Once again the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) have demonstrated how pathetically unfair and ineffective scup management has become. At its December 8, 1999, meeting in Ocean City, MD, the joint bodies adopted a 50-fish bag limit that doesn't begin to address the problems inherent in this troubled fishery.

   Recreational survey data through August showed that the recreational sector had overfished the harvest limit of 1.2 million pounds by 50 percent. Consequently, the MAFMC recommended a minimum size increase to nine inches and a 14-fish bag limit for the year 2000. The Monitoring Committee, which examines such recommendations for scientific validity chose an eight-inch minimum size but supported the 14-fish bag limit.

    Unfortunately, no one seemed to notice or care that the run-up in recreational harvest occurred primarily in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, states which already have a 50-fish bag limit in place. Rather than introducing thoughts about managing this fishery more in terms of how it's prosecuted state-by-state in just five coastal states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey), everyone continued thinking in terms of coastwise measures rather than fair application. A 14-fish bag limit would undoubtedly address the overfishing occurring in New England waters, but it would essentially shut down the remnants of the scup fishery that remains in New Jersey. Just two party boats continue in this fishery, with bank and private boat anglers almost a thing of the past.

   The significant point is that the overfishing of the harvest limit isn't occurring in New Jersey, yet this state will be eliminated from the fishery should such drastic measures be put into place.

   The MAFMC and the ASMFC clearly didn't want to impose a 14-fish bag limit, and instead offered the 50-fish recommendation as a "fair" compromise. All we can say about that recommendation is that it's equitable in the sense that if accepted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) all states would fish under the same bag limit. But that doesn't make it fair by any means. Imposing any bag limits in states below New England is just window dressing because the problem is localized. Since the two states with a run-up in landings are already at 50 fish, the measure will have no impact whatsoever on their participation. So how does it make any sense?

   Moreover, the NMFS Regional Administrator made it quite clear at the December 8th meeting that the 50-fish bag limit didn't come close to the reduction needed to ensure the recreational sector fished within the year 2000 harvest limit of 1.2 million pounds. It's therefore very likely that the 50-fish recommendation will be rejected in favor of the 14-fish measure, which just shifts this fishery to New England, should it remain viable even there.

    And to make matters worse, Dave Borden, state representative from Rhode Island, borrowed an idea designed by Massachusetts with striped bass and suggested a "credit" for his state since by imposing a 50-fish bag limit voluntarily they were more restrictive than necessary. If such drivel is permitted, New Jersey would go out of the recreational scup business while Rhode Island would receive something higher than a 14-fish limit and quite likely stay in business. That's quite an economic contribution to that region and devastation to our local fishery, but when has the NMFS been particularly concerned about Mid-Atlantic fishermen?

   The travesty of this situation is intensified by some history surrounding scup management. When the plan was voted in place in 1996, the recreational sector was awarded 28 percent of the quota despite evidence that its traditional share was something over 35 percent. In fact, had the allocation between commercial and recreational sectors been more traditional, there would have been no recreational overages this year.

   In addition, shortly after the plan went into effect, in 1997, if memory serves, certain members of the MAFMC argued that the minimum mesh size for the directed commercial scup fishery of 4.5 inches was no doubt contributing to a reduction in bycatch. An assumption that at the time was unsupported by any scientific data. Nevertheless, those individuals suggested that the commercial quota, which was determined by subtracting from the commercial allocation the assumed discard amount, should be increased because discards were lower. Over the objection of Gary Caputi and Dusty Rhodes, the MAFMC and the ASMFC voted for that outrageous example of smoke and mirrors and the commercial sector was awarded even more quota from an "overfished" fishery. And the NMFS went along with that outrage, never questioning its absurdity. It gets worse. Earlier this year some commercial fishermen openly acknowledged that they haven't been directing on scup with 4.5-inch mesh because too many legal size scup escape, which is the purpose of such size mesh in the first place. They indicated that 4-inch mesh was being used, and at one meeting it was mentioned that in reality some were using 3-inch mesh, all in clear violation of the law! Not only has the NMFS made no move concerning such admitted violations, but also no one has made an effort to address the quota increase, which clearly was unjustly awarded. Yet the NMFS representative had no hesitation about chastising the management bodies when they were reluctant to adopt a recreational measure that would put at least two of the five participating states out of the recreational portion of the scup fishery.

Yes, scup management is broken, but more than that, it's become the bastard child of fishery management.


Release For Tomorrow
Tom Fote

**Note: While we agree in principal with all the efforts of the JCAA, we do not necessarily agree with what is said in the text above as we may or may not have read it and certainly have not edited it in any way. The above views are not necessarily shared by StripersOnline.com. Please do not assume that we had, in any way, anything to do with the text above other than in presenting it here for others to see as we feel that it is important for fishermen to see how the processes involving fisheries management work. We do, in fact, feel strongly that the JCAA is on the right track, they are stubbornly fighting a battle than many of us can only guess as to what is involved. Our confidence in what they are doing is reflected in the fact that we will post important updates received, without, in any way, altering their content. We are not responsible for the content.