Contents:
In the late 80’s I became the vice president of JCAA. JCAA was struggling with whether we would just support a New Jersey bill making Striped Bass a gamefish (no-sale fish) sponsored by Senator Lou Basana or work on HR393 which was Congressman Pallone’s bill to make Striped Bass a gamefish (no-sale fish) at the Federal level. There were contentious meetings at JCAA. Some of you don’t remember that many clubs, including the Berkeley Club, had many members selling their Striped Bass. The debate lasted through several meetings, but we finally voted to support bills at both levels. This was not well received by some of the clubs and they left JCAA. Some of these clubs never returned. Because I had free time, I took the lead for JCAA on both bills. There was a great deal of time in Trenton and speaking to many clubs to gain support for the NJ bill. Almost all the outdoor writers except one told JCAA that we were doing the right thing and we got their support. I remember going to my first Commission Annual Meeting in Virginia and talking to Senator Owen Johnson who was the legislative appointee from New York. After some discussion about what I was working on in NJ, Senator Johnson shared his experience in New York and let me know it never happened there. At the next Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Senator Johnson congratulated me on getting the bill passed in NJ. I suggest we work on a bill in New York to accomplish the same. The existing organizations in New York would not commit to a NY only Striped Bass no-sale bill so they asked me to help them organize a CCA that would work to get the bill passed. That was the beginning of my travels through the coast trying to get other groups involved in the same task.
All of this took place before the passage of the Atlantic Coast Conservation Act. A number of us began attending the Striped Bass board meetings along the coast. The Fisherman Magazine would sponsor luncheons at the meetings to bring the groups together from North Carolina to Maine. Many of those clubs joined JCAA so when we lost the five clubs in NJ due to our support of gamefish and went down to 30 clubs, we increased our membership to 100 clubs. When ASA came into existence, the Fisherman Magazine would sponsor yearly workshops on this topic. I worked with the Maryland Sportfishing Association, the Rhode Island Saltwater Fishing Organization, the newly formed NY CCA, Connecticut CCA, Virginia CCA, Delaware Charter Boat Association and many other groups. We almost got a bill passed in New York and Maryland but the people against the bill managed to pit one segment of the recreational community against the other. Brad Burns and I started Stripers Forever with the purpose of making Striped Bass a gamefish. There were many efforts made in Massachusetts and other states, but they kept failing.
When we didn’t get a bill passed at the Federal level or at the other individual states, the catch and release community began attacking the party and charter boats and others who wanted gamefish status. We have been going downhill ever since. In those days we had a united purpose and worked together toward that goal. That is what we need to do again to make sure we protect Striped Bass. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves.
Back then the enemy was the commercial fisherman and that got most of our attention. What got lost in the dialogue was an emphasis on the environment and the issue of reproduction of Striped Bass. Because we had a very limited fishery and a moratorium in some states, the numbers were allowed to increase greatly, and we had good fishery into the 2000’s. We ignored the impact of climate change, habitat destruction, chemical pollutants and blue catfish. We need to have the same coalition building we had in the 90’s but this time to work on the real problems in the environment. If we do that, we will work on all the species that are estuarine dependent. All you have to look at is NJ to wonder where the winter flounder, ling, weakfish and whiting went. None of these species are impacted by overfishing. If you are interested in protecting the resource for the next generation of anglers, get involved with working on the environmental issues that are impacting on the marine habitat and the fisheries that depend on it.
The agenda for the Winter Meeting is posted at the ASMFC Web Page. I also included it later in this newspaper. It looks like a light agenda — but little time left to discuss those issues. Most of the meetings are allotted for only 1-2 hours. Striped Bass, Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass and Menhaden are all on the agenda. Since it is not until February, we will include more information in next month’s newsletter.
