Angler with king salmon
Angler with king salmon
Do you have any thoughts on this post?
Angler with king salmon
Ever hear of a GARFO? I bet most folks have never heard of a NERO, and that was GARFO’s predecessor. These are both government acronyms for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries regional office. NERO stands for North East Regional Office and has been the name for a while. GARFO is the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. This name change was done to satisfy Congress, as the regional office does cover fisheries in New England and the Mid Atlantic.
I am reminded of Shakespeare’s line in Romeo and Juliet, “A rose by any other name ….” but let’s not go there. I doubt there will be a sea of change with a new “gummint” name, although GARFO will have an opportunity right out of the starting gate to show that the name change has helped to change the fisheries management philosophy.
It appears that $75 million of taxpayers’ money will go toward mitigating the impacts of the “groundfish disaster” declared a while back by the Secretary of Commerce. How much comes to the New England – or, should I say, “Greater Atlantic” – area is yet to be determined, as the funds are meant for Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and the Northeast. There is also the question of whether NOAA Fisheries will take a cut of the funds to cover “administrative expenses.” Some members of Congress have warned against NOAA siphoning off any of the funds, but that is what government does so well. For every taxpayer dollar in, you’re lucky to get 50 cents out.
But I digress. In previous blogs, I have commented that I do not believe simply handing out the money is a good idea. Thoughtful programs that will have longer-term benefits are better in my mind, but I’m likely in the minority.
The party/charter sector has put forward a request or plan to the regional administrator based on the number of trips taken for groundfish species averaged over a few years. In discussing this with recreational industry folks, I feel that a plan or request for funds should be based on demonstrated losses to party/charter participants due to the known decline of groundfish. This should be easily determined by the changes or declines in the number of trips taken to catch groundfish species. All the necessary information should have been submitted by the active party/charter vessels in the required vessel trip reports. On the commercial side, there has been discussion of distributing funding to those businesses impacted by the groundfish decline. Again, I think that should be the same with those in the recreational fishing industry. I suspect that determining what those losses are will be more complicated for both the commercial and recreational industries. I also suspect that widening the distribution will begin to make any mitigating support meaningless. At least here in the heart of the Greater Atlantic, John Bullard, the regional administrator of GARFO, has convened the Groundfish Economic Coordinating Committee, composed of members of both the recreational and commercial sectors, to give input on how the funds should be distributed. So at first blush, the recreational industry has a seat at the table. Whether they get a reasonable share, just scraps or nothing at all is yet to be determined. I am not a betting man, but I’d guess at the middle or end of that list.
NERO or GARFO – I don’t think it will make any difference. If it makes Congress happy, wonderful. I would just like to see any mitigating funds made available on an equitable basis to both sectors of the fishing industry.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will remember that two weeks ago, I wrote about a recent suggestion by some that we open up the exclusive economic zone, or “EEZ” to striped bass fishing so that anglers in Virginia and North Carolina could have access to the large bodies of big fish that have been found to winter offshore there. It may be a good idea to read that blog before continuing: OF STRIPED BASS, THE EEZ AND THE SAME OLD (EXPLETIVE).
In short, the EEZ is that area of the ocean outside of 3 miles, or what our government considers federal waters. Everything outside of that, up to 200 miles, is off limits to striper fishing. It has been for 25 years. Such a closure was put in place to protect the spawning stock back when things got really bad for striped bass. Since then, it has served as a critical buffer for the species and really the only place the fish don’t get absolutely hammered – at least, not legally.
To understand how critical the EEZ closure is, consider that just last week, on a joint NCDMF/USFWS tagging survey, five people with hook and line gear tagged a total of 274 stripers fishing 24 miles off the North Carolina coast. Included was one 74-pound striper, reportedly 10 or so fish exceeding 50 pounds, and too many 30s and 40s to count. Such large concentrations of big adult fish do indeed occur offshore and currently are not accessible to fishermen. Given the striped bass’ decline, these are exactly the fish we should be protecting, and while there are some enforcement hiccups, we are indeed protecting them. That is unquestionably a good thing.
