Striped
Bass as a Game Fish: A Connecticut History
Ó
Ed Mitchell 1995
This
is a revised version of an article that I wrote in the summer of 1995 for the
Fisherman Magazine. My original purpose in writing this piece was to explain how
striped bass became a game fish in Connecticut. I believe that I was able to
accomplish that mission back in 1995, but given that 15 years has passed since
this story first appeared, I feel the subject is worth revisiting.
The original research
for this article took considerable time, but I’m convinced today, as I was
years ago, that the effort was well worth my time. Hidden in the stacks of the
Connecticut State Library, I uncovered a long and complex series of events that
transformed striped bass into a Connecticut game fish. It’s a story that
involves a great many Connecticut citizens, including recreational anglers,
commercial anglers, legislators, agency heads and even a governor. But perhaps
the best way to begin is putting things into historical perspective. So let’s
start by looking back at Long Island Sound in the days of yesteryear.
1880s
to 1924:
Back
one hundred and thirty years ago, the waters of Long Island Sound were indeed
bountiful. In fact from today’s perspective they were rich beyond belief. At
the time, recreational saltwater anglers were rare and so fishing was done
almost entirely by Connecticut’s commercial anglers. To reap the Sound’s
rewards, the commercial fishing boats of the day were rowed or powered by sail.
Yes hard to imagine, but true. The principal gear was comprised of pound nets,
fyke nets, and fish weirs. And the primary species targeted were alewives,
weakfish, menhaden, fluke and winter flounder.
Naturally
commercial anglers caught other species too, including striped bass, but striped
bass were never an important part of the catch. For example, during the year
1902 in pound nets and weirs alone, commercial anglers took 2,664,921 menhaden,
441,740 alewives, 248,777 weakfish, and only 4,402 bass. A quarter of a century
later, the relative importance of striped bass to the Connecticut commercial
industry was still relatively unchanged. Bass were a nominal part of the
harvest. For instance in 1924 the total number of menhaden landed in our state
as an astounding 8,753,500. Remember this is mainly without mechanized power.
The next largest catch was winter flounder at 4,175,107. By comparison, the
total striped bass catch was 1,495 fish and valued at $384 as compared with
lobster that year which brought in nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
1930
to 1946: Concern for Striped Bass Begins
At
the beginning of the 1930’s striped bass and bluefish entered the Sound in
growing numbers. The public took notice and for the first time interest in
recreational saltwater fishing began to slowly grow. Not surprisingly, this
growth spurred many Connecticut citizens to look at our marine resources in a
new light. In the Board of Fish and Game’s 1932 - 1938 report, Frank Banning,
commissioner of commercial and marine fisheries, commented on the public’s new
appreciation for sport fishing. In the reports he informs the reader that
bluefish had at least as equal value as a game fish as it did as a commercial
fish. He goes on to mention that many commercial fishermen are now making more
money taking sport-fishing parties out than from straight commercial fishing.
Furthermore
Banning felt that recent laws to help protect herring had attracted these game
fish by increasing their food supply. He goes on to say, however, that our laws
regulating bluefish and striped bass were too lax. Moreover he asks for funds
for striper research, stating that we need “a study of this valuable game fish
so that intelligent conservation measures can be applied.”
Without
a doubt Banning was a man well ahead of his time. For his words are extremely
prophetic. Banning recognized not
only the need for better science and tighter regulations, but as well that
striped bass was an important recreational species in Connecticut waters.
The
best I can determine, to this point Connecticut’s recreational and commercial
fisheries had few if any restrictions. It was largely a wide-open frontier, take
what you want, anyway you want. By 1931, however, the Connecticut Fish and Game
Department had seen the wisdom of at least providing some protection to stripers
in our coastal rivers. The 1931 freshwater regulation booklet reads: “Striped
bass shall not be taken in the inland waters except by angling. Legal length 12
inches.” Obviously this was, in effect, an inland ban on the use of nets to
take stripers. It is also interesting to note the 12-inch limit. Apparently
there were some very small striped bass in the rivers back in those years; which
suggests the possibility that bass were spawning in Connecticut.
Interest
in striped bass continued to grow all along the Atlantic and in 1937 several
states met with the idea of forming some kind of coordinated striped bass
management. Five years later in 1942 Congress blessed the new organization as
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which is still in business
today and manages a raft of different species. Connecticut joined that
organization in the early 1940’s, paying its five hundred dollar membership
fee.
