What does Connecticut’s Bonus Tag Discontinuation Mean?
January 15, 2002
In yesterday’s What We Read Today, we touched on the State of Connecticut’s decision to discontinue its striped bass bonus tag program in light of the status of the fish species and also due to low participation in the program.
What is a Bonus Tag?
Let’s quickly run through this program and what bonus tags are, as they are available in most states for striped bass. As you may know, each state is essentially given a quota for specific fish, which is divided amongst recreational (rod & reel, recreational anglers who do not catch and sell fish for a living) and commercial (maybe rod and reel, but fish caught to be sold) anglers. Connecticut, despite having very little (effectively no) commercial striped bass fishery, still has a commercial quota allocated to it by the ASMFC each year. To prevent that quota from being effectively ‘wasted’ and transferred as commercial quota to another state, the state allows recreational anglers to purchase ‘bonus tags,’ which allow those who purchase tags to harvest additional fish.
Now, in the notification sent by the state announcing that it is discontinuing the program, it mentioned that there was lack of participation evidenced by the low number of returned tags. This is where I think the bonus tag program goes off-track. If you purchase a bonus tag, you are supposed to take the tag, which is a physical item, and mail it back to the CT DEEP once you keep that extra fish. In doing so, you will have ‘used’ that tag and would not be legally allowed to keep an extra fish again throughout the season. Just because the state does not receive returned tags, however, does not necessarily mean that those who purchased them are not ‘using’ them or keeping fish. Instead they could very easily be holding the tag and waiting to use it in the unlikely event that they are stopped by enforcement.
What Does or What Could this Action Mean?
Whether these tags are being used, abused or not, Connecticut’s decision to eliminate the program is a big step in the right direction, beyond the fact that theoretically it means fewer fish will be kept in the state this year. On a bigger picture, the state is actively leaving fish that its anglers are ‘entitled to keep’ in the water, and it is that mentality, that those fish are better off, and more valuable, in the water than they are being harvested, that may (this is likely too rosy a way to look at it) signal a shift in the way fish are being managed.
I recently saw the movie Artifishal, which was produced by Patagonia and focused on the impact of fish farming and hatcheries on wild salmon and trout. In that movie, someone (I don’t remember who) said that historically, humans have taken an agricultural approach to fish populations and fisheries, and that is the issue we are having with a number of fish species that are overfished or being too heavily pressured. If we view fish as a commodity that is there to be harvested each year, and not as anything else, there is no chance at abundance. The bonus tag program is evidence of that exact approach and practice, in the way that states find ways to use up every last piece of their quota, whether it is asked for, needed or not. If we can take a different approach to fisheries, and start managing them not as crops, but as a natural resource that provides not only commercial benefit, but significant recreational and environmental value, there’s a chance that we can really start to see a turnaround that benefits everyone.
As a first step, I am hopeful that Connecticut’s decision will put pressure on other states to follow suit, and there will be fewer bonus tags deployed up and down the coast.