During the January session, CT's 33rd district representative Brandon Chafee introduced Proposed Bill No. 6248, referenced to the Committee on Environment. It is titled "and act establishing a moratorium on fishing for striped bass in the lower Housatonic River", and reads "That the general statutes be amended to establish a moratorium on fishing for striped bass in the lower Housatonic River until the populations of striped bass recovers".
I commend Rep. Chafee for making an attempt at bringing this issue into legislation, because the Housatonic and especially it's holdover striped bass are a source of problem and controversy. Poaching is rife there, as a plethora of undersized male stripers make their way up the river in December and spend the winter, filtering back out in March and April. There are some large fish and some females that come in as well, but it is known mostly as a place to go in the winter and do what I often call "beating up toddlers". With a spinning rod and paddle tail on a jighead you can, many days, catch as many 14-20" striped bass as you like, with people bragging about catching into the triple digits. I did it once too, and it left a sour taste in my mouth as soon as I really thought about it. It's gratuitous and unnecessary, and frankly isn't even all that fun after a while. But the real problem is the sort of poaching these easy targets encourage. Just this December CT EnCon officers and their K9, Luna, sniffed out a haul of 34 undersized bass.
This isn't an isolated incident, as many anglers that have spent time on the Housatonic will tell you. It's enough of a problem that legislating a solution makes sense, but what of Bill 6248? Would that work?
I'd argue that no, it will not. One problem is that "striped bass fishing" is not legally defined. This means that all one needs to do to be legal is simply not be in possession of a striped bass. Boats illegally targeting striped bass in the EEZ, where it is illegal to do so, routinely play that game. As long as they don't have a striper on board, they aren't likely to be prosecuted. To make that moratorium on striper fishing work effectively, legal definitions would need to be drawn up. I'm not against that, necessarily, but it does leave wiggle room and wouldn't be any easier to enforce than the current situation.
Arguably, a better strategy would be a full blown closure, and ideally a seasonal one. The problem time is typically from December to March, and the problem area is from the Derby Dam to Washington Bridge. A total closure of fishing, regardless of species, in that time frame and stretch of river. This has precedent. When we had trout seasons (and I personally really wish we still did) most rivers were closed for a month and a half or so. Under this case, anybody fishing for the vulnerable holdover bass, and that's really all that's worth fishing for down there that time of year, would be breaking the law, regardless of tackle choice. There isn't a way to sneak around the legal definitions and pretend you're targeting something else.
Another strategy, and one that would have benefits outside of the Housatonic, would be hiring new EnCon Officers and increasing the fines for environmental infractions. As it stands, the fines and ramifications can often be equated to a slap on the wrist, and judges have tended not to take them seriously. This is a system failure, in my opinion. We should be placing higher value on our resources, and penalizing higher when people abuse them. These actions could take significant strides towards reducing the poaching problem and fishing mortality that occurs on the lower Housatonic. We can push for this, and we should. Find your representative here: Find Your Legislators- CGA, and email or call them to encourage a more enforceable, stronger version of Proposed Bill No. 6248, with emphasis on a closed winter season for fishing the lower Housatonic, and increasing fines for poaching infractions.
