The Gradual and Sudden Decline of Striped Bass
Mike Spinney • June 8, 2021
Striped bass, also known as rockfish, are the most economically important finfish on the Atlantic seaboard. According to a 2005 economic study by Southwick Associates, commercial and recreational fishing for stripers generated more than $6.8 billion in total economic activity, supporting more than 68,000 jobs. At that time, striped bass were abundant in the Chesapeake Bay and throughout their migratory range, from North Carolina to Maine.
Twenty years earlier, striped bass were practically nonexistent. Scooped up in commercial nets and plucked by rod and reel by a growing number of recreational anglers throughout the 1970s, stripers had been fished to the brink of oblivion when a moratorium was enacted in 1985. Remarkably, once left alone to reproduce in the Chesapeake and Delaware bays, as well as the Hudson River, the fish were spawning in record numbers. In 1995, five years after the moratorium was lifted, the species was declared “fully recovered” by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the interstate body that manages them.
The rebound was labeled a success. Rockfish became a symbol of the ASMFC’s fisheries management prowess. But almost as soon as the commission resumed the task of allotting states their portion of the striped bass pie, things started to go downhill until, in 2019, the commission declared striped bass overfished.
According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Maryland’s commercial striped bass catch went from 2.3 million pounds in 2005 to 1.2 million in 2019, while the recreational catch fell from 7.6 million pounds to 2.6 million. Massachusetts’ commercial catch declined from 1.1 million pounds to 0.5 million; the recreational catch went from 7.5 million to 2.6 during the same span. Massachusetts’ commercial striped bass fishermen have failed to fill their quota each of the last three years. The fish simply aren’t available.
The ASMFC dithered in the face of this steady decline. Because it must serve the interests of both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers, and because it believes it must achieve what is known as “maximum sustainable yield” (a fancy way of saying, kill the most fish possible without destroying the fishery), the commission has tinkered with ways to keep everyone happy. In the process, it has failed the fish and frustrated the fishermen.
Now, the ASMFC is creating a new plan to manage striped bass. Known as Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, the commission has asked for public input as it considers its options.
The primary objective of Amendment 7 is “To perpetuate, through cooperative interstate fishery management, migratory stocks of striped bass; to allow commercial and recreational [harvests] consistent with the long-term maintenance of a broad age structure, a self-sustaining spawning stock; and also to provide for the restoration and maintenance of their essential habitat.”
If the commission is serious about achieving this goal, it knows how to do it: Implement a new moratorium on the harvest of striped bass. A harvest moratorium is the only approach that has thus far been proven to achieve these goals for rockfish. That is why the organization Stripers Forever is calling for the ASMFC to take bold action and impose a 10-year moratorium on the harvest of striped bass.
Stripers have demonstrated they can replenish their numbers when given the opportunity. If the commission adopts a 10-year harvest moratorium as we suggest, striped bass will return to healthy abundance and with the balanced age structure necessary for sustaining the fishery in the long term.
Furthermore, the ASMFC can use those 10 years to adopt better, more scientific means for collecting the data it needs to sustain the fishery after the moratorium is lifted.
A harvest moratorium would still allow recreational anglers to fish for striped bass, but on a catch-and-release basis only. That means the recreational striped bass angling economy — which far exceeds the commercial fishery — would remain largely intact. Remember the Southwick study that found the entire striped bass fishery worth $6.8 billion? The recreational fishery accounted for $6.2 billion of that total.
In Ernest Hemingway’s novel, The Sun Also Rises, the character Mike Campbell is asked how his bankruptcy came about. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” If the ASMFC fails to take the bold and courageous action needed to rescue striped bass from the brink of collapse, it will have no choice when asked about the inevitable failure but to look back over 30 years of compromises and half measures and say it happened “gradually and then suddenly.”
But it doesn’t have to be that way. With a moratorium, rockfish — like the sun — can still rise.
Mike Spinney, a resident of Massachusetts, is a member of the national board of Stripers Forever.
This article was originally published in the Bay Journal in May 2021.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
