The Great Striper Recount: Part 1
“Too Long, Didn’t Read”: NOAA’s sweeping revision of recreational fishing data has dramatically changed the
Speed Summary
ASGA reviewed nine years of Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) voting records, analyzing 33 critical decisions on striped bass and menhaden management between 2017 and 2026. The results paint a troubling picture of who is standing in the way of conservation. Virginia (88% against conservation), Delaware (85%), New Jersey (82%), the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (78%), and Maryland (69%) consistently voted against conservation measures, while few states like Connecticut (22%), Pennsylvania (31%), Massachusetts (33%) and Rhode Island (34%) stand out as the strongest conservation advocates.
Our investigation also reveals a disturbing pattern of commissioners weakening, delaying, or outright rejecting meaningful commercial striped bass reductions while recreational anglers shoulder the burden of rebuilding. In some cases, as much as 91% of commercial quota reductions existed only on paper, cutting unused quota rather than actual harvest. Most recently, ASMFC rejected a 12% reduction for both sectors that was projected to save approximately 489,000 striped bass annually.
We identify the commissioners behind these decisions, document their motions and statements, and expose the consequences of years of management failures. With major menhaden decisions approaching at ASMFC’s November meeting, this report raises a fundamental question: Are these commissioners representing the resource and the public, or protecting the interests of a select few?
The following blog verifies everything you likely feel about the ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board and Atlantic Menhaden Management Board. Do your state commissioners care about your public comment? Are their decisions science-based, and what is best for a long-term sustainable resource? Do they represent you or do they represent themselves? The data featured here is focused on voting records for menhaden and striped bass. Note that while still important, other species are co-managed, and that can muddy the waters on issues. This blog is the clearest way we can show the problem sources for an irreplaceable inshore fishery and the most important forage fish in the sea.
Our team went through every recorded vote. We reviewed 33 key decisions on the ASMFC Striped Bass and Menhaden Boards from February 2017 through May 2026: 19 on striped bass and 14 on menhaden. Every tally and every state list was checked against the approved ASMFC proceedings. Then we scored each delegation on how often it voted against the conservation position.
The Final Rankings
If you’re a sports fan, you likely check league stats for your favorite players. Consider this a similar experience but for your least favorite ASMFC representatives and their voting records against conservation. This is not a list you want your name featured atop of. Here are the top five biggest offenders for conservation progress:
This list is more like a golf scorecard. The lower your score, the better you are at prioritizing marine resources. We must send a big thank you to Connecticut (22%) holding down the bottom of the list. We appreciate their consistent focus on letting science lead the way. While there is objectivity to labeling something “anti conservation”, we tried our hardest to limit bias by scoring one vote per underlying decision and by dropping six decisions we considered to by ASGA judgement calls on minor nuance. Even with those changes made, the biggest offenders and conservation defenders stayed the same. The following table summarizes this research, with additional context and varifiable quotes below.
Note: n is the number of decisions on which the delegation cast a yes or no vote that was itemized in the record (maximum 33: 19 striped bass, 14 menhaden). Abstentions, null votes and votes not itemized are excluded from the percentage. DC sits only on the Striped Bass Board; Florida, South Carolina and Georgia sit only on the Menhaden Board. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service usually abstain on allocation and quota votes, so their n is small. Percentages are rounded; rank uses unrounded values.
The “Commercial Cut Rollback Program”
Many of these anti-conservation decisions favored the commercial sector over the resource. Let us be clear about where ASGA stands. Over the last decade, recreational anglers took the cuts meant to recover this stock. The commercial sector didn’t take part in that recovery. Certain topics in fisheries come down to world views and risk policies. The commercial sectors lack of participation is neither of those, but rather explicitly true. The same recreational sector that has fronted the “burden” of conservation was then attacked with a slate of no-targeting closure campaigns.