The EEZ should remain closed. There is absolutely no reason to open it. Certainly, I got some feedback from those who disagree, and while I understand the rationale I think it’s based on a false premise. Their argument is that so much illegal fishing occurs in the EEZ that reducing the bag limit from two to one fish and allowing folks to fish in the EEZ would actually reduce fishing mortality. In other words, instead of killing two fish illegally, they’d be killing one legally. I think that’s bullshit, though. For one, the Coast Guard has actually been really good on the enforcement stuff in the last couple of years. Sure, some illegal targeting of striped bass probably takes place, but from what I’m hearing, it’s not near as significant as it was a few years ago. Like I said in my last EEZ piece, an increasingly sophisticated Coast Guard and serious fines have made most realize that it just isn’t worth it. Frankly, I kinda think the guys using the reduced fishing mortality argument are really just throwing it out there, because they are simply interested in getting on those large concentrations of wintering fish.
So, now that we’ve gotten all that out of the way, the point of this week’s blog is to take a look at what opening up the EEZ to just catch-and-release fishing would mean. And I bring this up now, because at the last Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) meeting the Striped Bass Board discussed the potential of such an opening, which confused me a little bit, because… well, because catch-and-release fishing already exists in the EEZ.
Technically, it’s not legal to fish for them. The language in the regulation is pretty clear on that point. But it really appears to be an unenforceable regulation, as the angler isn’t retaining the evidence. So, one could just claim he/she was targeting another species. That said, the scuttlebutt is that some perhaps overly ambitious boarding officers have been boarding vessels and writing tickets for people fishing in areas of the EEZ where there doesn’t appear to be anything but striped bass. Or maybe it was that they were just writing warnings. I don’t know. Either way, this is the first I’ve heard of any such enforcement action for catch-and-release fishing in the EEZ.
As I referenced in the last EEZ blog, there are lots of businesses in both Virginia and North Carolina that simply don’t have much business anymore, because, for one, there’s real enforcement of the EEZ closure now, but also because the stock has contracted to the point where the inshore/legal striper fishery in the winter is virtually non-existent. So, making it legal to go out and target some of these large wintering fish in the EEZ might indeed help these guys out. I mean, the point is that these guys could advertise such a fishery. Get guys to drive down from Jersey, etc. to get in on it. So from that perspective I do get it. And this is precisely why the subject was brought up at ASMFC.
On the surface it sounds pretty harmless, right? What could be wrong with such a policy? And why wouldn’t we all want this? Seems like a win/win. But I think we have to be very careful. If this was 2006 and we were at peak abundance, I’d probably be inclined to think, yeah, this a good idea – and probably harmless. But we aren’t there anymore. In fact we’re in the midst of a pretty precipitous decline, and it’s very possible that we’ll be over the fishing mortality threshold (read overfishing) and the stock will have fallen below the spawning stock biomass threshold (read overfished) by the end of this year.
With that in mind, we have to understand that even with an all-release fishery, there will be some release/discard mortality. I’m pretty sure 8 percent is the number the assessment uses. That may not sound significant, but extrapolated over all those fish that are caught and released (remember the 274 stripers caught in the tagging survey by one boat with only five anglers on board) you’ve definitely got an increase in fishing mortality. And we’ve also got to remember that these are pretty much all old, large fish – the ones where the real release mortality rate is generally much higher than 8 percent.
The other thing that concerns me about making such a catch-and-release fishery “legal” is that I suspect it will invite non-compliance. The big fleets of boats outside of the 3 mile limit used to send up red flags. That won’t be the case if there’s a “legal” fishery out there, which is fine, assuming everyone is in compliance, prosecuting a strictly catch-and-release fishery… I doubt that will be the case. There will likely be a significant number of knuckleheads hiding fish in compartments.
Yeah, I don’t really know where I’m at on this right now. Really, I don’t think this stock needs any increase in fishing mortality right now, even if it’s incremental. On the other hand, I intuitively think, “So what, it’s catch-and-release… there won’t be that much mortality, and people are doing it anyway” (of course it will be on a much larger scale now though). But that’s just a gut feeling, and my gut is often wrong. The logical part of me thinks this is a bad idea, at least right now. I guess for me to really make up my mind, I’d have to see a full analysis by the Striped Bass Technical Committee, but I suspect such an analysis would be less than comprehensive. Often such analyses don’t take into account noncompliance, not to mention all the boneheads who don’t know how to – or simply don’t take the time or expend the energy to – properly release a big fish. In other words, I suspect the Technical Committee would just apply the 8 percent release mortality rate across the board. And I believe, particularly with the large fish we’re talking about here, that it is much higher.
