Fisheries Management & Legislative Report
Contents:
- Striped Bass and What Happens Next
- A Bit of Striped Bass Management History
- ASMFC and MAFMC Scoping Hearings on Sector Separation
- No-Targeting Closures a Real Threat for Striped Bass Fishermen
- Scoping Hearings Begin on Sector Separation
- ASMFC 2025 Winter Meeting - Preliminary Agenda
- President Biden's Ban on Oil and Gas Drilling is 'Victory' for NJ, says Environmentalist
Last month’s issue covered the ongoing issue of Striped Bass and trying to work together and getting rid of nastiness discourse that takes place on the internet. Someone sent me an article by John McMurray about the ongoing proposed closures and what is happening with the striped bass stocks. I’ve known John since he was a partner with an acquaintance of mine and he started chartering in Raritan Bay. John and I have worked together on striped bass. We have known one another for about 35 years. We have worked together, sometimes in agreement, sometimes disagreeing. But both of us have looked for the protection of striped bass. I read this article, and I realized that John and I are in agreement about a majority of the issues impacting striped bass. We both realize that the problem has nothing to do with the size of the striped bass biomass. We both understand that there are issues in the Chesapeake Bay including environmental issues, issues with invasive species and climate change.
I am directly quoting the last paragraph of John’s article because that represents the key agreement that we must all share. “In the meantime, if we want a striper fishery at all, we must figure out a path together, one that ensures there are plenty of fish in the water for us to target and that we have reasonable, sustainable access to them. Without sport fishing, we lose the people who care most about the resource. And, at that point, it’s real trouble for striped bass.” Please read the whole article. There is much there we should be discussing.
I would suggest a path forward. We need to work together to get the new President and Congress to appropriate the necessary funds to look at the real issues around poor recruitment of striped bass. That will take time and money. I have been talking about hatcheries as a shorter-term solution. Read the past two issues of the JCAA newspaper for more information about the history with hatcheries and striped bass. This would only confront the immediate problems of lack of recruitment. Because you raise the fish to 2 inches in the hatcheries, there is a better chance of survival in the wild. In my opinion, the males will not be suffering the same problems we see in other species because they are raised in a sterile environment without exposure to endocrine disruptors, PCBs and other chemicals during the crucial early development. It also prevents the blue catfish from gorging themselves on striped bass eggs and fry. The hatcheries control the water temperature and water quality during this early development. That is what I am suggesting. I am open to other suggestions as a path forward to deal with the recruitment issues. I would like for us to get together, share all the ideas we have and come to a consensus before we have another 5 years of poor recruitment. If you are interested in being part of a group looking for solutions and working together in a congenial manner, respecting all opinions and looking beyond the traditional approaches, contact me. I will be contacting people I have worked with in the past, but we certainly need new people as well.
While I was writing this article, I was thinking of the meeting that forced us to begin to work together. In the early years it was easy since all of us were working together to rebuild the striped bass stocks. As I pointed out in the last few issues of the JCAA newspaper from the mid-80’s until 1996 the striped bass fishermen along the coast who were working on rebuilding the stocks were working and meeting together face to face. This was a time that ASMFC was not holding all the board meetings in DC. We were often in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York to mention a few. When the striped bass board meetings were held striped bass advocates from ups and down the coast with has our own meetings at the board meetings. I worked with ASA and the Fisherman Magazine to help organize these meetings. People behave differently when they meet face to face. Much was accomplished. Most of the time the majority of us were in agreement about what to do about striped bass. We had seen the crash and we were hoping to bring the stocks back. Because we worked together, we were able to force the Federal Government to fund the hatcheries and the necessary research to make the 90’s a time when progress was seen. I can remember being at a striped bass board meeting on the day they actually talked about opening up the fishery. At that point the public or even the ASMFC Commissioners sitting in the audience weren’t allowed to ask questions or make a statement. The meeting dragged on for hours and at about 9:00 Phil Coates who was the chairman of the committee said he would allow the public comment. They had been discussing opening the fishery at 34 inches along the coast and 24 in the bay. Al Goetz (ASMFC Governor’s appointee from Maryland and MAMFC Member at that time) made me the spokesman since I was the kid. I said it is late at night. Please let us speak before you vote on this proposal. The next day the meeting opened up and a proposal was on the table for a 28-inch size limit on the coast and an 18-inch size limit in the bay. The motion was made and the vote was taken within 20 minutes. Three hours later, Phil Coates said do you want to say something now. I responded, “What is the point. You didn’t want to listen to us before you voted so we need to go to Congress to correct this problem.” Thankfully that is not the process now. We have public hearings, we have advisors, we have scoping hearings, final hearings for the public and then we vote in an open process when all the commissioners can make a comment. That is why I fight for the process. It took a long time to get to this process and I don’t want to lose the access.