The new catch and release data, MRIP recalibration, and the absurd commercial discard numbers recently uncovered all add to the brutal reality recreational fishermen have endured in recent years. No targeting closures would have completely destroyed the industry – but for no tangible conservation gain. Instead, they would reward a selfish few with an extra couple days to kill fish. It is beyond absurd that the issue got any traction, but the voting record depicted here provides visibility into the priorities of the worst conservation states who voted in lock step for no targeting closures. The striper management playbill is written and here are the bad actors:
February 2020: Addendum VI called for an 18% cut. Through conservation equivalency, Maryland and PRFC cut their Bay commercial quotas 1.8% instead. Delaware’s quota was also set 1.8% below its old level, which left its 2020 quota higher than in 2019 (142,474 pounds vs 135,142). Who covered the difference? Maryland’s Mike Luisi told the Board on Feb 4, 2020: “We have already moved forward with the distribution of the quota with a 1.8 percent reduction, which requires our state to take more than an 18 percent reduction on the recreational fishery.” By our model, the CE plans (Maryland, PRFC, Delaware and Virginia) cut about 69,000 to 82,000 fewer commercial fish than the standard 18% would have, with deeper recreational cuts in those states meant to make up the difference on paper.
January 23, 2024: Addendum II carried a 14% commercial cut. Luisi (MD) moved to cut it in half, to 7%. It passed 8-6-2 on a roll call, with Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, PRFC and Virginia voting yes. Modeled cost: about 50,000 commercial fish per year compared with 14%.
December 16, 2024: A proposed 9% commercial cut for 2025 was amended down to 5%, 10-4-2. Then the whole 2025 package (9% recreational, commercial amended to 5%) failed 4-11-1. No action for 2025. The commercial piece would have saved about 31,400 fish at 5%, versus about 56,600 at 9%. The package as amended was modeled at about 342,000 to 394,000 fish for 2025.
October 29, 2025: An equal 12% cut for both sectors failed 5-11. Addendum III then passed 13-3 with no reduction at all. That 12% cut was modeled at about 489,000 fish per year from 2026, about 75,500 of them commercial and about 413,700 recreational.
Note: these fish numbers are modeled, single-year estimates. They overlap, so they can not be added together for a total impact.
The “Paper Cuts”
A commercial cut comes off their annual quota, in pounds. If a state isn’t catching its full quota, part of the cut removes “paper fish” they were not landing to begin with. In layman’s terms: your personal trainer tells you to cut back on sweets. They say you need to eat 20 less cookies per week. You have a box of 100 Oreos in the pantry, but there are only 80 left when you get home. You get home and eat the remaining 80, returning to tell your trainer “you made changes and didn’t eat the whole box”. Did you really cut your cookie intake? No, you manipulated a number while continuing your greedy bad habits. The previous sentence describes commercial sector perfectly.
ASMFC’s own FY2025 review says the Ocean region “regularly underutilizes” its commercial quota. Ironically, North Carolina “holds 13% of the Ocean quota, yet has had zero Ocean harvest since 2013”. So we ran a conservative test: how much of each quota cut came off quota that wasn’t being caught, using the highest harvest in the three years before each cut. The unused quota, or “paper fish” share of the cut was:
In August 2023, a motion to take the commercial cut from actual landings instead of quota failed 3-10-3. ASMFC acknowledges this dynamic; “as quota utilization changes from year to year, the realized reduction in commercial removals will change.” This is an accounting test of quota against harvest, not a count of fish saved, which is extremely inappropriate when the goal is to conserve the resource.
Assessing the Damage of Commercial “Conservation Passes”
October 2025 (Addendum III, voted Status Quo): The equal 12% cut that failed 5-11 would have saved about 489,000 striped bass a year from 2026. About 413,700 of those are recreational and about 75,500 commercial.
December 2024 (voted No Action): The 2025 package that failed 4-11-1 was modeled at about 342,000 to 394,000 fish reduction of harvest for 2025. Amending the commercial cut from 9% to 5% gave up about 25,000 commercial fish on its own.
January 2024 (voted 14% cut down to 7%): ~50,000 commercial fish per year sent to the filet table, compared with the 14% that was originally proposed.
February 2020 (CE plans): About 69,000 to 82,000 fewer commercial fish cut than the standard 18%. Anglers in those states took deeper cuts to cover it on paper.
2024 (Chesapeake Bay): 91% of the proposed quota cut was paper. These fish “given back” were not being caught, essentially giving Bay commercial anglers a 38,000 fish “conservation credit” for fish they didn’t “give back”. The actual harvest cut was at most about 4,300 fish. (The Ocean): The share of “paper fish” was about 4,800 fish (42% of the cut), only giving back about 5,300 fish.
