Contents:
It has been an interesting month. I will cover striped bass later. I have included in my report two “oldies but goodies”. One is Working Together and the other is The Problem with Emails. I updated working together in 2019 before the pandemic. Before the pandemic I noticed that comments back and forth were getting nastier, following politicians which is always bad news. Unlike politicians, anglers have common interests, the environment, building sustainable fisheries and allowing participation by all anglers both rich and poor. We disagreed in a respectful manner. There were the outliers, and they still are the ones who hide behind their computer and say whatever they want about someone else. They were the exceptions in 2019. After hearing the vitriol in emails sent to some of the commissioners about striped bass, the nastiness has become the rule rather than the exception. I have a thick skin as a Vietnam veteran and a green beret I was called all kind of nasty names in airports or marching in Veterans Day Parades. Thankfully that time is gone and soldiers are treated with more respect. But we are now following the examples of politicians, attacking one another constantly. This has got to stop. I respect anglers more than I respect politicians since we usually work together for the greater good. But we have lost the ability to look at the other person’s opinion and thinking about why they have that opinion. I find we also have gotten more about how we handle fisheries, just thinking about what is good for me rather than what might be good for all of us. When I saw some of the comments people sent other people, I was in tears. The comments were so selfish and so nasty that it was worse than some of the comments I heard after Vietnam. Anglers, take a good look at yourself. Are you contributing to this negative atmosphere? Are you hiding behind your computer screen and saying things you would not say to someone’s face?
I put the public comments by me and by Nick Cicero below. In my last newspaper I discussed hatcheries and what they could mean for striped bass management. In my public comments I discussed what would be necessary to restart this program as it existed in the 70’s and 80’s and how we would need to find the funds.
After I did a shortened version of this at the striped bass board meeting, I listened to the discussion. I have never seen the board debate 2 motions simultaneously without amending one motion to the other. It was an interesting process. In the end, because of the hard work by Adam Nowalski, NJ’s Legislative Proxy, the board actually went in the right direction. They went back to the amendment process rather than an emergency action. It was the only way we could have the time to really evaluate what happened in ’24 and what will happen in ’25 given all the changes we have made in the management of striped bass. The board, through the presentation of the technical committee, proved that the possibility of any of the three options making a difference had no statistical difference. Adam, through his eloquence, gave the board the backbone to do the right thing. We will now go through the addendum process and put regulations in place for 2026 with the information from 2 years of management with the new rules. What is going on with the young of the year in the Chesapeake Bay has nothing to do with the size of the spawning stock biomass. Every commissioner around the table knows this is true but they wanted to show they were doing something. What we need to do is acknowledge and deal with the existing problems in the Bay with water quality, temperature and recruitment. We might have to do what we did in the70’s when we had hatcheries contribute to the male population. Read my public hearing document below for more information. I put the agenda for the winter meeting here. There will be a striped bass meeting, but we will have just preliminary scoping information. The timeline for this addendum will be finalizing it at the annual meeting in 2025. JCAA had a meeting on striped bass, and it was the most well attended meeting in a long time. You need your club reps to start attending these meetings if you have ideas about what we should do about striped bass. We need to work together and allow discussion of all ideas before JCAA takes a public position.
There is a draft document for public meetings talking about how we manage bluefish and other species. The link for the document is here. New Jersey’s meeting will be January 28th. Again, it is important to get involved and attend these meetings. We will need the input from your club as JCAA develops a position.
If you read the JCAA Newspaper Archives, you will find several articles about working together. Almost every year we seem to have this conversation. I am disappointed that these articles do not seem to have the intended impact. To my dismay, the in-fighting and general lack of civility continues in the interactions of many groups. I work with both the environmental and fisheries communities and I find individuals and organizations in each community that view their role as competitive rather than collaborative. There is this feeling that the only way to be successful is to succeed at the expense of someone else. There are those who think they should be the only organization representing recreational anglers. They believe their solutions are the only solutions to the problems we face. While we may disagree, we need to recognize there are multiple reasonable points of view around an issue. There are very diverse members to the recreational community and each member has a unique point of view.