Below is an article about the joint hearings on part of the recreational reform initiative. JCAA has long been against sector separation. Historically the NJ charter boats have also opposed this initiative. You might ask why? When you properly set up sector separation between charter boats, party boats, private boats and surf fishermen, it creates all kinds of problems and requires much better recreational catch information than is already available coastwide. In order to do this properly you need to know what each sector is catching since you are going to set quotas for each sector based on historical catch. Then you need a mechanism to keep each sector with their own quotas. This sounds good on paper but let’s look at this realistically. Because this is usually set up when stocks are depressed, party and charter boats get a small percentage of the catch. They are targeting species their customers can catch rather than just relying on the species in the sector separation. When the stocks grow, if they do come back, the party and charter boats will be stuck remaining with the small percentage of quota. Then the competition begins. We will be pitting one sector against another for the available amount of fish. There is also a law enforcement issue if any group begins to hide their actual catch. There is also the possibility that state directors will use this information to stop management measures they don’t like. That is what happened with efforts to make striped bass a gamefish along the coast. We need to keep the recreational community together working to rebuild the stocks and not pitting one sector against another. In this present atmosphere, that would be toxic.
While there has been a lot going on with striped bass management over the last few years, I’ve only been tangentially involved. I no longer have a seat at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) table, and I’m no longer associated with any fisheries advocacy group.
For the most part, that’s intentional. The politics, the failure to communicate nuance, and the level of hate that occurs on both sides of the aisle is uncomfortable. But the biggest reason I’m no longer directly involved with managing striped bass is that I’m spending all my time catching them rather than talking about them. Because the fishing has been really good. This fall was arguably the best I’ve ever seen on the South Shore of Long Island. I said that last year and the year before, too. It just keeps getting better.
Does that mean all is well in the world of striped bass? No, it doesn’t. Not at all. However, the reality of the striped bass fishery is complicated.
Striped Bass are Overfished but Rebuilding
Striped bass aren’t endangered. No reputable scientist would say they are. Are they in trouble, given recent consecutive years of poor recruitment (the number of juvenile fish entering the population)? Unfortunately, yes. Yet there are a lot of fish in some regions during certain times of the year. The fishing isn’t so hot in some places—the Chesapeake being the glaring example—but, overall, it’s hard to ignore that there are more striped bass around than we’ve seen in quite some time.
There are at least five good year-classes moving along the coast right now (2003, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2018), and even a few 2000/2001s still around. A constraining slot limit (28” to less than 31”) is limiting recreational harvest. Fishing mortality, a measure of the fish removed from the population by fishing activity, is estimated to be at a 30-year low.
The striper stock is increasing and rebuilding. Projections show that in 2025, the spawning stock biomass (the total weight of all female striped bass mature enough to reproduce) will reach the rebuilt level of 1995. In other words, we’re close to the same spawning stock biomass of 1995, which was when striped bass were previously declared rebuilt after the stock declined in the 1980s.
However, the management plan defines the spawning stock biomass target as 25% higher than that level and requires that we reach the target by 2029. So, managers are under the gun to get striped bass spawning stock biomass to that level by 2029—a level that we’ve seen in only four years out of the past 40.
It’s reasonable to believe that the target may be too high. After all, it is an empirical reference point based on achieving 125% of the 1995 level. But, right now, 125% of the 1995 spawning stock biomass is the target, and the ASMFC remains committed to achieving that goal.
Striped bass female spawning stock biomass estimates through 2023 plotted with the respective target and threshold reference points. The shaded area indicates 95% confidence intervals of the estimates.
Female spawning stock biomass rebuilding projection scenarios from 2024 to 2029 (rebuilding deadline) under different future assumptions about fishing mortality and low recruitment.
Chesapeake Bay Recruitment Failure is a Concern
Around 80% of coastal striped bass come from the massive Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are smaller producer areas (i.e., the Hudson and Delaware) that can add to the Chesapeake, but they can’t replace it.
