The news on bluefish is generally good. The stocks are stronger, recreational landings are not only under control but actually near 10 million pounds under the total allowable landings (TAL), commercial harvest is stable and everyone was pretty pleased with the situation.

Amendment 1 to the Bluefish FMP is awaiting final approval. It includes a quota transfer from a projected unused recreational TAL to the commercial TAL so that in the first year under this new amendment, commercial harvesters would not be forced to endure a dramatic reduction in harvest from their most recent landings periods. It’s very nice of the managers to take from the recreation and give to the commercial and, to be perfectly honest, with the dramatic underage of the recreational harvest in recent years, it really was not a big deal. Most everyone voted in favor of the one-time transfer during the amendment development period.

During the quota setting process at the joint meeting, Tom Fote made a motion to increase the recreational bag limit from 10 to 15 fish on behalf of the Commission. Such an increase would have had little or no effect on the recreational harvest for the coming year. As Fote explained, the recreational user group is harvesting at 10 million pounds under its allowable landings. The stock is in healthy condition and growing and there was no reason to constrain recreational catches artificially, which the 10 fish bag limit does. "Very few recreational fishermen keep more than a couple of bluefish on a given trip," Fote explained. "In fact, many almost never keep them, releasing everything they catch instead. However, if a recreational fisherman does want to keep 15 bluefish to bring home to freeze or give to his family, friends and neighbors, there is no reason he should be prevented from doing so. There is no biological reason not to do so and there is no recreational sale since the traditional individual "permits to sell" were disapproved under Amendment 1, thus eliminating any profit motive to drive up landings." Fote’s motion to increase was seconded for the Commission by Pat Augustine from New York.

Gary Caputi put forth the same motion for the Mid-Atlantic Council (seconded by Ed Mesunas of Pennsylvania) stating that the days of wasteful practices with bluefish are long since gone. Management and angling ethics have changed dramatically in more recent years and anglers are careful to release fish they will not utilize, which is obvious by the trends in landing in the recent past. He explained that a 15 fish bag limit would benefit those fishermen who can most use the fish they catch to feed their families, the subsistence fishermen that have been hurt the most every time a larger size limit or smaller bag limit is imposed in an FMP. He sighted the people he sees regularly fishing along the Pt. Pleasant Canal or from the beach. Many are fishing for a little enjoyment, but also for the benefit that the fish they catch are as food. Unfortunately, they are regulated out of many fisheries like fluke, blackfish, seabass and striped bass because the fish available to them from shore are overwhelmingly smaller than the size limits FMPs regulate. An increase in the bluefish bag limit would allow the subsistence fisherman who saves his money to make a couple trips a year on a party boat to bring home 15 bluefish, should he choose, for all the right reasons.

The debate that ensued was certainly not unusual. State directors on the Commission rebuked both Fote and Caputi for suggesting an increase in bag limit. Most felt there was no reason for an increase, while they continued to support the transfer of recreational landings to the commercial sector, where they will most definitely be caught and killed for market. So what if subsistence fishermen are being artificially restrained from keeping fish to augment their meager incomes. They’ve got a lot of nerve expecting to be able to actually eat the fish they catch, anyway. The hypocrisy was blatant and when the vote came for the Commission, the state directors prevailed with only New Jersey voting in favor of the bag limit increase. Since the Commission voted first, the motion was killed for the Mid-Atlantic Council, where there was more support for the increase.

The question remains. Why are key managers on the Commission so afraid of rewarding recreational fishermen for the conservation efforts they have made to rebuild the bluefish stocks? Even knowing that a move to increase the bag limit would result in only a small increase in the recreational landings and benefit those among us who need the help the most, they were adamant in their opposition. If they were only that hard-core when it came to reducing and maintaining low levels of landings for commercial interests, most of the fish stocks presently depressed would be in much better shape.

If you feel that it’s time to allow subsistence fishermen to benefit from the rebuilding of stocks like the bluefish, a call to your representatives and state directors would seem in order.