As the 1940s
unfolded, striped bass numbers were building in the Sound. Naturally commercial
catches climbed, but for the first time in history recreational anglers were
catching as many or more than commercial fishermen. It represented a fundamental
shift in the way the resource was utilized by the citizens. The public demand
for saltwater fishing further skyrocketed around 1946 as Connecticut’s war
weary veterans returned home eager for the fun and relaxation of saltwater
fishing. And it didn’t take long for those GIs to discover that that biggest
and strongest thing you could hook in Connecticut waters was a striped bass.
Many of these new recreational anglers started fishing clubs and these
groups quickly became politically active, demanding better conservation of our
natural resources. After all, their sport depended then, as it does now, on a
healthy Long Island Sound. As you can imagine, one of the hottest issues in the
clubhouse was how to best manage striped bass. This issue gathered considerable
steam after 1945, as stripers started to become scarce in the Sound. Connecticut
recreational anglers grew increasingly concerned that the 12-inch size limit was
far too liberal. To put that in
perspective, today in 2009 the size limit is 28”, nearly a foot and a half
longer. The anglers were also concerned by the near total lack of regulations on
commercial netting along the coast. Neither of these two things seemed wise from
a conservation stand point, nor did either serve the greater public interest. So
recreational angler proposed to the state, on several occasions, that the size
limit be raised to 16 inches, but each time they ran into political opposition.
New York, on the other hand, had gone to a 16-inch limit in 1939.
1947:
Striped Bass Fishing: A Quality of Life Issue
As
recreational saltwater fishing boomed after World War II, striped bass fishing
quickly become a “quality of life” issue for a great many Connecticut
citizens. Moreover these citizens felt that the existing marine management was
not up to the task of protecting striped bass. All of it came to head in
Hartford on March 11, 1947. On that Tuesday, the Fish and Game and Shellfish
Committee of the state legislature - no longer in existence - listened to public
testimony on a number of proposed bills. Representative Dichter of Stamford was
the first to speak in favor of Bill 272 entitled “The Protection of Striped
Bass” Here is what he said: “I am very anxious to see if anything can be
done to propagate this wonderful game fish. (Things were so bad he was
suggesting a hatchery.) It is the only fish we have in Long Island Sound worth
fishing for as far as fight is concerned.”
Next spoke Mrs.
Edgerton, also a representative from Stamford. She said: “Bass fishing around
our community is a well accepted sport, and their protection is worthwhile, and
I am in favor of this bill.” The bill itself had been drafted by the State
Sportsmen’s League, a sporting organization representing 5,000 Connecticut
anglers. At its core, the bill sought to make striped bass a protected game
fish. The idea was hardly a new one; anglers had discussed it many times.
A Mr. Leonard spoke for the League stating: “Striped bass is one of our
best game fish and sportsmen feel it should be protected.
…. They are against the commercialized taking of such a gem fish and
would like the law to provide that no fish under 16 inches be taken, and along
our Connecticut shore it should be done by angling.”
David O’Neil, a striped bass angler representing 520 members of the New
Haven Sportsmen’s Club, spoke next. He told the committee the clubs members
were all for the bill, adding: “The sport fishing industry in the State of
Connecticut is one of our largest industries.” He pointed out to the committee
members that anglers make heavy investments in boats and tackle, spending many
times the money that the commercial fishery brings in. “If we can build up the
striper fishery….. We can bring in enough (tourism dollars) from outside the
State of Connecticut to make up for the commercial loss.”
O’Neil then mentioned how California nearly lost their striped bass
fishery to the commercial take of bass in 1935. Clearly Connecticut anglers had
a vision for the future. They longed for time when wild striped bass would not
be sold as a ‘cash cow”. The
representative from the Connecticut Sportsman Association was next to speak in
favor of the bill, followed by a representative of the Ansonia Rod and Gun Club.
Then Mr. Smith, president of the Stamford Fish and Game Club, spoke in favor,
followed by Mr. Dubey from the Meriden Rod and Gun Club. Then Charles Lucsin,
representing the 1,200 members of the New Haven County Club, told the committee
of his club’s support for the bill. He was followed by a spokesman from the
Seymour Fish and Game Club. Then a Mr. Lindsey, a recreational angler from
Hamden, got up on his own behalf and added his support.
