Striped Bass Board met on September 30 in Peabody MA. There
were no new tables or charts produced for this meeting. This was
very disappointing to the advisors and the board members. We had
been led to believe that the revised tables would be available at
this meeting. This left the advisors with few options beyond
status quo. The Technical Committee will be meeting in the middle
of October in Annapolis to review the VPA number and have the
final charts and tables ready for the ASMFC Annual Meeting
October 19-23. The Board did pass a motion which I have included
below. This motion means that we will begin 1998 with the same
commercial and recreational quotas that existed in 1997 except
for states that were more restrictive that required by Amendment
5. These states will be allowed to adjust to the minimum
requirements of Amendment 5. In early December the Stock
Assessment Workshop for the National Marine Fisheries Service
will finally get to look at the SSB model and the VPA. They will
evaluate both models and comment on the assumptions made in these
models. Some people would have preferred that an outside agency
conduct this peer review. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission is taking advantage of the fact that the National
Marine Fisheries Service already has a process in place. The
SAW/SARC report is usually presented to the first federal
fisheries management council meeting that has a vested interest
in the species. Since New England Marine Fisheries Council would
be the first one meeting in January that is usually the council
where this would be presented. Since we need a board meeting in
January or February, the ASMFC may be asking for a special
presentation.
According to the motion that was passed at the Board meeting, if
the models are accepted, then there will be an opportunity for
the producing areas to come in with proposals to increase their
fisheries in 1998. There was a lengthy discussion about whether
the ASMFC would need to hold new public hearings and complete the
original hearings on Addendum 2. Some state
directors made the point that if only the producing areas would
receive an increase in 1998, this would be covered under Addendum
1 to Amendment 5 and would not require new public hearings. I
found this insulting.
When Addendum 1 went to public hearings, the overwhelming
recommendations from the public was in opposition the option that
the Board chose to implement. The excuse was given was that this
was for only one year and an entire new addendum or amendment
would be in place for 1998. Any change in the plan for the
producing areas effects the Delaware Bay and Hudson River in
addition to the Chesapeake Bay. States that fish in Delaware Bay
and the Hudson River, with the exception of Delaware, have not
been in agreement with the management plans proposed by those who
fish in the Chesapeake Bay. Yet the ASMFC, which by and large
produces plans that are endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay, would
like to impose the very same plans on the other two producing
areas. Delaware has been successful, with the support of the
Chesapeake Bay states, in implementing the Chesapeake Bay's
management regime in Delaware Bay. This maximizes the catching of
small fish. New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are not in
agreement with this management philosophy. Unfortunately, the
results of this is that Delaware is allowed to catch additional
small fish while New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are not
catching any. This is incredibly unfair to the anglers from New
Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and detrimental to the attempts
to revitalize the stocks of the Delaware Bay. Again this rewards
the states who are less concerned with conservation by allowing
them to harvest fish that are not caught by anglers from states
with more conservative plans. Plans for the Delaware Bay should
be resolved by the Delaware River Commission, which has been in
place much longer than the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. All the states involved should participate in
developing a plan that will impact fairly and equitably on
everyone. No one state should be allowed to reap the benefits of
another states conservation. JCAA feels very strongly about this
and will be petitioning our governor to sue the ASFMC for unfair
allocation in our producing areas if some action is not taken to
resolve this matter.
The motion below will be brought before the Striped Bass Board at
the ASMFC
meeting in Hershey, PA and then forwarded to the policy board.
You need to
request that your state have a public hearing if there is any
attempt by
the ASMFC to allow an increase in the producing areas for 1998.
Write to
the governor of your state with copies of your letter to the your
congressional representatives, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries
Commission and your state director.
JCAA represents many fishermen who live in Pennsylvania but fish
in New Jersey waters or on the Delaware River. After some
requests by Pennsylvania organizations and clubs who attended the
Joint Strategic Meeting, Pennsylvania was given its own Striped
Bass Hearing. This is truly a first step in the right direction.
However, Pennsylvania did not send a representative to vote at
the Striped Bass Meeting. There was also no advisor present at
the Striped Bass Advisors meeting. It doesn't do any good to
have a state hearing if no one shows up to represent you at the
ASMFC meetings.
Motion Passed by Striped Bass Board on September 30,1997:
