By Dick Brame
CCA Atlantic States Fisheries Director

With two and a half years having elapsed since the Coastal Conservation Association adopted its position on Amendment 6, nearly a dozen Striped Bass Management Board meetings, five Technical Committee meetings, and 3 Advisory Panel meetings, the timeline for Amendment 6 is now set. There will be public hearings in late August. The Management Board will meet between September and October to discuss public input. Then the Board will meet in November to adopt Amendment 6.

The delay has not been all-bad, as it has allowed the Management Board and Technical Committee to fully explore all issues. Through this process, the issues in the documents have really boiled down to - What is the acceptable fishing mortality target for the stock and should the allocation of the fish (either recreational v. commercial or bay v. coast) change?

CCA’s position (adopted in February 2000) still addresses these issues in a clear and relevant manner. We believe the Amendment 5 mortality target of F=0.31 is too high. The population growth has slowed since Amendment 5 was implemented (Figure 1) and the allowable mortality rate is too high to allow the age structure of striped bass to fill out. Striped bass live naturally to age 25 or more on average, fishing at the present rate is cropping the age structure at about age 15. We believe it is critical that the target fishing mortality rate be lowered in order to allow fish to grow to those older, larger age classes.

Why is this important? The primary reason is to create a stable spawning stock that can withstand several years of recruitment failure, a natural occurrence in striped bass. While striped bass females are 100 percent mature at age 10, some begin producing eggs at age 4. Thus, more than 60 percent of the present estimate of spawning stock is composed of fish less than 10 years old. We would prefer that the spawning stock have a large component of the fish that have survived longer than 15 years. That way the more successful females, the ones that lived the longest, will be major contributors to the spawning stock and, hopefully, pass those traits along to future generations.

Secondarily, we believe the presence of larger fish will further enhance the economic value of the recreational fishery. Since the implementation of Amendment 5, coastal anglers have seen the number of large fish decline, we believe a modest decrease in the target fishing mortality rate would pay big dividends in the future.

As for the dreaded “A” word (allocation), we believe that fish are caught where they are most abundant during the summer fishing season. That means a lot of fish are caught recreationally in Chesapeake Bay during the summer, which are primarily younger, smaller fish. A lot of fish are caught recreationally off the New England coast in the summer as well. The Bay commercial harvest is at or exceeds its base-year harvest levels, and the coastal commercial allocation is at about 70 percent of its base allocation. At present, the recreational harvest of striped bass accounts for about 60-70 percent of the total harvest.

Changing any of these allocations (save the coastal commercial harvest) would require onerous regulations that would not really benefit the stock. Thus, we believe the allocation should stay essentially the same, and everyone should operate under a new, reduced target fishing mortality rate. The coastal commercial quota has been held low while the total commercial harvest has been allowed to increase over 300 percent since 1994 (very similar in percentage to the recreational harvest - Figures 3). You can bet the Management Board will address this issue.

What Will All This Mean To Me?

There are only 3 fishing mortality targets in Amendment 6 to be considered - F=0.30 (essentially status quo), F=0.25, and F=0.20.

If we continue to fish at the present F=0.31 rate under constant conditions, the number of fish greater than age 10 will increase from an estimated 100,000 in 2002 (remember, there are about 45,000,000 fish age 1 or older) to about 175,000 fish in 2012 - a 75 percent increase. At F=0.25, the number of age 10-plus fish would increase from 100,000 to about 300,000 - a 200 percent increase. At F=0.20, the number of age 10 plus fish would increase from 100,000 to about 425,000 - an increase of more than 300 percent (Figure 2). It is clear that the more you are willing to lower mortality, the faster the age structure will fill out.

In order to achieve the F=0.30 option, you would have to do nothing. The present target is F=0.31, but the latest assessment shows we are fish at a lower rate of about F=0.28. This has the least pain but, by far, the least gain.

In order to achieve the F=0.25 option, you would have to reduce the harvest about 10 percent from present harvest levels to achieve the target. There have been rumors (spread unfortunately by some state agency individuals) that have painted a bleak picture of any effort to reduce mortality. The reports I have seen and heard are not true.

At present, changing the target fishing mortality rate to F=0.25 would cause little pain yet produce triple the number of larger, older fish.

In order to achieve the F=0.20 option, you would have to reduce harvest levels by about 25-30 percent. While this would cause the biggest increase in the numbers of larger older fish, everyone would clearly feel this change.

Since the Management Board wants to implement regulations, leave them in place at least 3 years and get away from the annual change in regulations we currently have, we believe that is further reason to lower the target fishing mortality rate to err on the side of conservation. Given that fact that you can maintain current harvest rates with only a slight reduction and, for that effort, get a potential 300 percent return on the investment, we believe that is the proper way to go.

The CCA Atlantic States Fisheries Committee will have a document prepared explaining Amendment 6 well before public hearings are held.

Figure 1. Striped bass population abundance from the 2000 VPA results. Since the implementation of Amendment 5 in 1996 with a higher F target, the population growth has slowed or even declined.

Figure 2. Projection of age ten and older striped bass abundance under the three proposed fishing mortality targets (F=0.20, F=0.25, F=0.30) based on the 2000 exploitation pattern. After 10 years there would be over 200% more age 10+ striped bass at F=0.25; over 300% more age 10+ at F=0.20.

Figure 3. Atlantic striped bass commercial landings from 1990-2000 (pounds).