No-Targeting Closures a Real Threat for Striped Bass Fishermen

Capt. McMurray is the owner of One More Cast Charters in Oceanside, NY.

While there has been a lot going on with striped bass management over the last few years, I’ve only been tangentially involved. I no longer have a seat at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) table, and I’m no longer associated with any fisheries advocacy group.

For the most part, that’s intentional. The politics, the failure to communicate nuance, and the level of hate that occurs on both sides of the aisle is uncomfortable. But the biggest reason I’m no longer directly involved with managing striped bass is that I’m spending all my time catching them rather than talking about them. Because the fishing has been really good. This fall was arguably the best I’ve ever seen on the South Shore of Long Island. I said that last year and the year before, too. It just keeps getting better.

Does that mean all is well in the world of striped bass? No, it doesn’t. Not at all. However, the reality of the striped bass fishery is complicated.

Striped Bass are Overfished but Rebuilding

Striped bass aren’t endangered. No reputable scientist would say they are. Are they in trouble, given recent consecutive years of poor recruitment (the number of juvenile fish entering the population)? Unfortunately, yes. Yet there are a lot of fish in some regions during certain times of the year. The fishing isn’t so hot in some places—the Chesapeake being the glaring example—but, overall, it’s hard to ignore that there are more striped bass around than we’ve seen in quite some time.

There are at least five good year-classes moving along the coast right now (2003, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2018), and even a few 2000/2001s still around. A constraining slot limit (28” to less than 31”) is limiting recreational harvest. Fishing mortality, a measure of the fish removed from the population by fishing activity, is estimated to be at a 30-year low.

The striper stock is increasing and rebuilding. Projections show that in 2025, the spawning stock biomass (the total weight of all female striped bass mature enough to reproduce) will reach the rebuilt level of 1995. In other words, we’re close to the same spawning stock biomass of 1995, which was when striped bass were previously declared rebuilt after the stock declined in the 1980s.

However, the management plan defines the spawning stock biomass target as 25% higher than that level and requires that we reach the target by 2029. So, managers are under the gun to get striped bass spawning stock biomass to that level by 2029—a level that we’ve seen in only four years out of the past 40.

It’s reasonable to believe that the target may be too high. After all, it is an empirical reference point based on achieving 125% of the 1995 level. But, right now, 125% of the 1995 spawning stock biomass is the target, and the ASMFC remains committed to achieving that goal.

Chesapeake Bay Recruitment Failure is a Concern

Around 80% of coastal striped bass come from the massive Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are smaller producer areas (i.e., the Hudson and Delaware) that can add to the Chesapeake, but they can’t replace it.

The last six years of recruitment in the Chesapeake were bad. In fact, we haven’t seen that sort of recruitment failure since the 80s. Today, when spawning stock biomass is far higher than it was in the 80s, Mother Nature has returned some of the worst recruitment.

The science is clear that unfavorable environmental conditions are the cause of poor recruitment.  While it makes sense to preserve spawning-age fish for when we are blessed with more favorable environmental conditions, we should also understand that significantly lower levels of spawning stock biomass have resulted in strong year-classes.  In other words, a higher abundance of spawning females will not fix the recruitment problems in the Chesapeake.

Recreational Fishermen Account for 90% of Total Removals

With continued poor recruitment and a biomass target to reach, we are likely facing seasonal closures in the future, which has led to finger pointing.

Some anglers point at commercial fishing. However, commercial striped bass landings make up about 10% of total removals, and commercial fishermen are tightly managed with quotas, timely reporting, and penalties for overages.

Some people seem intent on pointing the finger at the charter/party-boat fleet. According to the data, they account for even less landings than the commercial fishery.

Who contributes the most to striped bass fishing mortality?  It’s the recreational fishery, and it isn’t only people who keep fish. In fact, about 45% of total removals comes from recreational harvest, while another 45% results from catch-and-release fishing. (It’s estimated that 9% of released striped bass do not survive, and when you multiply that across recreational fishing effort, it adds up.)