2020 (Chesapeake Bay:) The cut was 78% paper fish (14,200 fish that would never be caught) postured against at most about 5,500 fish actually cut from harvest. (The Ocean): Another disgusting 46% paper cut, crediting about 12,200 fish given back that would never have been caught to begin with.
After the 7% cut, Bay commercial harvest went from 2,497,100 pounds in 2023 to 2,661,900 pounds in 2024, up 6.6%. In fish, it went from 495,700 to 503,800, up 1.6%. In the Ocean, pounds landed fell 1.3% while the number of fish landed rose 3.0%, from 104,900 to 108,000.
The quota went down. The Bay catch went up. Was conservation achieved?
Let’s not forget that harvest can be heavily influenced by variance in the abundance of year classes, so the quota and harvest comparison is an accounting test at best, not a model for fish saved.
Bad Actors Take Center Stage
We want to take a moment to shine a spotlight on center stage for some of ASMFC’s worst actors. The following are commissioners who most often moved or seconded motions on the anti-conservation side of the record. Every motion below is confirmed in the ASMFC Index of Motions. Every quote was checked word for word against the approved proceedings. The documented Making or Seconding of a motion shows who brought it forward. The vote itself is cast by the state delegation.
Mike Luisi – Maryland
Background: Director of Fishing and Boating Services at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, listed as Maryland’s Administrator commissioner on ASMFC’s September 2026 roster. In December 2024 he sat as proxy for Maryland’s Administrative Commissioner. He has worked at Maryland DNR since 2000 and earlier managed the state’s commercial striped bass fishery, according to his Mid-Atlantic Council biography, which also says he has been Maryland’s designated official on that Council since June 2010. Luisi appears on the Striped Bass Board record throughout this period, back to February 2017.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“Fifty percent of what is available to be reduced could be reduced by going with a 7 percent reduction. I feel that that is a fair allocation of the burden of conservation on a community that makes up such a small portion of the overall mortality along the Atlantic coast.” – (Jan 23, 2024, on his 14% to 7% amendment)
“I would like to say that at this time I am fully supportive of, not only the amendment to the underlying motion, but also the underlying motion for status quo.” – (Oct 29, 2025, Addendum III)
John Clark – Delaware
Background: Delaware’s Administrative Commissioner to ASMFC from 2011, now retired from the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. In October 2025 the state identified him as DNREC Fisheries Section Administrator. He chaired the Menhaden Board at the October 2025 Annual Meeting.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“This seems at this point that not only will you not get much out of cutting this 10 percent, that the commercial side is taking, but you are going to make life very difficult for them” – (Jan 23, 2024, on his status quo motion)
“we heard from the TC that anything less than 10 percent really would be hard to measure.” – (Dec 16, 2024)
“I think we’re at a point where we can just stop the reductions for a while and hopefully economically our fishery can recover.” – (Oct 29, 2025)
Emerson Hasbrouck – New York
Background: New York’s Governor’s Appointee. Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed him in 2014, when he was Senior Educator and former Marine Program Director for Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk. He is on ASMFC’s September 2026 Roster.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“I think it’s somewhat disingenuous for us to impose a significant reduction on the commercial fishery, when they aren’t part of this problem that we’re trying to deal with here.” – (Jan 23, 2024)
“Yes, it’s essentially the same rationale for the previous motion, that this more closely reflects the removals or the proportion removals by the commercial fishery.” – (Dec 16, 2024, on his 5% amendment)
“We will get to rebuild without a reduction.” – (Oct 29, 2025)
“If we’re going to be talking about the Bay catch, I would suggest that we have a discussion about reducing the Bay Cap comparable to whatever we reduce the TAC.” – (Oct 28, 2025, Menhaden Board. ASGA opposes tying Bay Cap reductions to coastwide TAC reductions.)