Mr. Grossman, former
chairman of the Fish and Game Committee, then rose to speak in opposition,
stating that the fish were only in a cycle and that additional protection was
unwarranted. Dr. Hunter, director of the Department of Fish and Game, also
weighed in his opposition. He state that the best scientific evidence indicated
that if all the states adopted a 16-inch minimum size the striped bass would be
amply protected into the future. Therefore he felt that commercial netting on
striped bass could safely continue. With the aid of 20-20 hindsight, we now
realize that a 16-inch size minimum size would prove woefully inadequate.
Combined with heavy commercial netting, the 16-inch limit would nearly
annihilate striped bass from the Atlantic coast in the years ahead.
It appears that up
until this point, the state Department of Fish and Game had fought sportsman on
the idea of a 16-inch limit. Now the state fisheries people were actually
recommending it as Bill 660, likely for two reasons. First it would provide an
alternative bill to the sportsmen's bill, and second there was pressure from the
ASMFC, of which Connecticut was now a member, to go to a coast-wide 16-inch
limit.
At the end of the
legislative session we got Public Act 102. The act established a 16-inch limit
from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail for both recreational and
commercial fisheries. There was no bag limit; you could still take as many as
you liked. Compare that to the two fish recreational limit today. Furthermore it
stated that striped bass should not be taken from any waters under the control
State of Connecticut except by angling. That eliminated nets and spear gun
fishing for striped bass both in Connecticut inland and marine districts. The
1950 regulation booklet reflected those new regulations. Yet it pointed out that
striped bass could still be sold.
By banding together in 1947, recreational fishing organizations were
successful in putting a law on the books establishing a 16-inch minimum size and
an end to netting of bass both in fresh and salt. Nevertheless they had failed
to get game fish status for striped bass, but the fight was far from over. Two
years later in 1949, several bills were introduced to the Fish and Game and
Shellfish Committee to reverse or change the existing statue. On April 7, the
representative from East Lyme testified in favor of bill 250, which he had
introduced, entitled “And Act Concerning Striped Bass.”
The purpose of the bill was to repeal the net ban on commercial striper
fishing. He based his objection on the fact that since recreational anglers
could still sell their catch from hook and line, net fishermen should have the
same right. The bill was supported by several commercial net fishermen, most of
them noting that they opposed the fact that recreational anglers could still
sell bass.
Mr. William Spicer,
representing the Groton Sportsmen’s League, spoke against the bill, pointing
out that there was nothing stopping commercial hook and liners from selling
their catch. Several sporting clubs and individual recreational angler also
chimed in, speaking in favor of not turning back the clock. It appears that
eventually bill 250 was boxed in committee and never got to the floor of the
legislature.
1953:
The Firestorm
On
the surface of things, the total striper net ban of 1947 looked as if it could
control any big commercial run on striped bass. Unfortunately that was not to be
the case. Unscrupulous anglers were snagging thousands of bass during the
winter, as they lay packed together and dormant on the bottom of the Thames
River. Most of these anglers were not full time commercial fishermen, but rather
a mixture of people, many of whom thought of themselves as recreational
sportsmen. The motive was simple: cash on the barrel head.
The
snagged bass were being stacked on railway cars in New London and then
transported to Fulton Market in New York City. Lest you think this was a small
scale operation, consider this: Records at the time show that Fulton Market had
more striped bass for sale during December, January and February than during the
entire rest of the year! Obviously many people simply could not resist the
temptation to abuse the resource for personal gain. As so often happens, even
today, money has the power to corrupt. Thankfully it created a firestorm of
public controversy. Moreover it should be noted that the Department of Fish and
Game had not discovered the problem, and likely had insufficient manpower to
stop it anyway.
On
Thursday, March 19, 1953, two very similar bills were introduced to the Fish and
Game and Shellfish Committee. One was sponsored by representative Johnstone from
Stonington and the other by a recreational fishing group. The bills were 382,
and 626. Both asked for a closed season on striped bass from roughly December to
March, as a means of stopping the striper slaughter in the Thames.
Representative Kirker from Norwich was very opposed to the bills because
he felt they discriminated against two classes of people: youngster from 14 to
18 who like to fish during the winter, and others who lived off their catch.
Representative Heser from Deep River spoke for the closed season. Senator
Savin also spoke in support, pointing out that snagging dormant fish could
eventually eliminate stripers from state waters. Dr. Hunter from the Department
of Fish and Game spoke against the idea of a closed season. His rationale was
biological. Given that there was no scientific reason to assume that these fish
were spawning in the Thames, he felt there was not reason for a closed season.
