was to build to a spawning stock biomass of 300 million pounds. That is an outrageous number and has since been reduced by 2/3. The point is that we continue to do single species management without taking a look at the bigger picture and the impact our actions have across species. The health of the bays and estuaries has improved regarding some pollution. However, there are greater threats now on the health of the bays and estuaries. We have taken care of some of the pollutants that were in the bays and estuaries but we have not solved the problem. Our continued increase in the use of water has dramatically cut back on the water going into the bays and estuaries. For example, on the Jersey Coast, when the sewer plants began coming on line from the late 70’s until the present, their discharges went directly into the oceans, not into the bays and estuaries. This solved the problem of putting huge amounts of chlorine, endocrine disruptors and other pollutants into the bay. But by decreasing water that flows into the bay by hundreds of billions of gallons, there is less water available to flush out the bays and estuaries. Barnegat Bay is an excellent example. There is a very slow turnover of water. In other parts of New Jersey and other states where the sewage discharge goes directly into the bays, rivers and estuaries, we are seeing the effects of endocrine disruptors on the sexuality of fish. I have testified before Congress on this issue and that testimony is still available on the webpage. Let me know if you want a copy. The increase in our dependence on power plants that impact on the bays and estuaries has been negative. The power plants heat the water changing the typical environment for most species. The power plants also add chemicals that pass through their systems to prevent an algae bloom in their pipes. We know there is one power plant in Delaware Bay that DEP has determined kills enough embryos and eggs for striped bass to produce 50,000 mature striped bass. We can’t make them commit to a 25% reduction in the number they kill. While the actual number may vary, this is true of all power plants and all industrial users of the water. While we can’t force industrial users to create better practices and limit the killing of striped bass and other species, all we can do under this present regime is cut the recreational and commercial harvest. Tell me how that makes any sense!

I remember attending a workshop on the health of bays and estuaries and hearing about the problem of the Black Sea in Europe. The Black Sea was fished for thousands of years and provided ample supplies of fish for both commercial and recreational anglers. What they began to see was a drop in the oxygen levels and the dramatic increase in jelly fish. Jelly fish became one of the largest organic biomasses in the Black Sea. We are now seeing a dramatic increase of jelly fish in our own bays and estuaries. They are the canary in the mine, showing us that we have low oxygen levels in the water. You have a choice. You can get involved in the environmental issues that have a negative impact on the waters in which you fish or learn how to fish for jelly fish. When you decide to get involved let me know and I will give you some suggestions.

People I meet have many questions about JCAA and fisheries management and the JCAA Fluke Tournament. I always ask if they read the current JCAA newspaper. Or I ask if they are on the JCAA email list for frequent updates. Too many of them say no to both. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is considerable effort put into every JCAA newspaper and all the email alerts. If you don’t read them, all that time and energy doesn’t have much payoff. If I don’t have your email address, you miss the alerts entirely. If you want to be on the email list, go to the JCAA webpage (www.jcaa.org) and click on the word “subscribe” about half way down the page. Or send me an email and I will add you to the list. All I need is your name and email address. This list is confidential and is never shared with anyone outside of JCAA. What is also disappointing is that every club does not have a representative on the email list. This is something your club can remedy easily. Just send me an email at tfote@jcaa.org and say you are the club representative.

The Striped Bass Board voted for a 25% reduction on the coastal fishery and a 20.5% reduction on the Chesapeake Bay. I have been around long enough to know that the proposed reductions would not be equitable. As usual, I was proven right. I have included some tables so you have a better understanding. These tables were included in the draft management plans. But they might have been overlooked.

1. People were pushing for this reduction because they felt the spawning stock was collapsing and a bigger spawning stock was necessary to produce a high recruitment. If you look at the table below that shows recruitment and young of the year in Chesapeake Bay, you will see that the highest young of the year index was in 1994. The spawning stock biomass in 1994 was just under 100,000,000 pounds. In 2013, the spawning stock biomass was almost 140,000,000 pounds. We have an increase of 40,000,000 pounds to produce the young of the year. That means there is no shortage of females to produce a record year class. The question that should have been asked was why with these high figures we have been seeing poor recruitment. Could it be the environmental issues in Chesapeake Bay?
2. Let’s look at what is happening in the commercial fishery. The commercial catch will have a 25% reduction and will be based on the 1996 quotas. The reduction will come from those quotas. The 1996 quotas have not been reached by most states in many years. I have included a table below that will show the actual reductions from the 2013 catch. What this table shows is that if every state catches the quota they are now assigned, the total coastwise commercial catch will show an increase of 13.5%. I have done the math for many of the states so you can see the actual reductions or increases.
   • MA will actually take a 13.2% reduction from its 2013 catch.
   • RI will actually take a 20% reduction from its 2013 catch.
   • NY will actually take a 3.39% reduction from its 2013 catch.
   • DE will actually take a 24.2% reduction from its 2013 catch.
   • ML will actually have a 5.4% increase from its 2013 catch.
   • VA will actually have a 68.1% increase from its 2013 catch.
   • NC had no catch in 2013 but will be allowed 360,350 pound harvest.
   

