The last couple months have been tumultuous in my bubble-world as a fishing editor. It began with public hearings scattered across New England, then it morphed into fielding people’s concerns and pontifications about the direction the ASMFC might lean at their annual meeting on October 29th. Reflecting back on all this, and how things went, I’m left with a bitter taste. Much of what has lead me to this place has more to do with the people on either side of this issue, than anything else.
I’ve been to a lot of these meetings over the last 20-plus years and I’ve never seen so much venom spit back and forth between different segments of the fishing community. I’ve also never seen so much dismissal of the science in favor of unapologetic opinion being offered as a relevant alternative. Don’t read this as me gulping down the MRIP data as gospel, I know it isn’t and so does the ASMFC. But when I hear people suggesting that, “the stripers are actually overpopulated and feeling a ‘genetic responsibility’ not to spawn” or the slightly less nuanced version, “the stripers are too stupid to spawn”… it makes it hard not to hold onto the ‘best available science’ and never let it go. Perhaps the hardest pill for so many to swallow here is that it would appear that the best available science was used when the Status Quo decision was rendered.
In defense of everyone with a passionate connection to this issue, no one – not even the ASMFC – had all the facts when they went on their East Coast tour back in September… and on October 3rd, when your public comments were due, no one had all the facts, either. The numbers we were presented with used an assumed figure for removals (harvest + release mortality) that was 44% higher than what was reported by MRIP. You can draw your own inferences on how to digest the fact that first-half removals were down 44% when compared to 2024, but our regulations are largely made using a mathematic equation, not gut feelings, nor impassioned appeals from the public.
This brings us to the concept of ‘winning’ versus ‘losing’. To me, the fact that I’m even talking about this is a clear indication that we have moved on from “making a case” to “getting what we want, no matter what the cost.” With the unfortunate side effect of taunting any person who presents a differing opinion and rubbing a favorable decision in the faces of those who wanted something different. This mirroring of the dumpster fire that is American politics is not good. Recreational anglers and for-hire captains are not enemies; we need each other. And compromise is – in no way – admitting defeat, it’s simple acceptance that ‘you can’t always get what you want.’
To those on the ‘Status Quo’ side of the issue, some of you need to dial it back a bit. This is not the time for taunting those that wanted a different outcome. To those that favored the 12% Reduction, the name-calling and dramatic outrage could be dialed back a bit, too. Also, I think it’s important to realize that dozens, if not hundreds, of those whose opinions run counter to yours, have publicly said, that they believe the slot limit is working, that tide is turning in your favor. If you need something to hang your hats on, let it be that. Just a few years ago you were fighting for the slot limit and it passed, against the wishes of many of those who fought in favor of status quo this time… and now many of them are onboard.
I’m going to leave you with a double-shot of common sense that has left me feeling both terrified and optimistic. Let’s start with the optimistic half. If we choose to accept the science, even if it’s off by a good amount, the trend is clear, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) is showing a favorable trajectory. The 2029 deadline was set arbitrarily, using a round number of 10 years, and while some have singled out the possibility of moving the deadline as a way of cheating the game, would it really matter if the SSB reached the rebuild goal in 13 years instead of 10? I don’t think it would. But not for the reasons you might think.
My biggest fear is one that I’ve tried to leave in a dark corner for way too long and, ironically, I think it’s something the ASMFC and the vast majority of those who passionately lobby on both sides of the issue have chosen to leave in the dark as well. The question that’s consistently left unanswered is: “If the SSB is so healthy, why are the spawning numbers so dismal?” It seems that no one wants to address the fact that these fish are failing to spawn, even with a robust spawning stock projection, even after last year’s ‘old school’ winter… the numbers have remained, consistently bad.
I think it’s time for everyone to get their big-kid pants on and have a discussion about what the heck is going on. Because a soaring SSB only gets us so far before we find ourselves back in the early 1980s when there were all big fish and almost no small ones. And with the current trend, this is likely where we’re heading, there’s a 7-year (and counting) hole in the stock, and we are going to feel it. In fact, we already are, those schoolies we used to see in the spring and fall have become virtually nonexistent over the last five years and that hole is going to have to work its way through all the size classes. Using the current numbers, a slot fish will soon become much harder to catch and the numbers indicate that 7 years later a slot fish will still be a unicorn.
I fear that we are fighting the wrong foe. Or, that we’re using out-of-date procedures to monitor an evolving metric. At face value, of course it feels right to have as many spawning-age fish in the water as possible. And because it worked once, nearly everyone is clinging to the idea that it will work again. But, it seems quite clear at this point, that a robust spawning stock alone, at least in today’s Chesapeake Bay, is not – by itself – enough to allow us to take a ‘set it and forget it’ approach. There are many potential factors that may be contributing, from non-native predators, to rising water temps, to the lack of sufficient snowmelt needed to drive the flow levels in their natal rivers… Maybe these factors are not being discussed because they simply can’t be controlled… I don’t even want to go there.
I will add, that there is another aspect of what went down in Delaware that gives me a new level of cautious optimism for striped bass. Martin Gary’s motion to develop a work group, made up of contributors from all sides of the striped bass sphere with the goal of producing a white paper that will (hopefully) help the Board make better-informed decisions going forward. It remains to be seen what this work group will look like, but if Gary is going to be major player in it, I feel like his depth of knowledge concerning factors that lead to successful/unsuccessful striper spawns, could be instrumental in enriching the way we manage this amazing species into the future.
Let me be perfectly blunt: I love striped bass fishing more than anyone and I would do whatever it took to ensure a stable and sustainable fishery. But here in 2025, we’re seeing evidence that it’s no longer as simple sending a bunch of mature fish up the Chesapeake to spawn and that’s where my concern and focus truly lies. Let’s hope our fisheries managers pull the sheet off these issues, roll up their sleeves and set their minds to trying to find a more complete solution, because what we’re doing now, isn’t moving the recruitment needle, really at all. And without little fish, we won’t have big ones.
