Today we have a blog post by a friend of the Surfcaster’s Journal, Charlie Witek. This is not an “official” position of any organization, but rather the views of a long-time striped bass angler who is intimately familiar with the Connecticut fishery, having fished it actively before, during and after the collapse of the 1970s-‘80s, and still spends some time up there each season. And who thinks that this is a dumb idea.
BTW..check out the online store…more on that tomorrow
Zeno
By Charles Witek
In the last edition of the Surfcasters’ Journal, I wrote a piece that examined the “gamefish” debate. In it, I noted that when arguing in favor of “gamefish status,” the most difficult argument to make was the argument that “gamefish status” was a conservation measure, and the most difficult criticism to rebut arose when commercial fishermen characterized “gamefish” as nothing more than a “fish grab” clothed in the trappings of conservation. Recent actions in Connecticut demonstrate why that is so.
Connecticut was probably the first state to adopt “gamefish status” for stripers, doing so, if I recall correctly, sometime in the 1950s. Before that, its commercial harvest was modest. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission currently gives the state a 23,750 pound commercial allocation which, until recently went unused, and was “reinvested” into the spawning stock. A couple of years ago, that changed. Connecticut asked ASMFC for, and was granted, a special harvest of immature (22-28 inch) striped bass, which would take place in the upper reaches of the Connecticut River. Two of the arguments in favor of the special season were that it would protect the badly depleted stocks of river herring that get bunch up around the state capitol at Hartford, and that it would provide a valuable urban recreational experience for the residents of that somewhat troubled city. However, Connecticut has now expanded the harvest to all river systems within the state, and to the state’s entire coast.
In 2012, throughout the months of May and June, Connecticut will effectively have a 4-fish bag limit. Two of those fish must exceed 28 inches in length, while the other two, for which the anglers must hold “Bonus Striped Bass Vouchers” (issued free by the state at a number of locations, including some tackle shops), must fall into a 22 to 28-inch slot. Under the program, anglers in the state will be permitted to harvest up to 4,025 striped bass that would otherwise have been “shorts” under both state law and ASMFCs striped bass management plan. Connecticut urges anglers to take the small fish from a river system in order to protect river herring, or to use them to introduce a child or other new angler to recreational fishing. However, there is no requirement that they do so.
Unlike programs in other areas, such those in New Jersey and Delaware which permit anglers to take small fish in certain waters, under the theory that they will be non-migratory males not essential to the spawning stock, the Connecticut program will undoubtedly kill a number of immature females. I grew up in western Connecticut, at a time of my life that allowed me to be on the water just about every day, and am intimately familiar with the fishery. Late May and early June is prime time for school stripers in Long Island Sound, and is a time when fish from all of the major spawning areas—Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware estuary and the Hudson River—are present. When fishing the Connecticut shore during May and June, I’ve caught tagged fish, and I have tagged fish that were later returned from the major spawning rivers, so the question of migratory females being present is not opens for debate. Certainly, the 4,000 or so fish that will be taken under the program are hardly a blip when compared to all of the bass caught along the coast over the course of the year, but still…
How does Connecticut’s action affect the chances for the Massachusetts “gamefish” bill? Massachusetts has the biggest commercial quota on the coast (excluding Chesapeake Bay), and outlawing the commercial fishery there would make a far larger contribution to the spawning stock—provided that the fish weren’t merely handed over to the recreational sector to be killed by them instead. Every time the “gamefish” issue arises anywhere on the coast, the classic commercial response is that “gamefish status” is not a conservation measure, but in reality a “fish grab” that switches allocation between sectors, but ultimately does nothing to increase the striped bass population. Connecticut’s action, following upon New Jersey’s much older “bonus fish” program, is just more ammunition that the commercials have to demonstrate that their claim is true.
Anglers in favor of “gamefish status” now have a decision to make. They can come out on the side of conservation, and explicitly disclaim any additional harvest that would become available to them as a result of a commercial fishing ban. If they do that, they can legitimately hoist the banner of conservation, and work not only to end the commercial fishery, but to increase the spawning stock so that more fish might ultimately be available for all. On the other hand, if they want to see their state institute a “bonus fish” program, they should be honest with legislators, regulators and the public at large, and set forth their arguments on economic and policy grounds. A “bonus fish” program is certainly defensible in those terms. But it is about more dead fish for anglers, not about “conservation.”
[issuu width=420 height=162 shareMenuEnabled=false showHtmlLink=false backgroundColor=%23222222 documentId=120311004957-aa2402a5155442c7ab27bce503b9ff57 name=surfcasters_journal_issue_12 username=surfcasters_journal tag=fishing unit=px id=38ba2ca8-adb8-1562-d125-ebdeb78a3d97 v=2]
