Coastal Catch Quota

[5th Tuition]

An open letter (inquiry) to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, and Maryland's Department of Natural Resources.

On Monday July 19, 2010 I attended a meeting allowing public comment on increasing the coastal commercial quota of striped bass. I must confess that the handout appears to be well prepared and professionally documented with much scientific data and charts.
However, most of the facts presented appear to be figures that are “extrapolated” from science. It's comforting to see some of the charts accurately labeled “Estimates of the average F on ages 8-11 striped bass from 2004-2008 using six different catch-at-age (CAA) matrices.” or “Estimates of female spawning stock biomass (mt) from 2004-2008 using six different catch-at-age (CAA) matrices.” Why aren't other charts similarly labeled? Shouldn't Table 3 “Coastal commercial harvest compared to total commercial, total recreational, and total (commercial plus recreational) landings” also contain the word “Estimated”? It's impossible to know these numbers. Aren't some of these numbers based on log book entries, periodic surveys, and random phone calls to anglers. While these numbers are certainly useful to finalize some projection, they are not definitive.
I was also disappointed to hear the answer to my question, “Is the striped bass disease, Mycobacteriosis, factored into the natural mortality figure?” The answer, which was repeated several times through subsequent questions, was that it was not factored into the natural mortality figure. With an estimated 40 – 70 percent of the Chesapeake Bay stock infected with a potentially deadly disease, I was perplexed why this was the case.
As chance would have it, in today's (July 21, 2010) Maryland Gazette there appeared an article on Mycobacteriosis. In the article, it referenced the scientific paper “Mycobacteriosis- Associated Mortality In Wild Bass (Morone saxatilis) from Chesapeake Bay, USA.” This paper found in “Ecological Applications, volume 18, issue 7 (Oct. 2008) pp. 1718-1727 was at least in part produced by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science <www.esajournals.org>.
In the abstract of the paper it states, “To our knowledge this is the first demonstration of cryptic mortality associated with a chronic infectious disease in a wild finfish. This finding has direct implications for management and stock assessment of striped bass, as it demonstrates population-level negative impacts of a chronic disease. Additionally, this research provides a framework by which disease-associated mortality may be specifically addressed within fisheries models for resource management.”
If this information has been available since 2008, why wasn't this framework or model for resource management used in considering stock status?
Inquiries such as this lead me to question DNR's ability to present non-biased information to commissioners, board members, and the public. It is difficult for me to rationalize Maryland's DNR restrictions on Catch and Release of the spring spawning stock only months ago, to supporting an increased harvesting of this same stock along the coast through netting.
I support the Option 1: Status Quo proposal until all factors, including the mortality affects of Mycobacteriosis, can be assessed for impact on “stock status.”
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important decision.
Martin Carter