In my first article I talked about Striped Bass and all the groups and clubs we worked with in the 80’s. When I look at New Jersey, I see how many clubs have folded in the last 25 years. This year it was the Greater Point Pleasant Charter Boat Association. This is true in other states as well. The NY CCA is gone, the Virginia CCA is seldom heard from. The Maryland CCA is the only one still active on the East coast. Organizations like JCAA that are umbrella groups have also disappeared like the RFA. If you don’t get involved, JCAA will also be gone in a few years. We have no young blood. And we keep losing board members. If you care about your sport and want to protect it for your children, you need to get involved. Your children will never have the same experience we all had in the 70’s – 90’s. John Toth, Paul Haertel, Don Marantz and Mark Taylor visited many clubs in 2023 and 2024 to make presentations about JCAA and try to get others involved. We didn’t pick up one board member or committee chair. If you can think of another way to reach out to the broader recreational community, please share your idea with us.
ASA circulated their position paper on sector separation from 2013. I was involved in Government Affairs when that paper was developed. JCAA came to the same conclusion in the mid-80’s. Back in the mid 80’s, the United Boatmen recognized JCAA was correct, that the communities would be pitted against one another, and we began to work together. We saw how states pitted one sector against another and that was responsible for keeping 2 states from going with no-sale. This is still the JCAA position and we will continue to work against sector separation. Again, we need to work together to tackle the environmental issues and stop fighting against one another.
Harvest of marine fish stocks in federal waters is presently allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors at levels determined by the regional fishery management councils. The concept of subdividing the recreational allocation of some fish stocks into separate private angler and for-hire components, known as sector separation, has recently been discussed for potential consideration by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Under the sector separation model, managers would assign quotas to the commercial sector, private boat anglers sector, and charter/for-hire sector. ASA is opposed sector separation because:
Until these concerns are fully addressed, ASA urges federal fishery managers to remove saltwater recreational sector separation from all management plan discussions. ASA believes that federal fishery managers should focus on more pressing concerns, such as addressing the significant underlying issues within federal fisheries data collection and developing a fair allocation process.
Visit the meeting summary landing page at this link where you can also find the preliminary agenda The agenda is subject to change. The final agenda will include additional items and may revise the bulleted items provided below.
2026-2027 Recreational Management Measures for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
The Council met jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) to discuss 2026 and 2027 recreational management measures (i.e., bag, size, and season limits) for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. For all three species, the Council and Board followed the Percent Change Approach as outlined in Framework 19/Addendum XXXVI. The first step of the Percent Change Approach is to compare the upcoming two-year average recreational harvest limit (RHL) to a confidence interval around an estimate of expected harvest in the upcoming two years if the current measures were to remain in place. The Recreation Demand Model developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center was used to calculate the estimates of harvest under current measures and the associated confidence intervals. The Percent Change Approach also requires consideration of biomass compared to the target level when determining the required overall percent change in expected harvest.
Summer Flounder
The Council and Board agreed the Percent Change Approach requires no change in recreational harvest of summer flounder in 2026 and 2027. This is because the 2026-2027 RHL (8.79 million pounds) falls above the confidence interval around estimated harvest for these years, and stock biomass is greater than 50% but less than 90% of the target level.
The Council and Board approved the use of regional conservation equivalency in 2026 and 2027. Non-preferred coastwide measures, which are written into the federal regulations but waived in favor of state measures, include an 18.5-inch minimum size, 3 fish possession limit, and open season from May 8-September 30. Precautionary default measures include a 20-inch minimum size, 2 fish possession limit, and open season from July 1-August 31. These measures are only intended to be used for states/regions which do not comply with the conservation equivalency process.
Under the no change in harvest outcome, the current measures are expected to remain in place for states/regions in 2026. Measures for 2027 will be reviewed in 2026 but are expected to remain unchanged unless new information suggests a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery. If states/regions would like to make minor changes to their 2026 measures (e.g., to maintain a Saturday opening), those changes will need to be approved through the Commission process in early ‘26.
Scup
The Council and Board agreed the Percent Change Approach requires no change in recreational harvest of scup in 2026 and 2027. This is because the average 2026-2027 RHL (12.38 million pounds) falls below the confidence interval around estimated harvest for these years, and the stock is greater than 150% of the target level.
