Striped Bass Addendum - Comment Now

[Angler Paul]

All,

A while ago Gerry asked me to chime in with some comments about the striped bass addendum. The important thing is that you let your opinions be know. Below is some information to do that. It is quite easy to just click on the link and answer the survey.

The public is encouraged to submit comments regarding the proposed management options in
this document at any time during the addendum process. The final date comments will be
accepted is Friday, October 3 at 11:59 p.m. EST. Comments may be submitted by mail, email or
online. If you have any questions or would like to submit comments, please use the contact
information below.
1. Mail: Emilie Franke, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1050 N. Highland St.
Suite 200A-N, Arlington, VA 22201
2. Email: comments@asmfc.org (Subject line: Striped Bass Draft Addendum III)
3. Online via the public comment form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z3WLHF3
4. Online via comment box: https://asmfc.org/actions/atlantic-s...rt-rebuilding/
5. At public hearings (see the Action Tracker page for hearing schedule)


I've also included my personal comments below. You may or may not agree with it but I'm hopeful you will at least find it interesting. I won't have time to debate this here online but please send you comments to the ASMFC.

ASMFC,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Addendum III to Amendment VII regarding striped bass. I been fishing for striped bass for over 55 years and used to fish on the jetties of NJ about 75 nights a year. I yearn for the days when I was allowed to keep a trophy striper, as that is what drove me to fish all hours of the night. I still fish for stripers even though I have resigned myself to the fact that I will never be able to keep a large striper again. Still, I believe that you have to do a better job of protecting our smaller stripers. My chief concern is that eventually the larger stripers we have now are going to die for various reasons. With six consecutive years of bad spawns in the Chesapeake, there may be few fish coming up the pipe to take the place of the larger ones we are going to lose.
Increasing the biomass will not increase spawning success as there are more than enough stripers in the system to produce a great spawn. However, preserving the biomass may be helpful to ensure good fishing in the future while we try to correct all the factors that are causing spawning success and recruitment to fail. For those reasons I was inclined to favor a 12% reduction. However, now I understand that NOAA is hosting a peer review of the fishing effort survey, that could show that effort is currently significantly less than originally believed. If that’s the case, perhaps there has been enough done already with the small slot limit to ensure sustainability of the stocks for the future. Further, the biomass is approaching the level when the stocks were declared restored in 1995. However, the reference points were changed and the current target may be unattainable with the environmental conditions we have today. There is also a new benchmark stock assessment coming up in 2027. Therefore, though I support further restrictions if needed, I urge the Commission to delay doing so until the new data comes out. Afterall, the stocks are trending in the right direction and there is no urgency to take action at this time.
However, if the Commission does take action, I support a 12% cut with no harvest with a closure during Wave 2. When our fisheries stocks are in trouble, everyone should be required to make sacrifices to rebuild them. That includes commercial and recreational fishermen alike, and specifically includes all sectors of recreational fishermen. It would be very wrong to give special privileges to the for-hire fleet at a time when the rest of us have to cut back. It also includes catch release anglers who account for 40-50% of the removals each year. They yell the loudest for conservation until if affects them. They should not be given a free pass.
Closing the fishery to targeting could hurt some of the tackle stores who cater to C&R anglers. However, closing it to no harvest would have a negative effect on many businesses as well. There are many people who want to keep a striped bass, who will drive long distances to fish for them on charter and party boats. Those for-hire boats would be negatively impacted as well as near-by tackle stores that cater to those who want to keep a fish. Having a no targeting regulation would require a much shorter closure and be fair to everyone.
Then you have those who claim that no targeting would not be enforceable. Though there would be difficulties with enforcing such a closure, it is done in the back bays of NJ during January and February. It is also enforced by the Coast Guard in the EEZ, where it is illegal to target or possess striped bass. However, the biggest savings would come from people who obey the law.
My preferences for the various options in the addendum are listed below.
3.1 B – Pinch the tail, mouth closed, straight line measurement. It makes sense to require all states to measure the fish the same way.
3.2 B – Fish should be tagged at the point of harvest which will best prevent illegal harvest and sales.
3.3 A or C – Status Quo or Option C with a 10% buffer if the board opts for further restrictions. My concern is that different seasons could result in more effort, which would in turn result in higher mortality.
3.4 A – I support status quo at least until MRIP is peer reviewed and the benchmark stock assessment is completed in 2017.
3.4 B – If the board chooses to cut back, I prefer O1 with no special privileges for the for-hire fleet
Regarding table 10, if the board opts for further restrictions, I prefer the regions of ME to RI and CT- NC.
I also prefer no targeting as it is fair to everyone and support a closure during wave 2 as it would protect our pre-spawn and spawning stripers.
If the board opts for no-harvest I prefer an option that would impact each state as equally as possible. For instance, for the region from CT-NC a wave 4 closure would have more of an impact on the northern states whereas a wave 6 closure would have more of an impact on the states further to the south. Therefore, having a closure in each of these two waves might fairly balance it out.
Additionally, I would like to see the board do the following:
Do a better job of protecting our forage species, particularly menhaden. The reduction industry needs to be eliminated.
Make striped bass a no-sale or gamefish. I believe that illegal sales result in the commercial sector being responsible for far more than the 10% of the removals that is claimed. Look at what is going on in MA, any resident can purchase a commercial permit for striped bass for just $20. That entitles them to harvest two stripers per day from shore or fifteen per boat over 35”, the same breeders the rest of us are forced to protect. Many of those fish are not unreported.
Support the bill that would put a bounty on the invasive blue catfish that are taking over Chesapeake Bay.
Look into establishing hatcheries. With all the problems negatively impacting spawning success in the Chesapeake Bay, we might not have much of a choice.
Study phenology. It could be possible that striper fry and the microscopic organisms they feed on could be out of sync. Perhaps something could be done about that if it is a problem.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Haertel