He did not mention the big market in bass, nor did he mention the enormous
social problem it was causing. He did, however, add that the existing 16-inch
size limit was ample protection.
Following Hunter, Claude Howard from the New England Sports Fishing
Association rose to support the closed season. As did Richard Hillyer for the
Noank Rod and Gun Club. Then a bomb
shell hit. Albert Ronick from New London, told the committee that he personally
knew “40,000 pounds of striped bass went to Fulton Market, caught by so called
sports fishermen at night.” During the years 1940 to 1945, the Department of
Fish and Game thought the total annually commercial catch averaged 24,500
pounds! Now we were hearing that a few fishermen in one spot alone were taking
almost twice that amount. How could the Department of Fish and Game not know
about it? Even today the number of conservation officers is far below what is
required to safeguard our natural resources; one can safely assume the situation
was far worse back in 1953.
Obviously the
Department of Fish and Game was unable to get accurate figures on the amount of
Connecticut striped bass being offered for sale. This will come as no real
surprise to those of you that have followed fisheries managements in our state.
In 1994, at a public hearing commercial hook and line bluefishermen publicly
told the head of Connecticut’s Fisheries Division that they were taking three
or four times what the state believed to be the total catch. It is also
believed, for example, that commercial shad fishermen in the Connecticut River
regularly under report their catch by about 50 percent.
The closed season
bill passed out of committee as House Bill 382. When it got to the floor, it
quickly passed with little objection. From there it went to the Senate. The main
concerned raised there was that the Department of Fish and Game felt that this
bill was not needed, given that these stripers were not spawning in the Thames.
Senator Ryan and Senator Savin pointed out that the Department has missed the
real point of the bill, regardless of whether these bass were reproducing or
not, too many were being removed from the resource. The bill passed and then
went on to the Governor.
A
Governor’s Veto Overridden
On
Thursday July 2, 1953, then Governor John Davis Lodge vetoed the legislation. He
sided with the Department of Fish and Game in their assertion that existing laws
provided plenty of protection for bass. In light of the facts, it is hard to
imagine how the Governor or the Department thought this illegal market was going
to be curtailed without a closed season; it was wishful thinking at best. The
legislature, backed by the overwhelming support of their constituents, then
overrode the Governor and Bill 382 became law as Public Act 483.
Interestingly
enough, the following year Governor Lodge lost his attempt at reelection. In
Connecticut it is extremely rare for an incumbent governor to lose. In fact I
don’t believe it has ever happened since. Construction problems with the
Connecticut Turnpike were partly to blame for his defeat, but likely his veto
contributed significantly was well. Originally Governor Lodge had a power base
in the 4th district along our southwest coast. But that is where a
great deal of the political pressure on behalf of striped bass had been brewing.
It’s easy to imagine thousands of Connecticut anglers heading to the polls
with fire in their eyes.
1957:
The Sale of Inland Bass Stopped
At this point
recreational anglers could still sell their catch, but there was growing
sentiment amongst anglers to shut that down as well. For one thing it seemed
unfair to stop commercial netters when recreational angler still had the right
to sell. Furthermore stopping the sale of bass would bring this long grass roots
movement to protect striped bass to its logical conclusion. The effort to close
this loophole was put forth in a bill. And once again the Fish and Game and
Shellfish Committee heard testimony on striped bass.
An attempt was made to pass a bill that would stop the sale of striped
bass caught in inland waters. Lyle Thorpe, then director of the State Board of
Fish and Game, supported the bill because it solved as he put it a “human
problem.” Well put. Wildlife management, at its best, centers not only on
biological data, but as well on societal concerns. With the passage of this
bill, Connecticut moved one step closer to game fish status.
1959:
Game Fish Status Finally Achieved
On
Thursday March 26, 1959 Representative Lawrence introduced a bill to the Fish
and Game and Shellfish Committee to end the sale of all striped bass caught in
Connecticut. (Note that bass caught out of state could still be brought to
market with the proper tags.) Representative Wood testified in support, noting
that there were still places in Connecticut where you could take striped bass
and ship them out to Fulton Market. Clearly, Fulton Market, long under the
control of the Genovese crime family, was not asking angler any questions about
how or where they got their striped bass. Ruby Frank, chairman of the State
Board of Fish and Game echoed these concerns about unreported sales. He told the
committee that many bass were still finding their way to markets in the Norwich
area and Fulton Market. He added that since commercial net fishermen could not
take bass, the sale by recreational anglers should be stopped too. The bill was
approved by the legislature on Wednesday April 8, 1959, and became Public Act
29. Finally striped bass were a Connecticut game fish.
If you take the original 1931 regulation to stop the netting of striped
bass in rivers as the first step towards special status for striped bass, it
took nearly thirty years of struggle in our state to make stripers a game fish.