When I first began working with JCAA, I realized we were unique in our commitment to a democratic process. Member clubs vote to establish JCAA positions. Although we work for consensus, sometimes it is majority rule. Controversial issues may be debated over a number of meetings before a final position is adopted. Once a position is adopted, JCAA speaks in one voice. Everyone has ample opportunity to make their point and provide as much evidence as possible. The wonderful thing about JCAA is that most often the dissenters respect the majority and remain active in JCAA to discuss the next issue that confronts us. Everyone realizes that there are many issues that require our attention. We will agree on most, compromise on some and agree to disagree on others. That’s how a democracy works. There was never a “gag order” in place. Even though a position was adopted, member clubs retained the right to speak in opposition publicly. Because of that history, JCAA has always maintained that democratic commitment when we collaborate with other organizations. We will not be a member of a group or coalition that refuses to have an open democratic process for developing positions. JCAA belongs to New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmens Clubs, New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, Marine Fish Conservation Network and American Sportfishing Association. Each of these organizations respects the democratic process and allows for discussion, presentations and disagreement before a position is reached. In every organization we have, at times, disagreed, stated our disagreement passionately and then respected the majority vote with the understanding that JCAA retained the right to develop its own position and move forward. We never resigned because we didn’t win a vote. We never personally attacked members of these organizations because we didn’t win a vote. And we stayed so we could participate in the next discussion, continue to make our points, and over time, revisit areas of disagreement. Democracy is a messy process but that is where our commitment lies.
In the late 80’s to early 90’s we reached out to groups throughout the coast trying to build consensus on many issues including making striped bass a gamefish. We were able to bring groups with different agendas to the table to work on important issues. The strength of our numbers really gave us more clout. JCAA realized that our role was mainly in New Jersey and we needed to network across a wider area. We helped other states organize their recreational associations and clubs because we saw them as partners not competitors. This worked for many years but began to deteriorate when some people began resorting to personal attacks on individuals and other organizations as a way to enhance their own standing, at least in their own eyes. Initially we kept our meeting discussion private to encourage an honest exchange of ideas. When people began to take advantage of that privilege and use information in a negative way, particularly in the press, the trust began to erode. No longer could we honestly share opinions and respectfully disagree if our words would be used against us once the meeting was over. That open dialogue produced many wonderful ideas and I learned a great deal about the issues. I truly miss that free flow discussion.
The first thing we need to do is to respect the right of each organization to exist. We need to argue the positions and stay away from personal attacks. This is not a war. These organizations have similar goals and we are generally on the same side of issues. The goal cannot be to destroy other organizations or people with whom you disagree. The discussion may continue endlessly but we need to respect the right to disagree. We need to stop thinking that any one of us knows the exact right thing to do in any situation. That level of arrogance is not productive and keeps us from considering other alternatives that may well have merit.
In my younger and feistier days, I was known to occasionally cross the line and go to war over issues. It hurt some relationships and I regret that to this day. I also regret the loss of information and counseling and sometimes friendship from these individuals. One of New Jersey’s outstanding legislators gave me some good advice. This former state senator and I had been in a heated argument about Menhaden at the Council meeting. After the meeting, he took me aside, put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Young man, we had a real heated argument in there. You got a little hot. So you know what we are going to do now, young man?” I said no. He said “We’re going to go have a drink and talk. Mark my words, Tom, we will be on the same side of an issue down the road and need to work together.” My older and wiser self realizes every day how true those words were and how valuable that advice has been.
JCAA will continue to work with everyone who wants to work with us. However, our commitment to the democratic process is not negotiable.
A few years ago, I wrote some articles about working together. Last month I again called for a positive working environment. One of the issues we need to address again is emails. When I first addressed this issue, I was talking about how we communicate with one another or small groups who are copied an email. The world has changed again. We now have face book, you tube, and list servers that can send to thousands at once. This means we need to use even more caution in what we send or post. The growing tendency is to respond to an email or post immediately without giving the tone or content of your message any thought. Frequently people’s post or email becomes personal rather than a reasoned debate about the issue. People will often say something in an email they would never say to someone’s face. It is hard to look someone in the eye and repeat some of the things I see in emails. If you feel that strongly, it takes courage to confront someone directly. It seems easier to hide behind a keyboard than have a face-to-face conversation. I am calling on everyone to consider a phone call or a personal conversation in lieu of an email or post. At the very minimum, emails should go directly to the person involved and not be sent out to an entire list.