The problem is that while harvest can be controlled by size and bag limits, there are no good management tools to regulate catch-and-release mortality other than telling people they cannot fish for striped bass. These “no-targeting closures” would clearly be bad for anglers and businesses that depend on striped bass fishing.

Commissioners are Shifting Focus to Release Mortality

From a practical perspective, no-targeting closures should be a non-starter because they are unenforceable. People can simply claim that they’re targeting a different species.  Guides and charter captains will be hurt the most because we must comply. Even if I chose to be non-compliant, I couldn’t advertise striper fishing trips or promote good fishing on social media to drive business.

Yet, no-targeting closures are gaining momentum as a management tool. The argument about unenforceability does not seem to be gaining traction, especially since some states have no-targeting closures in place within spring spawning areas, and the entire ocean beyond 3 nautical miles is a striped bass no-targeting closure.

Furthermore, if catch-and-release mortality is tallying up approximately 45% of all dead fish, is it fair to ask only those who harvest fish to take on the burden of constraining regulations through a reduced bag limit, narrow slot, and no-harvest closures?  While I hate to admit it, it isn’t.

So, I understand why some commissioners are pushing no-targeting closures and why others seem to agree with them. And, frankly, that’s scary.

Closures Gained Traction at Recent Striped Bass Board Meeting

In December 2024, the Striped Bass Board met to review updated stock projections and decide whether to change regulations for 2025 since more than one projection suggested that the probability of achieving the spawning stock biomass target by 2029 was below 50%. (Note: there was also a projection that indicated the probability was above 50%.)

However, to achieve a reduction in fishing mortality that might bring us to a 50% probability under most of the projections, commissioners were looking at severe options to constrain the fishery, including no-targeting closures.

The meeting made it clear that seasonal closures, particularly no-targeting closures, are a big decision point. Most commissioners seemed to believe it was a decision that should be vetted through a thorough addendum process rather than rushed under Board action for 2025.

By going through an addendum process, commissioners would have complete 2024 catch data and better information to make decisions that carry such gravity for all stakeholders. Still, there were a lot of folks who said it was just another excuse to delay action and “kick the can.”

I don’t see it that way. For the time being, there isn’t a catastrophic threat to the stock. Is no action in 2025 taking on more risk and perhaps jeopardizing meeting the rebuilding target by 2029? Maybe, but the alternative we were looking at may have been untenable.

I think striper fishermen dodged a bullet. Should no-targeting closures get traction, and they certainly had some at that meeting, it’ll be awfully hard to stop the momentum.

The Addendum Process is an Opportunity to Move Forward

Fishery managers/commissioners are smart, competent people trying to navigate incredibly difficult and complex decisions. To imply they’re just a bunch of hacks or accuse them of being spineless and caving to industry shows a lack of understanding about who these people are and what they do.

Currently, the ASMFC is proceeding with caution on striped bass, as they should. As this addendum develops, there will be more contentious debate. My advice is to get your information from more than one source, do as much research as you can, and take the time to understand the tradeoffs related to each decision.

The striper stock is a public resource, and no single stakeholder has a greater right to it than another. It’s clear the ASMFC intends to balance the needs of all user groups. So, be careful what you wish for.   Rather than no-targeting closures, I’d prefer a slightly lower, science-based target, but that isn’t even an option until the peer-reviewed benchmark stock assessment is conducted in 2027.

In the meantime, if we want a striper fishery at all, we must figure out a path together, one that ensures there are plenty of fish in the water for us to target and that we have reasonable, sustainable access to them.

Without sport fishing, we lose the people who care most about the resource. And, at that point, it’s real trouble for striped bass.

Capt. McMurray is the owner of One More Cast Charters in Oceanside, NY and former president of the American Saltwater Guides Association.  He served three terms on the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council and six years as NY’s legislative proxy at ASMFC.

Source: https://onthewater.com/no-targeting-closures-a-real-threat-for-striped-bass-fishermen

$post[‘post_content’] .= ‘Source‘;