- Division of Marine Fisheries
Atlantic coast anglers have more opportunity to harvest black sea bass and bluefish this year, while recreational measures remain unchanged for summer flounder and scup. (For Massachusetts’ specific measures, refer to our recreational saltwater fishing regulations webpage.) These outcomes, which stem from the management plans of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, have been met with varied reactions. The dominant ones include: “About time!” for the highly abundant black sea bass; “Already?” for the rebuilding bluefish; “That makes sense,” for the less available summer flounder; and “But there are so many of them!” for the ample scup.
Understanding these outcomes means diving into these species’ recreational measure setting process in which resource abundance alone does not dictate how regulations change from one year to the next. This is because expected recreational catch under the existing measures also plays a consequential role in whether the bag, size, and season will be tightened or loosened. However, the specific recreational measure setting process used since 2023—dubbed the Percent Change Approach—does give greater weight to stock biomass than previous approaches to moderate the amount of change based on risk to the stock. It also better accounts for uncertainty and variability in recreational catch estimates, which can provide for more stability, as does a two-year cycle of measure setting.
The Percent Change Approach begins with evaluating whether the current management measures are likely to result in harvest that is below, near, or above the coming year’s Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL). This step takes into consideration such factors as whether the stock size is trending up or down, the expected size distribution of the resource, and a confidence interval around the projection of expected harvest. Next, consideration is given to the most recent estimate of stock size relative to its target biomass level, assigning a category of very high, high, around the target, or low. Each combination of these two factors—expected harvest relative to RHL and stock biomass relative to target—results in an assignment of whether the measures can be liberalized, must be restricted, or can stay status quo in order to increase, decrease, or maintain expected harvest in the coming year, and by what specific percent.
The included tables outline the Percent Change Approach in more detail. Let’s look at how its application played out in setting the 2026 recreational measures for the four species mentioned previously.
Summer flounder and scup both resulted in status quo outcomes, but they arrived there through different pathways. For summer flounder, maintaining the 2025 measures in 2026 was expected to produce harvest in 2026 below the RHL (Table 1). While this suggests room to liberalize the measures to achieve the RHL, summer flounder biomass falls into the low category and hence additional caution is applied, resulting in no liberalization (or reduction) for summer flounder. Scup was the opposite. Maintaining the 2025 scup measures in 2026 was expected to produce harvest in 2026 above the RHL (Table 3). While this suggests a need to restrict the measures to not exceed the RHL, scup biomass falls into the very high category so there is little risk of harming the stock by leaving the measures unchanged, resulting in no reduction (or liberalization) for scup.
Both black sea bass and bluefish resulted in liberalization outcomes, but again, they arrived at that outcome differently. For black sea bass, maintaining the 2025 measures into 2026 was expected to produce harvest either below or near the RHL (Table 1 or Table 2), depending on the confidence interval applied to the projection. When coupled with a very high biomass category for black sea bass, the Percent Change Approach called for either status quo measures or a 39% liberalization, which resulted in managers selecting a 20% liberalization. For bluefish, another as-of-yet unmentioned part of the Percent Change Approach applied. Bluefish were declared overfished in 2019, so the rebuilding plan is the basis for management rather than the Percent Change Approach. Because of progress made to date under the rebuilding plan (i.e., increasing biomass), this allowed for an increase in recreational harvest, and managers selected to liberalize measures in a way estimated to only make use of part of that allowed increase to buffer against any unexpected outcomes.
Note that after 2029, the Percent Change Approach will be modified from being harvest-based to catch-based. This means that references to “RHL” and “expected harvest” will be replaced by “recreational annual catch target” and “expected catch,” putting more emphasis on the impact of management measures on released fish.
Table 1A. Percent Change Approach When Expected Harvest is Below the Future RHL (specifically, the upcoming two-year average RHL is greater than the upper bound of the confidence interval around the projection of harvest under status quo measures).
| Spawning stock biomass compared to target level | Management Outcome |
|---|---|
Very high (≥ 150% of target) | Liberalization: percentage equal to difference between projected harvest and future RHL, not to exceed 40% |
High (110% to <150% of target) | Liberalization: percentage equal to difference between projected harvest and future RHL, not to exceed 20% |
Around target (90% to <110% of target) | Liberalization: 10% |
Low (50% to <90% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
Table 1B. Percent Change Approach When Expected Harvest is Near the Future RHL (specifically, the upcoming two-year average RHL is within the confidence interval around the projection of harvest under status quo measures).
| Spawning stock biomass compared to target level | Management Outcome |
|---|---|
Very high (≥ 150% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
High (110% to <150% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
Around target (90% to <110% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
Low (50% to <90% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
Table 1C. Percent Change Approach When Expected Harvest is Above the Future RHL (specifically, the upcoming two-year average RHL is less than the lower bound of the confidence interval around the projection of harvest under status quo measures).
| Spawning stock biomass compared to target level | Management Outcome |
|---|---|
Very high (≥ 150% of target) | Status Quo: 0% |
High (110% to <150% of target) | Reduction: 10% |
Around target (90% to <110% of target) | Reduction: percentage equal to the difference between expected harvest and future RHL, not to exceed 20% |
Low (50% to <90% of target) | Reduction: percentage equal to the difference between expected harvest and future RHL, not to exceed 40% |
On the whole, the Percent Change Approach is intended to provide for more stability and predictability of measures that better reflect stock status, account for recreational data uncertainty, and incorporate angler preferences, all while still preventing overfishing. While a meaningful improvement over the prior recreational measure setting process, some outcomes can still cause anglers angst. For example, when an increasing Recreational Harvest Limit does not lead to more liberal recreational measures. Although more recreational harvest is allowed and expected in this case (because of more available biomass), it may not feel like a liberalization if the season doesn’t get longer, the bag limit higher, or the minimum size smaller. It may be helpful to also reflect on how a decreasing Recreational Harvest Limit does not necessarily lead to more restrictive measures.
Although not specifically related to the Percent Change Approach, the disparity between recreational and commercial minimum size limits has developed into a common complaint amongst anglers recently. Such inconsistencies (for example, the 4” difference between MA’s commercial and recreational minimum size for black sea bass) are borne from the commercial fishery having its harvest primarily controlled by a quota (that when met, closes the fishery) whereas the recreational fishery does not have a similar tool. The minimum size limits for most species’ commercial and recreational fisheries were aligned at the onset of management (and are typically reflective of a life history parameter, such as size at maturity, for stock sustainability). Over time, when harvest reductions were called for, the commercial quota could simply be adjusted—and the minimum size left unchanged. Conversely, the tools to affect a recreational harvest reduction are generally the bag, size, and season. Frequently, public comment has supported not reducing the recreational season or bag limit, leading to an increase in the minimum size as the means to reduce harvest. It appears that this sentiment is changing based on some of the current size limits and DMF expects size limit reductions to be a focus of hoped-for future recreational liberalizations for species like black sea bass and summer flounder.
By Nichola Meserve, Fisheries Policy Analyst
