Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hickory Shad Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VMRC denies petition to set daily creel limit for hickory shad
Summary
The Marine Resources Commission declined a Coastal Conservation Association petition to create a statewide daily creel limit for hickory shad, citing limited scientific data and forthcoming VIMS monitoring; the denial was unanimous.
The Marine Resources Commission on Dec. 3, 2024, voted unanimously to deny a petition from the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) seeking a daily recreational creel limit to manage hickory shad in Virginia waters.
CCA volunteer Wayne Young told the Commission the petition seeks a science‑based guardrail for an uncontrolled recreational harvest that, he said, removes spawners and may harm restoration of American shad. Young and Robert Allen urged a managed recreational fishery and proposed starting with a 10‑fish daily creel limit across gear types, citing public comments and local observations of heavy harvests.
Joshua McGilly, fisheries staff, summarized available data and the petition process under Executive Order 19. Staff noted data are limited: the MRIP recreational dataset from 1981–2023 recorded 46 trips with 424 hickory shad caught and 23 harvested; commercial landings have been less than 3,000 pounds per year in recent years. VIMS and DWR monitoring programs exist but staff and VIMS said biological data for hickory shad are sparse and a targeted time series will begin in 2025.
Commissioners pressed for scientific justification for a creel limit. Commissioner Headley and others said they respect CCA’s outreach and concerns but worried setting a fishery limit without a stock assessment or clear abundance indices would be premature. Commissioner Branson called a petitioner remark about subsistence fishing “offensive,” and emphasized careful, science‑driven policymaking.
After discussion about options and the petition process, Commissioner Headley moved to deny the petition; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff said petitioners may appeal and noted that denial at this stage does not preclude future regulatory action once additional data are available.
The Commission’s decision closes this petition proceeding; staff will incorporate forthcoming VIMS monitoring results into future assessments and can bring regulatory options back to the Commission if evidence warrants.