The last six years of recruitment in the Chesapeake were bad. In fact, we haven’t seen that sort of recruitment failure since the 80s. Today, when spawning stock biomass is far higher than it was in the 80s, Mother Nature has returned some of the worst recruitment.
The science is clear that unfavorable environmental conditions are the cause of poor recruitment. While it makes sense to preserve spawning-age fish for when we are blessed with more favorable environmental conditions, we should also understand that significantly lower levels of spawning stock biomass have resulted in strong year-classes. In other words, a higher abundance of spawning females will not fix the recruitment problems in the Chesapeake.
Six of the last seven year-classes since 2015 have been below average, although generally not as low as the levels seen in the 1980s; the 2018 year-class was above average (Figure 8). The below-average 2022 and 2023 recruits will start contributing to female SSB in 2029 and 2030 as those fish approach full maturity.
Recreational Fishermen Account for 90% of Total Removals
With continued poor recruitment and a biomass target to reach, we are likely facing seasonal closures in the future, which has led to finger pointing.
Some anglers point at commercial fishing. However, commercial striped bass landings make up about 10% of total removals, and commercial fishermen are tightly managed with quotas, timely reporting, and penalties for overages.
Some people seem intent on pointing the finger at the charter/party-boat fleet. According to the data, they account for even less landings than the commercial fishery.
Who contributes the most to striped bass fishing mortality? It’s the recreational fishery, and it isn’t only people who keep fish. In fact, about 45% of total removals comes from recreational harvest, while another 45% results from catch-and-release fishing. (It’s estimated that 9% of released striped bass do not survive, and when you multiply that across recreational fishing effort, it adds up.)
The problem is that while harvest can be controlled by size and bag limits, there are no good management tools to regulate catch-and-release mortality other than telling people they cannot fish for striped bass. These “no-targeting closures” would clearly be bad for anglers and businesses that depend on striped bass fishing.
From 2022 to 2023, recreational release mortality made up 40% of total removals, with recreational harvest making up 49%, commercial harvest making up 10%, and commercial discards making up 0.5% of the total.
Commissioners are Shifting Focus to Release Mortality
From a practical perspective, no-targeting closures should be a non-starter because they are unenforceable. People can simply claim that they’re targeting a different species. Guides and charter captains will be hurt the most because we must comply. Even if I chose to be non-compliant, I couldn’t advertise striper fishing trips or promote good fishing on social media to drive business.
Yet, no-targeting closures are gaining momentum as a management tool. The argument about unenforceability does not seem to be gaining traction, especially since some states have no-targeting closures in place within spring spawning areas, and the entire ocean beyond 3 nautical miles is a striped bass no-targeting closure.
Furthermore, if catch-and-release mortality is tallying up approximately 45% of all dead fish, is it fair to ask only those who harvest fish to take on the burden of constraining regulations through a reduced bag limit, narrow slot, and no-harvest closures? While I hate to admit it, it isn’t.
So, I understand why some commissioners are pushing no-targeting closures and why others seem to agree with them. And, frankly, that’s scary.
Closures Gained Traction at Recent Striped Bass Board Meeting
In December 2024, the Striped Bass Board met to review updated stock projections and decide whether to change regulations for 2025 since more than one projection suggested that the probability of achieving the spawning stock biomass target by 2029 was below 50%. (Note: there was also a projection that indicated the probability was above 50%.)
However, to achieve a reduction in fishing mortality that might bring us to a 50% probability under most of the projections, commissioners were looking at severe options to constrain the fishery, including no-targeting closures.
The meeting made it clear that seasonal closures, particularly no-targeting closures, are a big decision point. Most commissioners seemed to believe it was a decision that should be vetted through a thorough addendum process rather than rushed under Board action for 2025.
By going through an addendum process, commissioners would have complete 2024 catch data and better information to make decisions that carry such gravity for all stakeholders. Still, there were a lot of folks who said it was just another excuse to delay action and “kick the can.”
I don’t see it that way. For the time being, there isn’t a catastrophic threat to the stock. Is no action in 2025 taking on more risk and perhaps jeopardizing meeting the rebuilding target by 2029? Maybe, but the alternative we were looking at may have been untenable.
I think striper fishermen dodged a bullet. Should no-targeting closures get traction, and they certainly had some at that meeting, it’ll be awfully hard to stop the momentum.