Under the no change in harvest outcome, the Council and Board agreed to status quo federal water measures. Status quo state water measures are also expected to remain in place in 2026. Measures for 2027 will be reviewed in 2026 but are expected to remain unchanged unless new information suggests a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery. If states would like to make minor changes to their 2026 measures (e.g., to maintain a Saturday opening), those changes will need to be approved through the Commission process in early ‘26.
Black Sea Bass
The Council and Board discussed application of the Percent Change Approach for setting 2026 and 2027 recreational measures for black sea bass, including consideration of the appropriate confidence interval. When viewed as a percentage range around the median, the updated confidence interval for black sea bass is much wider than the those for summer flounder and scup. It is also wider than the confidence intervals used in the past for all three species. The degree of this difference was not anticipated prior to the availability of updated Recreation Demand Model results but can be explained by differences in the input data. Specifically, the black sea bass stock assessment recently transitioned to the Woods Hole Assessment Model (WHAM), which characterizes uncertainty differently than the assessment model structure used for black sea bass in the past and currently used for summer flounder and scup.
Council and Board members emphasized that Framework 19/Addendum XXXVI calls for consideration of the appropriate confidence interval methodology each specifications cycle. In addition, the Recreation Demand Model, as well as stock assessment models and projections, continue to evolve and improve over time. The Council and Board tasked staff to plan a more comprehensive review of confidence interval methods for all three species to better inform future decision-making.
The Council and Board discussed that use of the prior confidence interval method would have resulted in no liberalization for black sea bass in 2026 and 2027, while a slightly narrower interval would have resulted in a 39 percent liberalization. The Council and Board ultimately approved a 20 percent liberalization. They agreed this is appropriately precautionary, especially as harvest would still be expected to be below the 2026-2027 RHL and biomass has been increasing and has been well above the target level for more than a decade. Consistent with the Percent Change Approach, the 20 percent liberalization will be implemented in 2026, with 2027 measures remaining unchanged unless new information suggests a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery.
The Council and Board also agreed to waive federal waters measures in favor of state waters measures, as has been done for black sea bass since 2022. They adopted non-preferred coastwide measures consisting of a 14inch minimum size, a 5-fish possession limit, and a May 15–September 30 open season. These measures are intended to be waived in favor of state waters measures. Precautionary default measures remain unchanged at a 16-inch minimum size, a 2-fish possession limit, and an open season of June 1 – August 31. These measures will only be implemented if needed for states/regions which do not follow the conservation equivalency process.
Measures in individual states/regions will be determined in early 2026 through the Commission process.
Recreational Sector Separation Amendment
The Council met jointly with the Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) Policy Board to review and provide guidance on revised draft alternatives for the Recreational Sector Separation Amendment for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. This amendment considers two main issues: 1) recreational mode management (separate for-hire and private mode management measures or strategies), and 2) for-hire permitting and reporting requirements.
The Council and Policy Board discussed questions and areas of feedback identified by the Fishery Management Action Team/Plan Development Team (FMAT/PDT). While some of these questions were addressed, the Council and Board recognized that additional stakeholder input and discussion among managers is needed in order to continue development of alternatives. The groups delayed development of a draft amendment/public hearing document in order to hold a workshop in 2026 to further refine the draft alternatives. Staff will prepare draft workshop objectives and logistics for review by the Council and Policy Board in early 2026.
In addition, the Council and Policy Board removed from consideration an option that would have required states to consider or implement state-level mode management during the recreational measures setting process. This option was removed due to concerns about potential administrative burden and stakeholder confusion. However, they intend to further explore an option that would adopt uniform guidelines and best practices for implementing mode management at the state and/or federal levels. Additional guidance is needed on guidelines and best practices that may be included, which will receive further discussion at the workshop. The workshop will also cover the remaining options related to a for-hire Letter of Authorization (LOA) program, as well as for-hire permitting and reporting requirements.
The groups also discussed, but did not approve, removing bluefish from the amendment and pursuing further development of the LOA options only for summer flounder and black sea bass. Some members also expressed concern that mode management approaches using separate allocations had been removed from the document in August and discussed whether these types of options should be discussed at the planned workshop but rejected a motion to do so.