Don’t hit reply to all. We are losing an audience because people are disgusted with these back-and-forth arguments. List serves are meant for facts and alerts. They are not for personal arguments or a boxing ring. Emails should be kept to the facts regarding the issues, not the personalities. There is room for personal opinion, not personal attacks. The “attackers” often agree on most of the issues but sometimes want to go to war to denigrate the other person and their organization for their purposes. I know many of these people and know what appears in the emails is only a detail, not the real issue. We need to understand that this “infighting” only empowers those with whom we don’t agree at all. They enjoy that we “divide” so they can “conquer”.
Arlington, VA – The Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board has initiated Draft Addendum III to consider recreational and commercial management measures for 2026 to support rebuilding the stock by 2029. Options will consider a range of reductions for the recreational and commercial fisheries. Recreational reductions will consider season and size limits that take into account regional differences, including no-harvest and no-targeting closures. Final action is planned for no later than October 2025 with implementation in early 2026.
“We want to thank the thousands of members of the public who took the time to provide thoughtful comments ahead of this Board meeting,” said Board Chair Megan Ware from Maine. “We understand that many will be disappointed in the Board’s decision to initiate an addendum versus taking immediate action. However, after deliberating for more than three hours about the path forward, the Board came to the conclusion that the best course of action is to proceed with an addendum which will allow for clarity on 2024 removals and additional analyses.”
The action responds to the results of the 2024 Stock Assessment Update, which indicates the resource remains overfished but is not experiencing overfishing. Short-term projections estimate an increase in fishing mortality in 2025 due to the above average 2018 year-class entering the current recreational ocean slot limit combined with the lack of strong year-classes behind it. This action is intended to increase the probability of rebuilding the stock by adjusting subsequent 2026 management measures to ensure the stock is on the necessary rebuilding trajectory.
At the meeting, the Board considered two possible paths forward. The first was to take immediate Board action to reduce fishing mortality in 2025. The second was a longer, more comprehensive process given one of the primary options being considered is seasonal closures, which represents a new management approach for the Board. Ultimately, the Board chose the second path by initiating an addendum that would provide the Board more time to develop a fuller suite of management options, allow for the incorporation of full 2024 fishery removals data, and afford the public with a more robust opportunity to provide input. The Board noted preliminary data indicate the current measures implemented through Addendum II are on track to reduce 2024 removals from 2023 and 2022 levels. The Board also recognized the importance of the thousands of public comments submitted for this meeting and the upcoming public input through the addendum process on 2026 management measures.
For more information, please contact Emilie Franke, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at efranke@asmfc.org.
I am writing these comments as a striped bass advisor from New Jersey. My history with striped bass goes back to the mid-seventies, going to ASMFC striped bass board meetings since the early 80’s. Since December 1991 I served 24 years as a Governor’s Appointee Commissioner and 6 years as a proxy for the Legislator Commission ASMFC ending in June 2023 watching the ups and downs for this fishery. After listening to the webinar, I was not surprised with the information presented. There has been poor recruitment for the last five years and the spawning stock biomass is still big enough to produce the highest young of the year. But because we changed the targets a few times in the past few years, we are not reaching some imaginary target.
We shouldn’t be making the same mistakes over and over again. We have made drastic cuts in both the commercial and recreational fishery under the emergency actions without going through an addendum process. This has had a dramatic effect on both the recreational and commercial fishing industries. These cuts do not address the problem of why we are having poor recruitment. We are still managing in the old method of looking at charts, tables and projections that are based on assumptions with the best available data. The data we are using does not take into account the reasons we are having poor recruitment. It is not fishing pressure. We know that because the facts tell us that this size biomass can produce high young of the year classes. We need to address the problems that actually exist.
