With scup season on our doorstep and sea bass just a few weeks away, anglers around New England have been waiting for the details of the new regs, which we have reported are going to be different in 2023. If you’ve been following along, then you know that the 2022 regulations did not do their job and we saw all three southern New England states blow past their recreational quotas. I say they ‘didn’t do their job’ because these regulations are ‘designed attempts’ to hit catch quotas using past data and forecasting math – it doesn’t always work out.
The rules that ASMFC has set for themselves state that when quotas are overfished, corrective measures will be required the following year. It’s almost like income tax, done right, you get a refund, get too close to that razor’s edge, and you have to pay a penalty.
The hard pill to swallow here is that both sea bass and scup stocks have been overachieving for many years, both are at about twice the target abundance level. It is true that both stocks have been trending downward ever-so slightly, and I am one of the people who doesn’t mind being a little conservative when it comes to trying to maintain the viability of a fishery. But in the case of sea bass and scup, these stocks are burgeoning and catches are way up. In fact, accidental catches are way up too, I’ve caught sea bass on giant plugs and huge eels intended for stripers in the surf, and I’ve seen them blitzing like bluefish and hitting topwater lures! So maybe a quota adjustment would have been a better move? I’m no fisheries manager, but I am a fisherman and sometimes a spade really is a spade.
After sitting in on meetings and listening to the charter fleet talk about the importance of these fisheries to their livelihoods and to the anglers that come out to fish on their boats, I gained a rounder understanding of the potential ramifications of cutting back on limits. I understand that managing the numbers of something that simply cannot be counted is more than an inexact science and I do not envy those that have to do it, but there is a human element to all this that should factor into these decisions and this time I feel like they actually have factored in, at least to some degree. I say that after accepting that the regulations are going to change even though my common sense says that they probably don’t need to.
The sea bass regs between Connecticut and Rhode Island are pretty different and it has left me wondering if it’s simply the result of taking two different roads to the same destination. In Connecticut, the rec season will run from May 19 through December 31, with a two week closure between June 24 and July 7. Their minimum size will remain at 16 inches, like last year and they will have a five fish limit all year. Party and charter vessels will run the same season, with no closure, and will enjoy a bag limit bump to 7 fish starting September 1.
Rhode Island’s recreational season begins May 22 and runs through December 31 with an increase to a 16.5-inch minimum size. They will have a two fish bag limit from May 22 through August 26 and then see minuscule bump to three fish through December 31. The for-hire fleet will begin their season on June 18 with a 2 fish bag limit through August 31 and then seen a bump to six fish from September 1 through New Year’s Eve and their minimum size will remain at 16 inches. The biggest question plaguing me is: Would Rhode Island’s regs have looked something like Connecticut’s if they took the same early summer closure?
Luckily, the scup/porgy regs are the same between the two states. The seasons will run from May 1 through December 31 with a 10.5-inch minimum size for recreational boaters and a 9.5-inch minimum size for shore anglers, both with a 30 fish bag limit. The same regulations apply to the for-hire fleet except they will enjoy a bonus season that begins September 1 and ends October 31 which gives them a bag limit bump to 40 fish.
Now if Massachusetts would finally announce their regs we could all move forward with the fishing season, feeling confident that we’re all in compliance.
