sorry had to break it up in 2 parts because of page limits-


Back in 2011, anglers’ worries about a declining striped bass stock led the Management Board to consider an addendum that would have paved the way for reducing harvest before the last benchmark assessment was completed. The Striped Bass Stock Assessment Update 2011 confirmed the anglers’ concerns, indicating a declining stock that might well become overfished in the near future.


Even so, the effort to reduce landings stalled in November 2011, just before a draft amendment went out for public comment. The Striped Bass Management Board chose to postpone action until the completion of the benchmark stock assessment, because the management triggers included in Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass had not yet been tripped, and so no action was required.


Today, two of those management triggers have been tripped, fishing mortality targets have been exceeded in multiple years and the stock is well below target biomass, with nearly a coin-toss chance that it became overfished last year.


A new benchmark stock assessment will be undertaken next year.


Yet, because a stock assessment update, which was never subject to peer review, suggested that the biomass was slightly larger than previously believed, people are now falling all over each other to increase the kill, not only before the next benchmark assessment occurs, but before management measures imposed to comply with the last benchmark assessment can even be evaluated.


It always seems that the ASMFC folks are quicker to kill fish than they are to conserve them.


At the November 2015 Management Board meeting, Robert O’Reilly, who represents the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC), seemed appalled at maintaining a steady course until the next benchmark assessment is released in 2018, saying


“I don’t recall being told that a benchmark assessment would take us to the next management regime…Management can certainly take place without a benchmark.
“I really don’t understand where the benchmark is coming from. I would like to be able to speak for some of the coastal states as to what they think about the situation of waiting until 2018…I know within the Chesapeake Bay we were to a point where we all thought—I did not think one year. I thought we adopted a plan for a two-year approach to be re-evaluated and go from there…”
I was at the October 2014 meeting, and listened pretty closely, and I don't recall hearing anyone say that the Addendum IV measures would only last for two years.


In fact, given the break awarded to Chesapeake Bay—a 20.5% reduction in harvest, instead of the 25% cut imposed on the rest of us—it probably would take Chesapeake fishermen two years just to get their fishing mortality down to target levels.

That, I remember hearing…


Patrick Keliher, the fisheries director from Maine, got it right.


“The ink has [not] even dried on this plan yet. We don’t even have the results of the regulatory actions that were taken last year by all the [states] in place. I think this is very premature…
“…Mr. O’Reilly talked about a trickle of fish coming to the coast. It is going to take a lot more than a trickle to positively impact the State of Maine…”

It’s going to take more than a trickle to positively impact the rest of the coastal states, too.


However, if Maryland, the PRFC, New Jersey and Delaware get their way—and given ASMFC’s track record, that could very well happen—a trickle may be all that we get, unless we speak long and loud against any addendum that might emerge from the Management Board this February.