Being an agent orange vet, it came to my attention that the chemicals we have introduced to the system we are feminizing male fish. I started reading the studies in the late 80’s and attending scientific workshops on the impact of chemicals in the water. The first study I will quote is a study done on small mouth bass in the Potomac River. A number of the male small mouth bass were having sexual developmental problems, and some were actually trying to lay eggs. There was a study in Boulder Colorado on white suckers. Above the sewer plant there were 46 females and 38 males. Below the sewer plant there were 110 females, 10 males and 10 with both sexual organs. Dr. Anne McElroy, NYSG Research Scientist, Stony Brook University, studied winter flounder in Jamaica Bay. I spent my early years fishing in Jamaica Bay by the outflows with raw sewage. There were also landfills leaching into Jamaica Bay. She found that instead of the normal ratio of female to males, 10/1, 11/1 and 12/1, just the opposite of what it is supposed to be. I was collecting studies like this, and I have about 40 studies that I can share.
We know the size of the spawning stock biomass are females. The older and larger fish are generally female. When you are looking at 36 inch or larger fish the assumption is that the overwhelming majority are female. We don’t know the population of males in Chesapeake Bay, and we don’t know the health of that stock. Nobody has been studying if there are sexual abnormalities in the male striped bass in Chesapeake Bay. The other situation in Chesapeake Bay is we are fishing on smaller fish because they were assumed to be male fish. Most female fish are moving from Chesapeake Bay to the ocean before they are large enough to be harvested. The commercial and recreational fisheries are then targeting male fish in the bay.
Because of the lack of science on what is happening with the male fish I cannot go down the same path of further restricting the ocean fishery. The ocean fishery for the most part is not fishing on the male fish, and we need the science to know exactly what is happening. Maybe we need to protect male fish as much as we protect female fish.
Listening to the last board meeting I need to correct two comments that were made. First, one of the commercial fishermen complained that they were feeding the masses while recreational anglers were just playing with the fish. I wanted to point out that most recreational anglers like to take home fish for their families to eat. We have not allowed them to do that by putting in the current slot limits. You are forcing these anglers to catch a lot of fish before they can get one to take home to eat. This raises the numbers of catch and release mortality. Second, it was also said that commercial fishermen only catch 10% of the fishery. That is by weight but not by number of fish. You are comparing a size limit of 36 inches commercial fish in Massachusetts with and 18-inch commercial fish in Chesapeake Bay. For every commercial fish landed in the ocean the ratio is probably 8/1 for the fish in Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay commercial fishermen may be catching less poundage, but they are catching a lot more fish, with most of them being males.
We need more research to find out what is going on and what are the real reasons for the lack of recruitment in Chesapeake Bay. That is why at this time I support status quo.
What I also support is that we need to review what the hatcheries were doing in Maryland, Virginia, New York and North Carolina doing the rebuilding period. Many people at this table were not here in the 70’s and 80’s when these hatcheries were in operation. Those programs were shut down in Virgina and Maryland when those fisheries we declared recovered. Those fish were raised to 2 inches and every one released from the hatchery was tagged. By being raised to 2 inches in a pristine environment, those striped bass were not subject to the impact of pollution in their early development. Also, at 2 inches they were able to escape many of the predators that gobbled them by as fry and eggs. I have attached a couple of articles on hatcheries currently operating in North Carolina.
In closing, to do hatcheries or get the necessary research on the problems with low recruitment, it will cost money. The crisis in the 80’s made Congress work in a bi-partisan way. It was Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina, Congressman Studds from Massachusetts and Senator Chaffee Senior from Rhode Island that put in the bills to fund the research through the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. We need that kind of bi-partisan work again.
I’m the sales manager of the Folsom Corporation, the largest wholesale distributor of fishing tackle in the Northeast with offices and warehouses in both New Jersey and Florida. We employee over 240 people; Healthy fisheries and equitable public access to those populations are the lifeblood of our livelihood. Just last week we hosted our annual Dealer Show in Atlantic City hosting over 120 independent fishing tackle retail businesses. Striped bass, their record abundance in some locations and low numbers in others was a frequent topic of conversation. Dealers from different areas compared notes on their summer businesses, with some reporting lackluster striper fishing in once popular areas while others speaking of incredible populations of all sizes of stripers, with the frequent mention of huge numbers of feeding stripers surface feeding among bluefin tuna schools, often up to 25 miles offshore!