The Addendum Process is an Opportunity to Move Forward
Fishery managers/commissioners are smart, competent people trying to navigate incredibly difficult and complex decisions. To imply they’re just a bunch of hacks or accuse them of being spineless and caving to industry shows a lack of understanding about who these people are and what they do.
Currently, the ASMFC is proceeding with caution on striped bass, as they should. As this addendum develops, there will be more contentious debate. My advice is to get your information from more than one source, do as much research as you can, and take the time to understand the tradeoffs related to each decision.
The striper stock is a public resource, and no single stakeholder has a greater right to it than another. It’s clear the ASMFC intends to balance the needs of all user groups. So, be careful what you wish for. Rather than no-targeting closures, I’d prefer a slightly lower, science-based target, but that isn’t even an option until the peer-reviewed benchmark stock assessment is conducted in 2027.
In the meantime, if we want a striper fishery at all, we must figure out a path together, one that ensures there are plenty of fish in the water for us to target and that we have reasonable, sustainable access to them.
Without sport fishing, we lose the people who care most about the resource. And, at that point, it’s real trouble for striped bass.
Capt. McMurray is the owner of One More Cast Charters in Oceanside, NY and former president of the American Saltwater Guides Association. He served three terms on the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council and six years as NY’s legislative proxy at ASMFC.
Link to original article.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission begins scoping a recreational sector separation and catch accounting amendment this winter. This issue is part of the ongoing recreational reform initiative in the region.
The sector separation amendment will consider options for managing for-hire recreational fisheries separately from other recreational fishing modes (referred to as sector separation).
Options will likely include separate bag, size and/or season limits for the for hire and shore modes. There is also the possibility for separate ACLs and allocations, but that is not currently preferred given ongoing limitations of the recreational catch data across all modes.
The Amendment will also look at options related to recreational catch accounting, such as private angler reporting and enhanced vessel trip report requirements.
ASA will stay involved and engaged as this amendment develops. It is currently in the scoping phase with planned development throughout 2025.
ASMFC Releases Recreational Measures Setting Process Draft Addenda for Public Comment
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection and Connecticut Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection. The webinar registration link is available here, and additional webinar instructions are below. Joseph Cimino (NJ) 609.748.2020 Matthew Gates (CT) 860.876.4393
Link: News Release
The agenda is subject to change. Bulleted items represent the anticipated major issues to be discussed or acted upon at the meeting. The final agenda will include additional items and may revise the bulleted items provided below. The agenda reflects the current estimate of time required for scheduled Board meetings. The Commission may adjust this agenda in accordance with the actual duration of Board meetings. Interested parties should anticipate Boards starting earlier or later than indicated herein.
- Progress Update on American Lobster Benchmark Stock Assessment
- Jonah Crab Data update
- Lobster Conservation Management Team Reports for Areas 2 and 3 (respond if necessary)
- Consider Draft Addendum VII to Reduce Sturgeon Bycatch for Final Approval
- Set 2025/2026 Specifications
- Consider for Public Comment Draft Addendum IX on Multi-year Specifications for Male Only Harvest of Delaware Bay-origin Horseshoe Crabs
- Review Adaptative Resource Management Subcommittee Recommendations Regarding Input on Changes to Reward/Utility Functions
- Review and Populate Advisory Panel Membership
- Elect Vice-Chair
- Discuss Stock Assessment Schedule
- Review Timing of 2027 Benchmark Stock Assessment and Board Discussion on Whether to Conduct 2026 Assessment Update
- Board Guidance on Scope of Draft Addendum III for 2026 Measures
- Review White Paper on Board Voting and Virtual Meeting Standard Operating Practices and Procedures
- Future Annual Meetings
An order in the final weeks of Joe Biden's presidency has indefinitely banned oil and gas drilling along the coast of New Jersey, as well as much of the coastal United States.
New Jersey environmentalists and politicians praised the move on Monday, hours after Biden issued a Presidential Memorandum that prohibits future drilling across millions of acres of ocean floor along the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The memorandum also blocks drilling in parts of the Gulf Coast and Alaska within the outer continental shelf.
My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs, Biden said in a statement released by the White House on Monday. It is not worth the risks.
Along the Atlantic Coast, the memorandum places restrictions across 334 million acres, from the Canadian border to Florida.