Where are we now with all of this? As mentioned, the initial, albeit abbreviated discussion has taken place at ASMFC. If I understood that conversation correctly, commissioners need more info/analysis from the Technical Committee, and they also wanted to hear from the Advisory Panel (I look forward to weighing in here!). I should note here though that that ASMFC in itself cannot reopen the EEZ. It can recommend only that the feds (NOAA Fisheries) open the area again. Of course, given the processes for making such public decisions, the feds would have to offer significant justification to reopen the EEZ, there would have to be scoping, public hearings, etc. So I certainly don’t think that this is something that’s right around the corner. That said, I do know that the Coast Guard already has had some preliminary discussions on how they might enforce such an all-release fishery.
Moving forward, I guess we’ll see how this all shakes out. Stay tuned! I’ll be sure to be reporting on this as we get more information.
The problem with federal fisheries management in coastal waters is that nearly everything is based on commercial fishing. How much of a particular species can be caught, when they can be caught and who can catch them leans heavily toward commercial fishermen. Recreational saltwater anglers get left holding the chum bag.
Mike Nussman, the president of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), explained the problem during a news conference last week at the Miami International Boat Show using gumballs. In one hand, he held a glass pitcher filled with gumballs, which represented the total amount of saltwater fish caught by commercial fishermen. In the other hand, he held a pitcher with two gumballs. That represented the total number of saltwater fish caught by recreational anglers.
Then he poured gumballs from the first pitcher into the second pitcher to represent the economic value of those catches. The second, recreational pitcher had more gumballs than the first, which illustrated just how much more valuable recreational fishing is to the U.S. economy than commercial fishing.
Nussman is one of many who believes it is time that federal fishery managers take into account the value of recreational fishing when managing saltwater fisheries. “Why does the National Marine Fisheries Service pay so little attention to recreational fishing?” Nussman asked during the news conference on the findings of the Commission for Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Management.
As the commission’s report, “A Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries,” noted, the nation’s 11 million recreational saltwater anglers spent $27 billion in 2011 on fishing tackle, equipment and trip-related goods such as bait, ice, gas, meals and lodging. That generated more than $70 billion in economic output and supported 455,000 jobs. Commercial fishing supported 381,000 jobs. But there were 210 jobs for every 100,000 pounds of fish landed by recreational anglers, compared with only 4.5 jobs in the commercial fishing industry for that amount of fish.
Those are impressive numbers, but they are ignored by federal fishery managers and congressmen, who tend to think only of the bottom lines of commercial fishermen. The goal of the commission, which was chaired by Johnny Morris of Bass Pro Shops and Scott Deal of Maverick Boats, and organizations such as the ASA, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Coastal Conservation Association, the Center for Coastal Conservation and the National Marine Manufacturers Association, is to have those numbers count when managing saltwater fisheries.
Specifically, “The commission envisions a marine fisheries management system that conserves fishery resources, provides consistency in regulations, and produces the full range of saltwater recreational fishing’s economic, social and conservation benefits for the nation.” To achieve that, the commission came up with six key elements that should be included when the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act is reauthorized by Congress:
“Magnuson-Stevens hasn’t changed since 1976,” when it was enacted, said Jeff Angers, the president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. “Every amendment and reauthorization has focused on commercial fishing.”
Now it’s up to conservation and fishing organizations and individuals to get the message out to Congress that the value of recreational fishing must be considered when reauthorizing Magnuson-Stevens.
“It’s a time for all of us to unite,” Morris said, “and speak to our policy makers.”
Not only is Lowell Bailey one of the top biathletes in the world, he’s a TRCP member!
If you’ve never seen a biathlon race, be sure to tune in to the Olympics. The sport is a combination of precision target shooting and long-distance Nordic skiing (while carrying your rifle). Americans have never medaled in this event. But this year, the team is stacked and ready to go.
We heard Lowell grew up in the Adirondacks, a conservation (and fly fishing) haven. So we chatted with him to learn more about the sport and talked about everything from custom rifles to fly fishing and even T.R.!
TRCP: Biathlon is not a sport you hear a lot about. How did you get involved with it?
Lowell: I’ve cross country skied my whole life and began racing probably around 5 years old. When I was 13 or so I was asked to a talent ID camp in Lake Placid, N.Y. Well, you put a .22 in the hands of a 13 year old kid, and I fell in love with the sport right away.
TRCP: What do you like most about biathlon?