And when you step back and look at what transpired, you are watching democracy
at work. From the beaches and boat on the Sound, to the recreational clubs along
the coast, up to the legislative offices in Hartford, we find concerned
Connecticut citizens, working within the political arena, to bring about
societal change, in order to better manage our natural resources and improve the
quality of life.
People in the know,
however, will tell you that Public Act 29 did not totally stop the sale of
Connecticut caught striped bass. It only slowed things down. With no bag limit
in place, it was still relatively easy for an expert angler to take ten, twenty,
thirty or more Long Island Sound bass in a single day, throw them in the truck
and then simply drive them over to New York City for sale.
What really put a kink in the sale of Connecticut striped bass happened
much later in 1983 when the recreational bag limit was dropped to one-fish per
angler.
The
End
Epilogue
2009
Fifty
year later, Connecticut citizens still enjoy having striped bass a game fish.
Yes, you can sell bass here with proof the fish was caught out of state. Yet
here at home, here in our own waters, striped bass is, by statue, a protected
game fish. And that is way Connecticut citizens want it to stay. Nevertheless
every now and then an effort is made to create a commercial striped bass fishery
in our state. With that in mind, let me close by presenting several reasons why
we should keep striped bass a game fish.
- Perhaps
the biggest reason to keep striped bass a game fish is the clearly stated
opinion of so many Connecticut citizens. We like it that way.
- From
an economic stand point, game fish status is also the right way to go. In
2003 the highly respected Southwick Associated Group did a study entitled
“The Economics of Recreational and Commercial Striped Bass Fishing”.
That study is too long to present here, but the results clearly show that
recreational striped bass fishing creates far more economic activity than
commercial striped bass. Roughly 12 times more.
- Note
too that our game fish law is nondiscriminatory; it applies equally to every
citizen of Connecticut. If we opened a limited hook and line only fishery
for striped bass, it would instantly generate a cry of unfairness from other
commercial fishermen. Draggers, pound net operators, spear fishermen, shad
netters, for example, would all argue that they too should have the same
right. In addition, if netters were allowed to sell striped bass, human
nature dictates they would increasingly direct their efforts toward
stripers, simply because other commercial species are presently in trouble.
And if the striped bass population holds up and other species continue to
decline, more and more commercial fishermen will want stripers, and
increased limits. When the bass population eventually wanes, as all marine
species must, the state will need to close or restrict the fishery. Will the
people making money off bass then ask for compensation from the state, based
on their reduced income?
- Let’s
face the fact that state doesn’t have enough conservation officers. And
the officers we do have are already burdened with a mountain of existing
regulations to enforce. Can we really expect them to take on a new
commercial fishery? Even adding a few more officers just to focus on this
fishery makes no sense. Their salaries would cost more than the fishery
creates.
- Even
with more conservation officers and today’s tighter fisheries regulations,
commercial striped bass fisheries are capable of severely abusing the
resource. Recent events in Maryland make this fact painfully clear. This
year Maryland’s conservations enforcement along with the FBI completed a
five year undercover sting operation that stopped an enormous underground
flow of illegal striped bass. Several commercial fishermen, a process plant
and a large seafood market were involved. It involved millions of dollars
worth of striped bass. The magnitude of this activity was so great that U.S.
Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein state that if commercial fishermen didn’t obey
the rules, the striped bass population could be wiped out very quickly. This
case of environmental vandalism was stopped, but you can bet that many
others remain undetected.
- Connecticut
has a health advisory on eating striped bass because of PCB contamination.
Why should we allow these same fish to be sold in our fish markets,
especially when farm-raised striped bass free of toxic chemicals are already
available? Would the state insist that wild striped bass in the market wear
a warning? And if the state didn’t put health warnings on those fish,
could the state be open to liability?
- Our
overall wildlife management philosophy recognizes the wisdom of protecting
important recreational species such as trout, largemouth bass, deer and
ducks, from commercial harvest. Protecting striped bass fits right into
philosophy.
- Lastly
Connecticut’s position is a popular one. Along the Atlantic seaboard, the
majority of states treat striped bass as a game fish.
(Home)