"It marked a ""monumental victory"" for New Jersey's coastal environment, said Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, an environmental organization based in Long Branch."
For over 40 years, Clean Ocean Action led New Jerseyans from all walks of life to call for an end to offshore drilling and today, with a stroke of President Biden’s pen, it is done! she wrote in a statement. This marks the day we can finally retire all of those heartbreaking posters highlighting the horrific impacts from offshore drilling!
"But the ban may already be under threat, as President-elect Donald Trump promised to undo Biden's executive orders on Monday, calling them ""costly and ridiculous."" However, it's a promise that will not be easy to realize, says one congressman."
Prohibiting offshore drilling off New Jersey's coast has historically united New Jersey's Republicans and Democrats. Rep. Jeff Van Drew and Rep. Chris Smith, both Republicans who represent central and southern New Jersey, have in the past opposed efforts to explore and produce gas and oil off the Jersey Shore.
Rep. Frank Pallone Pallone Jr., a Democrat who represents portions of Monmouth and Middlesex counties, said his first bill when he entered Congress in the late 80s was one that banned oil and gas drilling along the Atlantic Coast, including off New Jersey.
I think I was elected because people saw me as the defender of protecting the ocean, Pallone said during a news conference Monday, where he celebrated Biden's drilling ban.
If you live along the Atlantic Coast or the other areas where this new protection will be in effect, you realize that your economy, your very well-being, could be seriously damaged by an oil spill, Pallone said. There's no reason for anyone to believe that another spill like what happened with the BP (Deepwater Horizon) could not occur again if we had drilling in these waters off the Atlantic.
The explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon rig in 2010 killed 11 workers and the resulting environmental disaster spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The spill killed or sickened wildlife in its path and disrupted important Gulf Coast industries, like fishing and tourism.
A study by Virginia Tech in 2017 found the BP spill caused more than $17 billion worth of damages to the region's natural resources.
Trump vows to reverse ban
But some in New Jersey's business sector see the federal drilling ban as harmful to the state's commercial interests and energy consumers.
This action is a clear slap in the face to rate and taxpayers who made their voices heard in 2024 – they want more affordable domestic energy options, period, said Michael Makarski, spokesman for Affordable Energy for New Jersey, an organization that promotes inclusion of methane and natural gas into the state's pool of energy sources.
"Makarski said Biden's memorandum amounted to ""nothing more than political virtue signaling to ban something that isn’t actually happening off the East Coast."""
On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump said he would reverse the ban.
Fear not, he wrote on his social media website TruthSocial.com. These 'Orders' will all be terminated shortly, and we will become a Nation of Common Sense and Strength.
During his first term as president, Trump issued an executive order to expand oil and gas drilling within the outer continental shelf.
Trump will have a difficult time undoing Biden's drilling ban, said Pallone, noting a move by Trump during his first presidency to undo a measure by former President Barack Obama that banned oil and gas drilling in Alaska proved unsuccessful.
Pallone said Trump could urge Congress to abolish the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which includes Biden's memorandum. However, the congressman did not believe the president-elect would find widespread support for the initiative.
Why is the outer continental shelf important?
"New Jersey's coastline and outer continental shelf are ""invaluable"" natural resources and critical habitat for various marine and bird species, said Anjuli Ramos-Busot, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization. The areas are also integral for New Jersey's coastal tourism businesses and fishing industry, she said."
The Sierra Club has fought offshore drilling for decades for its harmful pollution to our water and air quality, and threats to coastal communities and economies, Ramos-Busot said in a statement. Today’s federal protections from the Biden Administration secure a safe, fossil-free future for our oceans and for next generations to enjoy.
In 2018, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bipartisan law that banned offshore oil and gas exploration and production in the state's coastal waters, which extend 3 nautical miles from shore. Federal waters extend farther into the ocean, or about 200 nautical miles from shore for economic activity.
The new Biden Administration ban on drilling will limit American's energy options, drive up prices and leave the nation more vulnerable, said Ray Cantor, deputy chief of government affairs for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association.
The U.S. needs an all-of-the-above energy approach, Cantor said in a statement. Without a mixed portfolio of energy sources, costs rise for customers and feasibility fails.
Amanda Oglesby is an Ocean County native who covers education and the environment. She has worked for the Press for more than 16 years. Reach her at @OglesbyAPP, aoglesby@gannettnj.com or 732-557-5701.
Link to original article.