Lowell: Biathlon is unique because you have two entirely different sports that couldn’t be farther away from each other, and you have to figure out a way to make both of those sports work together. To have a good biathlon race you have shoot well and ski fast, and the pursuit of doing those two things is extremely challenging and extremely motivating.
TRCP: How does the shooting aspect of a biathlon race work?
Lowell: The shooting in biathlon is different from other competitive shooting sports. Because you’re racing, you’re always under the clock. A typical shooting stage lasts around 20-25 seconds. In that time you ski into the range, take your rifle off your back and get into position, take five shots and put your rifle back on. That all happens in 20-25 seconds.
TRCP: Wow. So, what’s the distance and size of the targets?
Lowell: There are two different positions in biathlon: prone, which is lying down, and standing. Prone position you’re shooting at a target roughly the size of an Oreo cookie from 50 meters. The standing target is a little bigger, roughly the size of a CD, because the standing position is less stable than the prone position.
TRCP: Here at the TRCP, we are a bunch of gun geeks. Can you give a rundown of what you’re shooting?
Lowell: We shoot .22 caliber long rifles with iron sights, no scopes or anything like that. The rifles that 95 percent of the World Cup field uses are made by Anschutz, in Germany. They’re highly precise, accurate rifles. They weigh roughly seven pounds, and we wear the rifles on our back during the entire race. Each athlete’s rifle has a customized stock, made of wood or carbon fiber, that’s made to fit that athlete’s body type and shooting preferences.
TRCP: We’ve been told you are an avid fly fisherman. How did you get into fishing?
Lowell: Well, I grew in the Adirondack Park, and as you may know, the Adirondacks has some of the best fishing in the country due to the fact that it protected as a state park. My parents always encouraged my sister and me to be outdoors, and fishing was something we just did for as long as I can remember. At some point I moved from spin casting to fly fishing, and now I do both. I’m lucky to live in Lake Placid where I can fish the AuSable River, which is a great trout stream.
TRCP: Do you ever get to go fishing while you’re on the road for competition or training?
Lowell: I do actually. I’ve fished a few times on the Traun River in Germany for rainbows and brown trout. Rudi Heger is a world renowned fishing guide out of southern Germany, and he’s also a big biathlon fan, so he’s taken me and some of my teammates out on a few different fishing excursions that were pretty amazing.
Rudi actually set up a biathlon/fly fishing competition, for a promotional video and just because it was funny. There were three athletes, and we skied with fly rods on our back up to the edge of this private pond that’s just chock full of rainbows. We had to quickly assemble our rods and the first person to catch a fish was the winner. It’s all on video somewhere…(It didn’t take us long to find this video…check it out here!)
TRCP: How did growing up in the Adirondacks shape your views on conservation?
Lowell: I think that the Adirondacks is one of the more unique areas in the country because you have private land ownership within a state park, so development and the way you are allowed to use the land is highly regulated by the Adirondack Park Agency. As a result, we have this robust tourist industry that drives the local economy in Lake Placid and the surrounding areas, and it’s all because of conservation. We have mountains for people to hike in; we have lakes for people to fish on; the recreational possibilities in Lake Placid and the greater Tri-Lakes Region are really endless.
TRCP: Your sister leaked to us that you use a T.R. quote as your pre-race mantra. Which one?
That’s true. The quote is “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” I use that quote almost daily and definitely every time I go into competition. On the World Cup circuit, there are typically 25,000 to 35,000 spectators in the stands as well as media, coaches, other athletes. It’s a very distracting environment, and in order to maintain my
focus I repeat that quote in my head while I’m warming up. It reminds me to stay focused on things I can control, and the things that I can’t control, they’ll be what they will be. The only thing that I can do at that given time, on that given day, is focus on the elements that I can control.
TRCP: Very cool. Lowell, we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. And we wish you the very best in Sochi.
Lowell: Thanks. I’m psyched the TRCP thought of me. I think what you guys do is awesome.
Follow in Lowell’s footsteps and become a TRCP member.
The first biathlon race of the Sochi Olympics will occur Saturday, Feb. 8. For the full schedule of biathlon events and to learn more about Lowell and the U.S. team, visit the Olympic biathlon website.
In the last two years, policymakers have committed to significant investments in conservation, infrastructure, and reversing climate change. Hunters and anglers continue to be vocal about the opportunity to create conservation jobs, restore habitat, and boost fish and wildlife populations. Support solutions now.Learn More