For actively engaged stakeholders in this fishery, it’s clear that locations where striped bass historically were observed in the past – or perhaps not – are much different today. What we have heard through all of the group discussions was that the striped bass population was changing in distribution and historical geographic density. For those areas that experienced poor fishing, the most frequently voiced comments echoed both concern for the population and questions regarding the reasons for the changes, while businesses lucky enough to be located in areas of higher striped bass density are enjoying fantastic fishing and brisk business.
Every dealer expressed concern for the proposed regulatory changes as outlined, and how those changes would address the challenges the striper population now faces. Most questioned the wisdom of reducing angler harvest when the most glaring issue is not necessarily the building of spawning stock biomass (SSB) but the young of the year (YOY) production. The folks we speak to on a regular basis – the retailers and the anglers alike – would like to see more of regional and federal commitment to understand the environmental challenges in spawning estuaries
We heard repeatedly from dealers in every location that they are observing more frequent catch and release practices among their clientele, and they universally questioned the accuracy of the angler harvest data through MRIP. Additionally, almost everyone questioned indicated that the ability to harvest a slot striper is a very important factor to a significant number of customers. Harvest was mentioned as particularly important to entry level anglers and those of lower income.
What we heard most often from the group was that they are concerned that making regulation changes without science-based facts will do nothing more than placate a highly vocal minority, eliminating much of the diverse input that our retailers hear from their customers who are not part of clubs and well-funded advocacy groups. Our small businesses - along with each and every employee in my company - are highly invested in striped bass, and the successful ongoing health of the population! We all want what's best for the species.
Remember, this is not about a hobby; this is a culture in our community and a livelihood! Mortgage payments, college tuition for our kids, food on our tables. We need answers to questions that range from, can the Chesapeake be restored to its historic prominence, or is significant spawning and recruitment going on in other more northern and cooler tributaries? Furthermore, why are migration patterns changing so dramatically within the striped bass fishery? Clearly, these are not questions that can be answered over the three business days allowed for public comment, but they’re important for the future health of this fishery.
In a nutshell my observation is that the coastal striped bass fishery is robust and the recent changes in the slot limit are successfully controlling increases in angling mortality. The new spawning stock biomass projections that account for continued poor recruitment are also showing significant rebuilding by 2029. We believe the reference point level is too high and while we support the well-intentioned aspirational goals, we are concerned that it causes the public to view our current population in an alarmingly negative light.
Reducing our harvest days will not fix poor recruitment, which is our single biggest challenge. History indicates that spawning success and stock size have no real relationship to each other. Clearly the SSB is more than big enough to produce abundant YOY populations if conditions were hospitable to successful spawning and fry survival. Coincidentally, we are at a 30-year low on mortality rate in the striped bass fishery, 21 days prior to the 1995 anniversary of the heralded conservation victory of the rebuilding of the striped bass stock. As it stands today, we’re only about 10 million pounds away from the celebratory mark, with a growing SSB population and a historically low mortality rate.
In our view, the most critical problem with the current striper population is the continued lack of successful recruitment, which one might compare to a low automobile gas tank. Keeping in mind that in the past some rather small SSB numbers produced record year classes, the proposed regulation changes seem to us to be an automobile tire change that aspires to fill the gas tank; regrettably, one has nothing to do with the other.
Management designed to placate hysteria has no place in any successful fisheries management strategy. The most recent fast-tracking of the regulatory process through implementation of emergency actions while denying reasonable public comment periods is a most alarming situation; it’s become a dangerous precedent that must be curtailed for the good of the fishery. The very fact that the proposed regulatory changes presented to the public on December 5, which most clearly imposes a greater hardship on some states in a geographic region while others sacrifice far less, shows how broken the current process of striped bass management has become. Such punitive, fast-tracked measures have huge socioeconomic impacts which regrettably will not be realized by ASMFC, its Board and the Technical Committee until it’s too late.
As members of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), we at the Folsom Corporation support the ASA position, to keep the current recreational measures for striped bass the same in 2025. As ASA has capably noted on behalf of our industry and our customers, “new stock projections show that the current management measures are working to control fishing mortality and achieve rebuilding by the 2029 deadline. The new projections include lower recruitment assumptions to account for the ongoing scenario of poor recruitment coming out of the Chesapeake Bay. Any changes to the 2025 season at this point may lead to a less equitable opportunity for recreational anglers and cause undue harm to the sportfishing industry.”
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.