   Coastal Commercial Fishery

   Option B16: Takes a 25% reduction from the Amendment 6 quota. This option does not achieve the proposed 25% reduction from 2013 harvest if all states harvest all of their allowable quota.

   	For Reference	Option B16	For Reference
   State	Am6 Quota (lbs)	25% reduction from Am6 Quota (lbs)	2013 Harvest (lbs)
   ME	250*	188	0
   NH	5,750*	4,313	0
   MA	1,159,750	869,813	1,002,519
   RI	243,625†	182,719	231,280
   CT	23,750**	17,813	1,479
   NY	1,061,060†	795,795	823,801
   NJ	321,750**	241,313	6,096
   DE	193,447	145,085	191,424
   ML	131,560†	98,670	93,532
   VA	184,853	138,640	82,427
   NC	480,480	360,360	0
   Coastal Total	3,806,275	2,854,706	2,532,558
   % Diff from 2013 harvest	+50	+13	0

   Figure 2: Atlantic striped bass female spawning stock biomass and recruitment (age-1) from1982 to 2012.

3. Let’s look at what happened in the Chesapeake Bay. According to the release, the Chesapeake Bay will take a 20.5% reduction. I thought this would come from the 2013 figure. In 2013 Chesapeake Bay, since they manage under the harvest control model, was required to create a 14% reduction. But because the Board felt generous, they allowed the Chesapeake to take their 20.5% reduction from the 2012 quota. That means they are only going to reduce their 2015 fishery by 6.5% when compared to their 2013 and 2014 catch.

As you can see, the only anglers who are going to suffer a full 25% reduction are the coastal anglers. Does that mean we will have more recruitment? If you listened to the Board on the webinar, it was clearly stated that this reduction will probably not have any impact on recruitment since the level is high enough to produce the highest young of the year on record. What it shows is there are other reasons that we are having problems with recruitment, not only on striped bass but on bluefish, weakfish, winter flounder, summer flounder and menhaden. These are all species that depend on the bays and estuaries as a nursery. They are the same areas that produce the forage species that are the food source for these stocks. Many of these stocks were at all time high levels for spawning stock biomass and still had poor recruitment and dwindling stocks. Weakfish is the perfect example. If you really care about striped bass and other species, you need to care about the environment in the bays and estuaries where they live. I have been trying to find anglers to participate in the protection of the bays. This has been a huge challenge. They would need to get off their computers and into their communities to protect the watersheds and estuaries. There is much work to be done. If you want to see the table for the commercial fishery, just email me. The five column chart was just too much for the newspaper. It will be on our webpage when the newspaper is posted. Again, if you would like to get involved in protecting the bays and estuaries, give me a call or send me an email. If you are from another state, contact your local environmental group or estuary program.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature has added Pacific bluefin tuna and American eel to its new list of species at risk of extinction.

The Switzerland‐based organization, known as the IUCN, said Monday those species are at risk mainly because of overfishing for the Japanese market. Japan is the world’s biggest consumer of tuna, which is a popular ingredient in sushi, and eel is also popular among Japanese consumers.

“Each update of the IUCN red list makes us realize that our planet is constantly losing its incredible diversity of life, largely due to our destructive actions to satisfy our growing appetite for resources,” IUCN Director‐General Julia Marton‐Lefevre said. “But we have scientific evidence that protected areas can play a central role in reversing this trend,” she added. Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as the Washington Convention, are scheduled to hold a conference in South Africa in 2016.

The IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, while in itself is not legally binding, serves as a key reference for parties to the Washington Convention when designating threatened species for international trade restrictions.

The IUCN, which had earlier said it was not concerned about the Pacific bluefin tuna going extinct, now says the species is “vulnerable” — the lowest of the three stages for species at risk of extinction. The organization says the species’ population is estimated to have declined by between 19 percent and 33 percent over the past 22 years to meet demand for sushi and sashimi, primarily in Asia.

The international body designated American eel as “endangered,” the second worst of the three stages. The decrease in Japanese eel has created greater demand for American eel, leading to reports of poaching of the American eel in the U.S., it said.