Adam Nowalsky – New Jersey
Background: New Jersey’s legislative proxy to ASMFC since 2010, a licensed charter operator with more than two decades on South Jersey waters, and a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council from 2015 to 2024. He currently sits as proxy for Sen. Vin Gopal. New Jersey’s 2015 Council nomination described him as chairman of the New Jersey Chapter of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“I think at the 9 percent we’re already way below something that is perceptible, and now we’re talking about 1 in 5 percent of less than 10 percent of the fishery.” – (Dec 16, 2024)
“Right now, status quo is the way forward.” – (Oct 29, 2025)
Jeff Kaelin – New Jersey
Background: New Jersey’s Governor’s Appointee in 2024 and 2025 ASMFC proceedings. On Oct 28, 2025 he told the Menhaden Board: “As the New Jersey Governor’s Appointee and employee of Lunds Fishery in Cape May, New Jersey, a family owned and operated vertically integrated harvesting and processing company, and a marketing and processing entity, with a 10 percent interest in the marketing or processing of the total coastwide harvest of the Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery, I am declaring my conflict of interest.” He earlier chaired ASMFC’s Menhaden Advisory Panel. He is not listed on the September 2026 roster.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“I don’t buy the logic that just because the recreational side has to take a 14.1 percent cut the commercial side should also.” – (Jan 23, 2024)
“I think the right motion would be 1.4 percent, frankly in my mind, 10 percent of what the recreational guys are going to have to take.” – (Jan 23, 2024)
Pat Geer – Virginia
Background: Chief of Fisheries Management at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission since Sept 16, 2019, after serving as deputy chief from April 2018. His VMRC biography, last updated in 2023, says he had served as an ASMFC commissioner or proxy for 15 years. He sat as proxy for Virginia’s Administrative Commissioner and before telling the Menhaden Board in August 2025 that he is retiring.
Motions Against Conservation:
In Their Own Words:
“They [commercial] are not the problem. This addendum was addressing recreational issues. I cannot support a 14.5, if it’s one or the other I’m supporting status quo.” – (Jan 23, 2024)
“We have said time and time again at every one of these meetings that the Bay states and Delaware would have a hard time, if not an impossible time, implementing commercial measures in 2024.” – (Jan 23, 2024)
The Next Grand Performance:
Now that we have appropriately assessed the patterns of ASMFC’s bad actors, we eagerly await their next performance. The ASMFC Annual Meeting is November 8-12, 2026, in Newport, Rhode Island. The Menhaden Board is scheduled to take final action on Draft Addendum II, which includes options to cut the Chesapeake Bay Cap by up to 50% as well as the cuts needed for the Ocean TAC.
A quick search found that Virginia and New Jersey each cast anti-conservation votes on 12 of 14 menhaden decisions, and they were the only no votes on both the 2017 Bay Cap cut and starting this addendum. Luisi, Hasbrouck and Nowalsky are all on ASMFC’s September 2026 roster, and Maryland, New York and New Jersey all sit on the Menhaden Board.
Let’s call a spade a spade: the states with the worst records do not value their public comments. Their votes are too consistent to be swayed. This is a fundamental problem with ASMFC. There are no term limits for commissioners. The commissioners are not paid positions. We have so many questions….
The deck is stacked against conservation from the jump. This voting record provides proof of what many have felt. ASMFC’s structure lacks public input and avoids accountability. Consider this blog a very shallow exploration into the deep corruption of a failing management body, and a warning to all the actors listing. We are watching. We will make sure everyone knows what you’ve done in the past. We are listening to every word that you say, every motion you make, and every vote that is cast going forward. For years you have operated in the shadows of an antiquated management body that discourages participation. Now, you are going to have to answer for ignoring science and the public, while acting like you live in some gilded castle toasting with a select, pampered “few.”
Our Association always keeps focus on a single mission: abundant marine resources. No right or left. No party lines or personal allegiances. That being said, it is worth noting that most of the “worst conservation offenders” listed above are in blue states. If you believe the narrative that a blue state is more committed to conservation, then what the heck is going on here? Are the governors of these states not interested or just not paying attention?
Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants…
“Too Long, Didn’t Read”: NOAA’s sweeping revision of recreational fishing data has dramatically changed the
American Saltwater Guides Association Calls on ASMFC to Follow its Own Math and Implement a
“Too Long, Didn’t Read”: There was an Executive Order on saltwater fishing last week. Executive
There are several videos doing the rounds on social media lately about stocking redfish into
We rely on our members and donations to keep fighting for a sustainable tomorrow in marine conservation.
GIVE THE GIFT OF FISHERIES CONSERVATION THIS HOLIDAY SEASON. SHOP ASGA GOODS THAT FUND FISHERIES RESEARCH & ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS
JOIN ASGA IN CALLING FOR CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ACTION AFTER YEARS OF SPAWN FAILURES & POOR MANAGEMENT.
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively. To learn more, please review our privacy policy.
