New striped bass regulations are on the horizon as the ASMFC intends to take action in an attempt to restore our striper stocks by 2029. Though our 2022 regulations are listed as an option, I believe that there is no chance of the ASMFC allowing that. It is through their mismanagement of the species that we are in the position we are now in. Had they listened to JCAA and the vast majority of fishermen up and down the coast when they were considering Amendment Vll, we would have had a minimum size limit of 35” or so which would have protected the abundant 2015-year class. Raising the size limits was the strategy that worked well in the past. What happened is that the 2015-year class grew to legal size and removals from the biomass dramatically increased in 2022 due to both harvest and C&R mortality. That lowered the probability of restoring the stocks by 2029 to just 15%. There are many other factors in play now as well such as pollution, blue catfish taking over Chesapeake Bay, lack of menhaden and weather patterns that have not been conducive to successful spawns in the Chesapeake for the last 5 years. Unfortunately, ASMFC has little or no control over these things so they can only attempt to restore the stocks by further restricting commercial and recreational fishermen. There are two links below that will further explain the options we have. One is the complete addendum and the other is a slide presentation which may make it a little easier to follow. Both links have instructions as to how you may give your input. All comments must be submitted by 12/22/23. JCAA clubs will discuss the addendum and form a position on it at our November meeting. Below is my personal opinion on the various options which is just a guide. Feel free to disagree if you like. There is much more that I will probably include in my personal comments to the ASMFC. There may be a number of things each individual or club would like to add to their comments as well, but for now I’m going to stick to just the options that are included in the addendum.
Section 3.1-1 Ocean Recreational Fishing Options: I favor option B, a slot of 28” – 31” rather than Option D which is 30”-33”. It is a tough choice between the two, but I believe it gives shore-based anglers a little better chance of catching a fish that they can bring home to eat. Also, the 30”-33” fish are reaching prime breeding size. I don’t like options C or E as they give a wider ranged slot to the for-hire sector. I’m adamantly opposed to sector separation but if anything, more lenient regulations should be for shore-based anglers who fish for sustenance and can’t afford to go on a boat. What happened to the Environmental Justice that NOAA had been talking about?
Section 3.1.2 Chesapeake Bay Recreational Fishery Options: I prefer Option B1 which includes a slot of 19”-23” fish for all bay jurisdictions. Options B2, 3, and 4 all have wider slot ranged. It is imperative that we try to protect these smaller fish particularly from the last two decent spawning year classes in 2017 and 2018. I do not like option C1 or C2 because once again they create sector separation by giving a wider ranged slot to the for-hire fleet.
Section 3.1.3 For Hire Management Clarification: I prefer Option B. In the unfortunate event that sector separation is chosen the measures should only apply to the patrons. The captains and crews should be restricted to the private vessel/shore-based regulations.
Section 3.1.4 Recreational Filleting Allowance Requirements: I prefer option B which will require states that authorize filleting at sea to establish minimum requirements such as saving racks and leaving the skin on.
Section 3.2.1 Commercial Quota Reductions: In my opinion striped bass should be a no-sale or gamefish in all states. It is unfathomable that the ASMFC allows commercial fishing while the recreational sector is limited to a 3” slot. It is also disgraceful that the ASMFC allows the commercial hook and line boat fishermen in MA to harvest 15 stripers per day with a minimum size of 35”. Much of the 2015-year class is now approaching that size and you are supposed to be protecting them! However, since these changes are not currently options, I prefer option B with a quota reduction of 14.5%.
Section 3.3 Response to Stock Assessment Updates: I prefer Option B which would allow the Board to swiftly respond to stock assessments without having to go through the more time-consuming Amendment or Addendum process. However, this should work not only for when the assessments call for more restrictive measures but also when measures may be liberalized.
You can find additional info on Draft Addendum II to Amendment 7 in the following documents: