MAKING WAVES - Fall 2016

waves

M A K I N G

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page Page

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

Recreational Bluefin Fishery: The History and Socioeconomic Value Alaskan Holiday Winner and New Trip of Lifetime Contest Looking Down the Barrel of Sector Separation Alternative Management for Recreational Fisheries Protecting Porbeagles

FALL 2016

Page

Making Waves Fall 2016

waves

M A K I N G

Page 33 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

FROM THE PUBLISHER’S DESK

By Gary Caputi

T

his issue is packed with interesting stories based on fisheries issues and there's loads of policy to go with it. Meet the member who won our last Trip-of-a-Lifetime Raffle and get his take on Wild Strawberry Lodge because it was so popular we are doing it again!

That's right, you could be next to fish Alaska!

Check out A Bluefin Tuna Story, a weaving of facts about the history of the fishery as told through the eyes of a fourth generation angler with super old-time photos and a discussion of the socioeconomic benefit of the recreational fishery for these great oceanic nomads.

There's a prescient white paper put together by RFA staff that was presented at the Recreational Fishing Roundtable at the Kenai Classic last August filled with interesting thoughts on alternative management measures for the recreational fisheries.

Don't miss the feature on Sector Separation, an issue that has been plaguing fishery management for a long time and the pressure is on to bring it to a recreational fishery near you.

And with the upcoming November election for President of the United States heading into the back stretch be sure to read Jim Donofrio's Executive Director's Report to see which candidate the RFA has endorsed and why. Care to take a guess?

As always, we hope you find Making Waves interesting and informative.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. You can get in on the conversation by emailing the editor. Just click right here.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE From the Publisher’s Desk

3

RFA Trip of a Lifetime

7

A Bluefin Tuna Story

11

Sector Separation Part One

21

Sector Separation A Case Study

25

Growing Alaska's Recrea- 30 tional Halibut Fishery RFA White Paper on Alternative Management for Recreational Fisheries

33

RFA News & Views

39

On the Cover: A big bluefin tuna comes over the rail for a team of happy anglers. Photo: Gary Caputi

Page 4

Making Waves Fall 2016

Page 55 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Executive Director’s Report

By Jim Donofrio

DECISION TIME!

T

he United States is facing one of the most crucial elections we have seen in our lifetimes.

This is especially true for recreational fishermen who have seen a continual eroding of our right to fish under the current administration. In light of that the RFA is asking each and every one of you this simple question.

DO YOU WANT EIGHT MORE YEARS OF THE SAME? As a U.S. Senator from a coastal state, Hillary Clinton did nothing for anglers and the recreational fishing industry. In our efforts to reform the Magnuson Steven Act

she was not only missing in action, she was aliened with the very organizations that have put us in the troubling position we are in today.

If elected president she will either keep the same ideologues in the Department of Congress, NOAA and NMFS or appoint new ones of the same ilk from the same far left environmental groups that have been dominating these agencies for the past eight years. In turn, they will continue to hand-pick more people for the Regional Fisheries Councils that will work to get us and keep us off the water.

We will see more proposed blanket marine reserves cho-

sen based on feel good environmental policies, not good science.

We will see more regulation for regulation sake.

We will see a continuation of no effort made to fix the broken data collection procedures currently used to assess recreational landings.

Hillary Clinton will be recreational fishing in saltwater's worst nightmare!

It's your choice come November. Who will you choose?

The RFA has already made its choice!

Page 6

Making Waves Fall 2016

Page 77 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

RFA TRIP OF A LIFETIME Back By Popular Member Demand Another Chance to go to Wilderness Alaska's Wild Strawberry Lodge

T

he RFA is please announce that in response to the popularity of our 2016 Trip of a Lifetime Sweepstakes, RFA will be again offering an opportunity to win a trip to Wild Strawberry Lodge in Sitka Alaska.

Thanks to RFA member Theresa Weiser, the owner and operator of Alaska Premier Charters, Inc., the winner and a guest will be going to beautiful Wild Strawberry Lodge in Sitka, Alaska where they will experience world-class fishing for halibut and salmon!

This comfortable and well equipped lodge is located on Thomsen Harbor nestled between panoramic views of mountains and the Pacific. Their fleet consists

of rugged 30’ aluminum fishing boats run by knowledgeable, friendly captains whose goal is to put you on the fish and teach you about this wild and beautiful place.

The RFA will be mailing five tickets to its membership in the coming weeks. Tickets cost $25 each or you can purchase all five for the discounted price of $100. Tickets can also be purchased online at the RFA Store or Here’s how it works. In by calling the RFA headMarch of 2017, we will quarters office at 888-JOINdraw one winning ticket at RFA. random. The winner will receive a trip for two to Wild Remember, 100% of your Strawberry Lodge ticket donations will be (www.wildstrawberrylodge used to further the critical .com) including three days work of the Recreational of fishing and four night’s Fishing Alliance and its misaccommodations, meals in- sion to protect your right to cluded, plus a travel vouch- fish! er for $1000 to offset your airfare. Total value is over Will you be going to Alaska? Act now and tell $7,000. The winner will aryour friends if they range travel dates directly aren’t already members with the lodge between early May and mid- to join today and get September, 2017 (subject their tickets for this amazing trip. to availability).

Page 8

Making Waves Fall 2016

Here's what last year's winner had to say about Wild Strawberry Lodge and his trip.

L

ast year when I received ing us of what to bring, to getthe RFA raffle tickets for ting our fish packaged and dethe Trip of a Lifetime livered to the airport. drawing I sent them in THE WINNER - TOM PELECH! with payment and kind of forgot about them," Tom and fishing buddy Rick says Tom Pelech, arriving at Wild Strawberry the winner of Lodge. the contest in 2016. "To my surprise in March of this year I received a call from Jim Donofrio of the RFA telling mem I won the trip to Alaska. I was flabbergasted as I never win anything!!

"After the initial shock wore off, I got together with Theresa, the owner of Alaska Premier Charters and Wild Strawberry Lodge to set up the trip. I have had the opportunity to fish at different laces from Canada to the Florida Keys and let me tell you, no one can compare with the ease and professionalism I have received from Theresa and Christine, her office manager.

They took care of everything from flight arrangements, advis-

"Upon arrival we were greeted at the airport and made quick work of the five mile ride to the lodge where we were oriented

by Theresa about our itinerary.

The next morning was wakeup call at 4:40 AM, breakfast at 4:45 and on the boats leaving at 5:30 for a full day of fishing. We were back at the dock by 4:30 and enjoying dinner at 6:30.

Theresa's husband Johnny and mate Blake on the High Roller the first day and with Captain Jack and mate Chad on the Endeavor for the next two days. The boats and crew were top notch as where the rods and reels we used. We limited out all three days and were able to bring home 72 pounds of prime fillets each. The highlight catch of the trip was my 52-lb. halibut and my fishing buddy Rick's huge lingcod. Unfortunately after pictures both had to be released due to the slot size limits.

"In closing I highly recommend Alaska Premier Charters and Wild Strawberry Lodge, Theresa and her staff to anyone look to experience a trip of a lifetime to Alaska!"

So here's your chance to follow in Tom footsteps and win an Alaska Trip of a Lifetime to one of Alaska's premiere fishing lodges and charter services. We hope you enjoy the pictures "We were privileged to fish with Tom sent us from his trip.

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 99 Page

CONGRATULATIONS

WHO WANTS TO

TOM!

GO NEXT?

Page 10

Making Waves Fall 2016

Page 1111 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

A Bluefin Tuna Story

By Gary Caputi

From incredible abundance to decades of scarcity, bluefin tuna remain a favorite with recreational fishermen and an economic benefit to the U.S. economy and coastal communities. This is the story of a fishery and one fishing family that lived it.

T

he story of the mighty bluefin tuna in the Western Atlantic and its relationship with recreational fishermen is a complicated one. Once amazingly abundant in the nearshore waters of the MidAtlantic and New England States the stocks were depleted in a matter of two decades. How could this happen? Jim Donofrio, RFA executive director, recalled the scenario with a little help from other recreational and commercial fishermen who witnessed the folly.

strated. These Bureau scientists employed the research vessels Delaware and the Gloucester trawler Golden Eagle and the schooner Majorie Parker. Catch rates average a plentiful 12.8 tunas per 100 hooks to as high as 46 tuna hooked using purchased Japanese longline gear.

But the U.S. longline fleet was not interested in Bluefin tuna with the obvious motivation being to focus on and save fish hold space for much more valuable swordfish.

This lack of history is the main reason the Pelagic longline fleet is prohibited from a Bluefin tuna targeted fishery up until now.

Purse seining for Bluefin tuna in the Northeast United States started in the mid-1950s under the encouragement of BuThe initial few local reau of Commercial Fish(herring/menhaden) eries Pete Wilson and JJ seine vessels made spoMurray. They first tried to radic attempts after enlist the emerging U.S. World War II to target pelagic longline fishery Bluefin in the sumto target Bluefin after successful exploratory cruis- mer and made successful catches but the low es for a coastal commercial fishery was demonprices did not make the fishery highly desirable.

Page 12

Making Waves Fall 2016

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 1313 Page

Page 14

Making Waves Fall 2016

But the Provincetown based F/V Silver Minke did the traditional recreational fisheries and the catch 179 MT in 1958 and had a record seine coastal recreational economy. But Mather and the Bureau of Commercial fishery scientist also catch of 759 MT in 1959.

Wilson and Murray published their successful re- were quick to point out that the practice since search and conclusion that a substantial Bluefin/ the early 1960's of the Canadian Pacific "clipper fleet" returning to Atlantic based canneries (with Yellowfin/Skipjack and Bigeye resource could fish holds of 1,000 MT) topping off with Midsupport an economically Atlantic to New England viable commercial tuna coastal catches of likely fishery and eventually thousands of tons of one of these reports Bluefin and yellowfin reached a west coast were contributing greatspotter pilot and a few ly to the damage to the of the small purse seine East Coast tuna fishery boats working mainly stocks. from San Pedro and San Diego.

The lack of a 200 mile EEZ made the U.S. powerless to stop or even simple regulate the Canadian clipper fleet. Only action by the Canadian government in 1980 stopped this damaging process made possible by cheap fuel and the location of the Canadian canneries.

One of these vessels, the F/V North Queen (Owned by Leonard Ingrande/Roger Hillhouse) decided to give an East Coast tuna Vintage tuna purse seiner circa 1950/60 seine fishery a shot. The North Queen arrived in (Courtesy NOAA Fisheries) New Bedford, after traveling through the Panama Canal, on June 26 and began fishing the In subsequent years very next day. By the large bluefin tuna began end of the 1962 seine bringing ridiculous pricseason, 3,768 MT of es on the sushi market catch had been landed. and the bigger fish were Before the season was targeted by long line, over (and after seeing harpoon and hook and the North Queen catchline commercial fisheres) two additional West men further whittling Coast seiners made the down the remaining journey to the East spawning stock. Atlantic Coast. In 1963 an addibluefin were under imtional 6 local vessels geared up to participate and mense harvesting pressure from European counfor the next 20 years the average U.S. seine catch tries and the Japanese distant water fleet and the of Bluefin was 1,978 MT with peak catches of result pushed the species to dangerously low lev5,447 and 4,571 MT in 1963 and 1964. els of abundance throughout their range.�

Esteemed Bluefin tuna pioneering scientist Frank Mather told both the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the U.S. Congress in the early 1970's that these purse seine catches had a dramatic negative impact on

From the turn of the last century recreational fishermen have been fascinated by bluefin tuna, mega-predators capable of growing to half a ton and beyond, but the real recreational fishery in the Mid-Atlantic was centered around the readily

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 1515 Page

been rebuilding. That’s good news, but the fight to maintain recognition of the socioeconomic importance of the recreational fishery in the United States has been a long and bloody one. The RFA has been heavily involved in the fight to rebuild the fishery and maintain the recreational component of it in the U.S. at the Federal level working with NMFS and at ICCAT. RFA executive director Jim Donofrio has been on the U.S. recreational advisory panel to ICCAT for many years as has RFA’s chief council, admiralty law and international fisheries expert Raymond Bogan. Recently Bogan was selected to be the U.S. Recreational Commissioner to ICCAT, the highest level of representation we have at that international body. He is a savvy and knowledgeable negotiator and we are well represented by his presence there.

To get a better handle on the recreational bluefin fishery on the East Coast today we started by taking a look back and we couldn’t have a better snapshot of its development when the stocks were incredibly abundant through where it is today than by talkavailable small to medium size fish that aring to Craig Falicon. Craig is an avid angler rived in the late spring and often stayed who grew up fishing for bluefin tuna with through late fall, frequently inhabiting near- his father Ken, but their family involvement shore waters within sight of land before the in the fishery goes much further back to stocks were depleted. Even today, with Dra- Craig’s great grandfather, Leon Falicon who conian bag limits and confusing size limits started the family love affair with school and seasonal closures bluefin tuna drive a bluefin tuna in the early 1930s. segment of the recreational fishery that has a significant impact on the marine and tack- Leon had a house on Barley Point Island in le industry and benefits coastal communities Rumson, New Jersey near the junction of the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers, which far beyond what you might imagine. flow into Sandy Hook Bay within sight of The International Commission for the ConNew York City. He kept his 24’ Sea Bright serve Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) does scientific sea skiff named Lucky there and used it to stock assessments and sets quotas for the fish the bay waters for striped bass, bluefish harvesting nations under their auspices, and flounder, but his passion was running which includes the United States, while Fed- to the Shrewsbury Rocks, about 10 miles eral regulations are set by the National Ma- south of the tip of Sandy Hook, and maybe rine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance offshore as far as the area called the Rattlewith ICCAT mandates. In recent years, after snake, to troll for tuna. Large schools of decades of fiddling while the stocks contin- bluefin tuna, most under 50 pounds, were ued to decline, ICCAT/NMFS regulatory acfound there feeding on the abundant tions have been gaining traction and the schools of baitfish and it wasn’t hard to troll stocks of North Atlantic bluefin tuna have

Recreational bluefin fishing is certainly not a new phenomenon as this picture circa 1930 shows. (Courtesy Craig Falicon)

Page 16

Making Waves Fall 2016

up a great catch of the hard fighting gamefish.

Craig’s grandfather James started fishing with his father, Leon, at an early age and the family was so enamored with catching “footballs,” one of the nicknames for school bluefins, that in the later 1930s Leon sold the Lucky and purchased a 36’ Matthews and named it the Mickey Jr. They moved the new boat to Hoffman’s Marina on the Manasquan River in Brielle, New Jersey to be closer to the middle grounds that the footballs and larger bluefins inhabited. Even giant bluefins could be reached by making the 20 mile run to the edge of the Mudhole or to spots like the Slough or Little Italy.

rarely took long to put a good catch together.

“The cedar plugs they used back then looked exactly the same as the cedar plugs we use today,” Craig told me.

With the war raging in Europe and then the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, James enlisted and fought in the Pacific Theater. The Matthews was sold and fishing was the furthest thing from most people’s minds until the end of the conflict when James returned. It didn’t take long before James and Leon purAbove the Mickey Jr. with Leon and James Falicon at the chased a 30’ Hans Peterson, a beautiful dock at Hoffman's Marina in Brielle, New Jersey circa 1939. lap strake boat built Below left to right - James Falicon, neighbor, Ann Krasno- in nearby Keyport, gira (James' future wife) and Leon Falicon. Circa 1939 New Jersey, and named it the Lucky Lee. It was birthed in Atlantic Highlands and the family was once again fishing the bay for stripers, bluefish and flounder. Craig’s father Ken came along with thousands of other baby boomers in the late 1940s and he was fishing with his dad and granddad by the time he was ten.

A typical tuna trip before the advent of World War II would find Leon, During the 1950s James and friends school bluefin were heading out in the still plentiful in the Mickey Jr. to look waters of the New for bluefin and they rarely had to go very far, but York Bight and giants could be found spring and never further than the B.A. Buoy. Using the tackle fall in the Mudhole eating the abundant ling and of the day they would troll cedar plugs and it whiting schools that were found there. The Fali-

Page 1717 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

con clan had a history in the fishery and couldn’t fuel tank system to augment the boat’s 48 gallon ignore them for long and a tuna fishing they tank so they could run offshore far enough to try went. Then, in the 1960s the West Coast purse and find bluefin. seiners came to the waters off New Jersey and “It was usually best in August and September and the carnage began. Each successive year saw a we would troll around some of the traditional further decline in the abundance of school and spots like the B.A. Buoy using Jap feathers, Zukers medium size bluefin. The fishing became harder and cedar plugs. Then the Reel Seat in Brielle, as the bluefin became scarce through the 1970s, New Jersey introduced the first plastic squid but the interest by the Falicon family persisted. By spreader bars and they were a game changer. the time Craig was born in 1984 the fishery was We caught more bluefin using those, but the fishdevastated and more time was devoted to fishing ing was still for striped nothing like bass, bluefin the days and flounder, when my but Ken still great grandmade treks to father and the edge of grandfather the Mudhole fished for in his friend’s within sight 23’ Mako of land,” Chris center consaid. “As dad sole powered and I were by twin 75 forced to HP Mercury chase them outboards to further offfish for giants shore the and to try SeaCraft just and find didn’t have schools of the fuel casmall and pacity so we medium size Second generation James and third generation bluefin fishermen Ken sold the last bluefins in Falicon with their pride and joy, the Lucky Lee II that they ran out of one and purthe Glory chased a 23’ Atlantic Highlands Marina circa 1955.

Hole and Regulator, Chicken Canwhich was a better sea boat and could hold yon. enough fuel to get out, back and troll around all “With the stocks in such poor shape what bluefins were available during the 80s and 90s were concentrated further offshore,” Craig recalls. “Finding large schools of footballs a few miles off the beach was unheard of. Sometimes we would see pods of mediums inshore late in the fall, but they were hard to catch.”

day without worrying.”

Craig and Ken can still be found carrying on the family tradition, hunting down bluefin tuna off the Jersey coast from their Regulator. “We still love it even with the one fish bag limit and crazy size regulations,” Craig said enthusiastically, “and the fishing has been improving the last few years.

In 1993 Ken purchased the first of two SeaCraft We still have to run pretty far offshore to get into 20’ Master Angler center console boast he would the action. Butterfly jigging added a whole new own and named it “Old Reliable.” Small boats dimension to the fishery with the lighter tackle have always been part of the recreational bluefin that goes along with it. That makes it more fun fishery and Ken and Chris devised an auxiliary than ever!”

Page 18

Making Waves Fall 2016

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 1919 Page

Today, fishing for bluefin tuna along the Mid At- meager. That tells you something about the myslantic coast continues to be a challenging and tique surrounding the fish and the awe it holds very popular fishery. A whole new generation of for many thousands of anglers who own their anglers have been introduced to what used to be own boats or those who charter boats to fish for called the “poor man’s big game fish” although them. many of them are using boats and tackle that are With the rebuilding stocks and the recognition of anything but inexpensive. Bigger center console the socioeconomic benefits of the recreational boats with two or more outboards are being pur- fishery for bluefin the recreational quotas set for chased to make getting to them on the middle the U.S. by ICCAT and implemented by NMFS has grounds (30 – 60 miles offshore) quicker, easier been increased modestly. That bodes well for anand with an added degree of safety. Whole new gler participation classes of minand the subseiaturized big quent impact game reels, they have on the lighter jigging marine and tackrods, jigs, lures, le industries. It braided lines also is good and terminal news for coast tackle have communities been introwhere boat dealduced to make ers, marinas, bait challenging and tackle them more stores, hotels productive and and other sermore fun. The vice providers recreational will benefit. bluefin fishery While no specific is driving a economic studgrowing segies have been ment of the undertaken to boat, motor, quantify the imelectronics and And the saga continues. This recent photo shows Craig on the rod with pact the recreaaccessory industry and has father Ken ready to gaff a bluefin from the deck of their 23' Regulator. tional bluefin added new di- From great-grandfather Leon, to grandfather James and on to his father tuna fishery it is safe to say that it mensions to Ken, Craig, an RFA member, is as passionate about fishing for bluefin as is significant and the fishing his forbearers. very positive. It is tackle industry definitely a fishery worth protecting and the RFA that addresses the unique needs that come with has been doing just that for the past twenty fishermen challenging big, tough, hard-fighting years. Without the hard work of defending the gamefish. And all this developed during times recreational fishery chances are we would have when the typical recreational bag limit was at lost it some time ago. one fish per boat per day so the majority of the fishing for them has been catch and release. Even the for-hire charter fleet has been able to make significant strides in their business taking anglers out to catch bluefin tuna even though the amount of fish they are able to retain has been

Page 20

Making Waves Fall 2016

Page 2121 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

SECTOR SEPARATION MANAGEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN

LONG-TERM BENEFITS OR BAND-AID?

By John DePersenaire, RFA Fishery Policy & Science Researcher

S

ector separation! It's been a growing the past few years and with good reason. It is an issue the RFA has been involved with for many years, but we don't have a boilerplate position paper on the subject, simply because each situation and fishery is different. That said, we have gone on the public record at Regional Fishery Council meetings and submitted comments numerous times when the issue has been put forward in the past.

There are two types of sector separation that are most important to recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry -- commercial/ recreational, and inter-sector sector separation. The first is the establishment of allocations for the commercial and recreational sectors of a fishery and the latter would include carving out a specific allocation for the for-hire sector from the overall recreational allocation. We know there are also gear and area specific allocations in the com-

mercial sector, i.e., hook and line, gillnet, trawl, depth zones, statistical areas, etc., but they do not have much relevance to the recreational sector so we won’t spent any time discussing them.

ry driving force in determining if the baseline year(s) is favorable to the recreational sector. In some fisheries, such as red snapper and summer flounder, the recreational share of the TAC is considered inadequate relative to the popularity and socioecoSpecific to commercial/ nomic importance of these fishrecreational sector separation, the traditional method is to take eries to the recreational fishing the total allowable catch (TAC) community. In other fisheries such as New England ground and allocate a certain percentfish, the allocation given to the age of the TAC to each sector based on allocation percentages recreational sector was extremeset forth in the respective fishery ly beneficial and would allow anglers to continue fishing on management plan. The pertheir own recreational quotas of centages are typically estabcod and haddock even if the lished using historical catch or landings information from a pe- commercial sector was shut riod of time the Fishery Council down. members agree to be most rep- The striped bass fishery is managed with a hybrid approach, resentative. whereby the commercial sector The baseline year or period selected to set the landings criteria is given a set quota in pounds can have a significant impact on each year which amounts to less the outcome of the final alloca- than 20% of the total landings, tion and therefor tend to initiate while the overall fishery (recreational included) is mancontentious discussions. The aged through a fishing mortality Fishery Council composition target. In this example, the com(recreational, commercial, or “other”) at the time is the prima- mercial fishery is capped to pre-

Page 22

Making Waves Fall 2016

Page 2323 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

vent expansion, but the recreational sector is allowed to fish under relatively consistent regulations for years. This approach has worked very well in this fishery by creating management stability while also allowing growth in the recreational sector. In most federally managed fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requires annual catch limits that pretty much demand the use of commercial/ recreational allocation through the use of sector separation.

explanatory. The third driver is really a result of the failed management approach applied to the recreational sector in general under MSA. Poor data collection, lack of reasonable regulations, reduced opportunities to entice new participants, etc., are simply a function of a commercial-oriented MSA being applied to the recreational fishing community. For-hire boats want to separate themselves from the larger recreational sector so they are not plagued by the hammer of annual catch limits enforced through a fatally flawed data collection system called the Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP.

tential in terms of social and economic output. Proponents will say that this approach saves forhire jobs, but the facts really do not support that claim. In every case of for-hire inter-sector sector separation, limited entry was implemented to reduce the number of for-hire boats and prevent new for-hire boats from entering the fishery. For-hire sector separation is a Band-Aid while we all wait for MSA to be amended.

We think it is pretty fair to say that the only people who beneInter-Sector Sector fit from inter-sector separation Separation are the for-hire owners who are gifted a portion of the recreaIn the second example, which tional quota and then sell it back we call inter-sector sector sepaNot to belabor the point, but the to recreational fishermen who ration, a percentage of the existare paying customers. Also, ing recreational sector quota is recreational sector simply cannot be managed like the comwhen they are ready to get out set aside for a specific use or usmercial sector, yet MSA forces of the business, they can sell er-group. In most cases, a certhat type of approach.

Many in their rights to the fish. These tain percentage of the recreathe for-hire contingent support fish become their equity from tional allocation is reserved exinter-sector sector separation as which they can get loans from clusively for owners of for-hire banks or use them as collatoperations, i.e. party and charter a way of removing themselves boats The logical next step is to from the MSA burdens without eral. We firmly believe this is having to change the underlymisguided public policy and an use this percentage of recreainappropriate use of a public retional quota for the implementa- ing issues which caused them. It’s the easy way out, so source. tion of a catch shares programs to speak. in the for-hire sector. The most obvious example is the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery. RFA has always been against this type of management approach.

The motivation for the proponents of this approach often boils down to three things (1) ownership of a marketable commodity, (2) reduction of competition, and (3) a separation from the recreational management pitfalls.

The first two are relativity self-

A Complex and ConWho Do The Fish Be- tentious Issue long To? The bottom line, however, is The consequence, however, of taking fish away from the general fishing public and granting them to for-hire owners causes even greater harm to the recreational sector and compounds the MSA inequities, thereby creating a situation where the recreational fishing industry will never achieve its maximum po-

that sector separation is a complex and often contentious issue that varies from fishery to fishery and from region to region, but what sector separation illustrates is the underlying drive of fishermen, both commercial and for-hire, to distance themselves from private anglers due to poor data collection. When

Page 24

you look at the fine details, the poor data in itself is not so much the problem. What is the problem is how MSA mandates fishery managers to use this data to manage recreational fishermen. In the post-2006 MSA reauthorization management regime where annual catch limits rule the road, poor data is a huge detriment to stakeholders in the private angler sector. The amount of quota that is made available to them and how regulations are set, are both influenced by the quality of the data.

Because the data used to estimate private angler landings is far less accurate then landings

Making Waves Fall 2016

data from commercial fishermen or even for-hire operators that file vessel trip reports, managers are forced to take a precautionary approach and reduce the recreational quota for federally managed species, thereby implementing more restrictive regulations. Commercial and for-hire fishermen don't want their quotas and fishing opportunities reduced due to the inaccurate landing data on private anglers, so they push to have their own separate quotas. Since the root of this problem lies with MSA, the push for sector separation occurs almost exclusively with federally man-

aged species.

Sector separation is primarily a response to an unfair federal law coupled with an ill-suited data collection system that was never designed to do what it is currently being used for. Some limited flexibility with regards to annual catch limits with the recreational sector would go a long ways towards eliminating the need or desire of for-hire operators to separate from private anglers. RFA will continue working at the federal level and with industry partners to amend MSA to create a fair, stable management playing field so that recreational anglers are not penalized for poor data.

Page 2525 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

SECTOR SEPARATION CASE STUDY: NEW ENGLAND’S PARTY/CHARTER LIMITED ACCESS CONTROL DATE SET AND REAFFIRMED, BUT NO INTERSECTOR SEPARATION PROGRAM– YET.

By Capt. Barry Gibson, New England Regional Director

T

he New England party and charter fleet has been wrestling with the inter-sector separation issue for nearly 15 years, but to date little has been accomplished outside of the establishment of a control date.

“captain’s schools” that were springing up.

Very shortly these new operators began competing with those who had already been in the business, some for several decades. Many new operators offered cheaper charter fees in order to attract The subject of a limited entry business, and the historical program came up back in participants, particularly full2002, when the Gulf of time captains with more exMaine groundfish P/C fleet pensive vessels and over(which primarily targeted head, found it increasingly cod, haddock and pollock) difficult to compete. was economically viable and To compound the problem, the fishing was very good. any additional restrictions on Many of the charter boats, Gulf of Maine cod (which particularly in Massachusetts, stood at ten fish per person were charging $1,000 and per day, widely recognized more per day, and this line as the very minimum to satisof business soon became fy passengers), increases in very attractive to small-boat minimum fish size, or a furcommercial fishermen, nota- ther shortening of the seably gillnetters and lobsterson would result in the loss men. It wasn’t long before of viability of the passenger many commercial operators, fishing fleet. If entrants conand others, obtained their tinued to stream into the Operator of Uninspected sector and the catch of GOM Passenger Vessel (OUPV) licod increased, these recenses through the striction would be imminent.

For-Hire Operators Take Action So, the subject of a limited entry system reared its head.

An informal meeting was set up in Warwick, RI, by concerned members of the P/C fleet. Representatives from Maine to Montauk attended, and although sentiment was hardly unanimous, at the end of the day the group agreed to ask the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Recreational Advisory Committee (RAP) to look into setting a control date for vessels fishing in the GOM, the first step in a limited entry program.

The control date, once set, would warn future entrants into the P/C fishery that they may not be guaranteed continued access if they entered after that date and a limited entry program was ultimately implemented.

In June of 2002, the RAP voted to recommend the estab-

Page 26

lishment of a control date, and asked the NEFMC to approve it. Right away there was push-back from some members of the NEFMC. Many were commercial fishermen who wanted to preserve their opportunity to get into our P/C fishery (even though commercial groundfishermen already enjoyed a limited entry program of their own that excluded the P/C folks), as well as others who didn’t feel there was a serious problem with new entries into the recreational for-hire fishery.

Making Waves Fall 2016

738 (and increased to 795 in 2009). Finally, after much debate, the NEFMC voted to establish a P/C control date of March 30, 2006.

Control Date Set, But No Follow-Up

However, support by the P/C fleet for a limited access program was waning. A number of operators had purchased new or additional vessels after the control date, and didn’t want to be shut out. That, and the fact that increasingly stringent restrictions placed on groundfish, began to slow the stream of entrants into the fleet, rendered limited access less important to many operators, but the issue did not die completely. Earlier this year, the RAP voted to request that the NEFMC place the development of a limited entry program on its list of 2017 priorities. The Council agreed.

But little happened after that.

The RAP, year after year, implored the NEFMC to create a limited entry program in conjunction with the control date, but it was never really considered a “priority” item by the Council. Time ticked by and the control date became “stale” (in the words of NOAA attorneys), However, new operators indeed so the RAP, in 2010, recomstreamed in. Between 2001 and mended to the NEFMC that the If all goes as planned, the 2006, the number of permitted 2006 control date be reaffirmed. NEFMC will conduct scoping P/C vessels jumped from 652 to meetings on the issue sometime Surprisingly, it was.

Page 2727 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

in 2017, and proceed from there. It is likely that the scoping process will reveal less interest in a P/C limited entry program than there was back in 2006, but we will have to see.

years back (the balance going to the commercial sector), no effort has been made to sub-allocate the recreational component of these species.

some significant discrepancies. One dataset indicated that the private-boat recreational sector caught inordinate amounts of fish in March and April of that year, However, there are compel- a time period when few, if Inter-Sector Allocaling reasons to revisit the is- any, private boats are even tions Discussed sue, the most notable being in the water. Other datasets indicated catches by the the unreliability of recreaAll along there have been discharter and headboat fleets cussions, particularly at the RAP tional catch data. For instance, National Marine Fish- that didn’t seem to make level, about the possibility of much sense given year-toseparate allocations of GOM cod eries Service (NMFS) data for year analyses. And to top it and haddock for the P/C sector. 2013 indicated that the rec- off, percent standard error Although the recreational sector reational sector exceeded its (PSE) assigned to many of as a whole (private recreational quota of GOM cod by a the datasets was high in and P/C combined) was allo- whopping 246%, with the many cases, even off the haddock quoted exceeded cated approximately onecharts at over 100%, which by 145%. third of the available GOM would seemingly render cod and a quarter of the The RAP carefully looked at some of the data totally unfit available haddock several the data and discovered for management purposes.

Page 28

Making Waves Fall 2016

Questionable Data Raises Concerns The RAP, as expected, became increasingly agitated by this catch data. A lot of questions were asked about the collection methodology, and some RAP members who run for-hire vessels started to push for a separate P/C allocation of cod and haddock. Their rationale was that that the P/C sector’s catch data is much more accurate due to the fact that P/C groundfish operators are required to fill out federal Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) after each trips, which detail exactly what is caught, in writing. In contrast, private-boat catch data is largely estimated and may be wildly skewed due to interpolation processes. Even NMFS’s Northeast Science Center folks, who process the data, admit that some of it indeed makes no sense, yet the agency labels it “the best scientific information available” and continues to use it to manage the recreational sector.

Bottom line is that many in the Gulf of Maine P/C sector are extremely concerned that they may have to bear the burden of increased restrictions (i.e. size and bag limits, and seasonal closures) due to over-estimation and other problems with private-boat catch data.

“Our for-hire catch data is well documented, but private boat data can be way off base.

Why should our businesses suffer simply because there are problems with private-boat data?” is a sentiment expressed by a number of RAP members as well as P/C operators who have provided public comment.

As mentioned above, there are currently no plans to develop a P/C sub-allocation of GOM cod and haddock, but the upcoming scoping process may well reveal an increasing interest in the idea unless NMFS’s Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) can quickly and significantly address and resolve the accuracy of the catch data that is collected and processed. New England’s for-hire groundfish fleet is running out of time .

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 2929 Page

To enter the all new 2016 RFA Trip of a Lifetime Sweepstakes for your chance to win a trip to Wild Strawberry Lodge Click Here and follow the instructions. Credit cards are accepted.

Page 30

Making Waves Fall 2016

GROWING ALASKA'S RECREATIONAL HALIBUT FISHERY

by Jim Martin RFA West Coast Director

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

H

ave you ever found yourself dreaming about a week-long stay in a remote Alaskan fishing lodge, with daily guided fishing trips on the salt to hunt for barn-door halibut?

This iconic species is on the bucket list of many anglers, and the opportunity remains in most of Alaska. This opportunity is not a given in the future, however, as shrinking allocation to the charter fleet in Alaska has limited public access to this amazing resource.

The RFA has worked with the Alaska charter fishing industry for over a decade, and over that time we have seen a number of changes in the fishery and its management as we participated in the halibut wars with our long-time partners, the Alaska Charter Association. The ACA is the largest state-wide association of charter boat operators, and as such they represent the interests of the industry, and their clients, the recreational anglers who cannot afford to bring their own boat to the halibut grounds, or choose to fish on a safe boat with professional skippers who have lots of local knowledge.

First, a little history of Alaskan Pacific Halibut Wars: Pacific Halibut are managed by a 1923 international treaty between the United States and Canada that created the International Pacific Halibut Commission, known as the IPHC. This commission sets an overall catch limit coast-wide, and divides the quota between a number of catch areas in Alaska, Canada, and the three west coast states in the Lower 48. Each state and Canada sets its own sector allocations within the limits set by the IPHC. Commercial catch shares in the halibut fishery began in 1995. While the quota share program achieved its goals of reducing gear conflicts, and ending the “derby” fishery, over time halibut landings declined, the stock size and commercial allocations declined and the owners of the IFQs began looking for other ways to capture income.

Especially in Southeast Alaska, commercial halibut longliners resented the fact that the recreational take of halibut was not being cut as drastically as it was on the commercial side (despite the fact that the commercial allocation was over 80%). The traditional recreational limit for Alaska

Page 3131 Page

has always been two fish a day, of any size. The recreational allocation came “off the top” with no set overall limit - along with subsistence fishing, and a massive amount of halibut used up in the commercial trawl fleet as bycatch. Whatever was left over from those uses, went to the directed commercial halibut fishery.

As limits for the commercial longline directed halibut fishery declined, the guided sector’s take was stable. The charter fishing industry was viewed by many in the commercial sector as a thorn in its side, and an easier target than the Alaskan resident angler who had his or her own boat. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council - dominated by commercial interests, took measures to reign in and even reduce the size and growth of the charter fleet. A limited entry permit system was imposed on charter boats, reducing the recreational angler’s options in choosing a charter.

The North Council did not go after the private recreational anglers in Alaska - a political third rail in the state - but cleverly introduced a concept called “sector separation” to divide the charter fleet from the rest of sportfishing. By including the charter boat catch in the commercial allocation, and setting strict annual catch limits on the charter fleet, the longliners had a stranglehold on the fishery, preventing any growth and reducing its allocation. In Southeast Alaska, “guided anglers” saw their bag limits reduced to a single fish with a slot limit; today in the Cook Inlet fishery out of the Kenai Peninsula, there is a two fish limit but there is a “minnow rule” on the second fish, which must be no larger than 28”. The fishery is closed on Wednesdays, and there is an annual limit of 4 halibut.

The recreational halibut fishery in Alaska is being slowly smothered by regulations targeting visitors to Alaska and those AK residents who choose to use the charter fleet.

There is a solution on the horizon. Catch shares in the commercial fishery have introduced a sense of entitlement to the owners of the shares - they can be bought, traded sold and loans are issued by banks for purchase of shares. The North Council will never see a balance between recreational

Page 32

Making Waves Fall 2016

and commercial voting members and they will not likely vote for more recreational allocation any time soon. Compensated reallocation - purchasing halibut quota from the commercial sector and adding it to the overall pool for recreational guided angler allocation - would, over time, relax many of the onerous restrictions in the fishery with the goal of returning to the traditional bag limit of two fish a day, any size, and no annual limit.

In December, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council will be voting on the Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) that will provide a structure for the process of compensated reallocation. If you have plans to fish in the Last Frontier for barn door halibut, it is critical that you weigh in and support this measure. A trip to an Alaskan fishing lodge can cost thousands of dollars. If each guided angler chipped in for a halibut tag at a nominal fee, the funds can be used to buy back the quota from the commercial sector. It’s far from an ideal outcome, and you’d be right if it seems a bit unfair, but given the realities of Alaskan fish politics, it’s the quickest way to get from Point A to Point B and regain our traditional halibut bag limits for all who want to enjoy this amazing fishery.

Letters of support for the RQE program can be sent to Chairman Hull, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501 or emailed to: npfmc.comments@noaa.gov.

You may wish to comment on how restrictive bag limits have effected your decisions to take a charter fishing trip or lodge vacation and how a program like an RQE would benefit you as a sport angler. Another point to make in your letter, when the RQE compensated reallocation program is considered: let’s make sure the North Council also approves the program without a lot of restrictions on the amount of halibut quota allowed to be purchased. Opponents will want to see the program so limited that it won’t result in a return to traditional bag limits and seasons. Learn more at the Alaska Charter Association’s website at www.alaskacharter.org.

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 3333 Page

RFA OFFERS INSIGHTFUL WHITE PAPER ON ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING 2016 Kenai Classic Roundtable Sponsored by Yamaha Marine Addresses Alternative Fishery Management Solutions EDITORS NOTE: This press release is courtesy of RFA Partner and supporter Yamaha Marine Group. It includes embedded video of the meeting should you wish to watch some of what went on.

Discussion Draws Most Influential Voices in Recreational Fishing Community SOLDOTNA, Alaska -- The fourth Annual Kenai Classic Roundtable on National Recreational Fishing brought together leaders from all segments of the recreational fishing community. The panelists gathered on Wednesday, August 17, at Kenai Peninsula College to examine alternative solutions for current fishery management issues. They discussed several innovative strategies for the management of mixed-use fisheries, and ultimately put forward solutions that could be beneficial to all fishery stakeholders. This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http:// www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160825005645/en/ “When we talk about management, it’s not just managing for one sector, it is making sure that from the commercial side, from the sport side, from the substance side, that we manage in a way that allows for the opportunities for all Alaskans,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Senator Murkowski joined Senator Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and a panel that focused on providing solutions that could benefit all fishery stakeholder groups, in efforts to alleviate some of the burdens placed on fishery managers. Together, the panel put forward a wide variety of management strategies that have track records of success in inland and coastal fisheries. The panel also highlighted the growth of the recreational fishing coalition, and the coalition’s desire to provide solutions for today’s key fishery issues. Panelists included:  Mike Nussman, President & CEO, American Sportfishing Association  Jeff Angers, President, Center for Coastal Conservation  Chris Horton, Fisheries Program Director and Midwest States Director, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation  Jim Martin, West Coast Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance  Andy Mezirow, Member, North Pacific Fishery Management Council and Owner, Crackerjack Sportfishing • Ricky Gease, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing Association.

Page 34

Making Waves Fall 2016

“The recreational community prepared for this year’s Roundtable by bringing solutions for the complex problems of fisheries management,” said Martin Peters, Government Relations Manager, Yamaha Marine Group. “The solutions presented would be potentially beneficial for the recreational users and neutral or beneficial for other user groups. There is no such thing as a solution for one group and not another. To solve fisheries problems, we must all work together.” Over the coming months, the recreational fishing community plans to build upon the vision put forward at the 2016 Kenai Classic Roundtable. The panelists indicated that the coalition would pursue implementation of the alternative management strategies discussed, both inside and outside of the context of the Magnuson-Steven Act (MSA), the nation’s primary saltwater fishery management act. The panelists also felt that the ideas put forward during the roundtable show the recreational fishing community’s willingness to work with legislators throughout the MSA reauthorization process.

To view the video news release about the 2016 Kenai Classic Roundtable on National Recreational Fishing, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=lx4QsQtSkmg. To view the full-length video of the Roundtable, please visit https:// player.vimeo.com/video/179961893, and to read a transcript of the Roundtable, please visit http://www.krsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016Kenai-Classic-Roundtable_Transcript1.pdf.

Alternative Management In The Recreational Sector: Why We Need It And How Do We Get There?

I. Introduction Managers are often faced with two divergent challenges when it comes to the recreational fishing sector; constraining landings within specified limits to achieve quota goals while maximizing the fishing experience. Recreational fisheries are traditionally managed through a combination of size limits, bag limits and seasons. These three measures are used in combination to constrain recreational performance in an attempt to meet certain management objectives outlined in the corresponding fishery management plan. When those measures become too constrained angler satisfaction and participation decreases. Recreational fishing regulations adjustment can be made in response to

the need to meet a recreational harvest target, provide the protection of sexually immature fish or protect fish during a vulnerable period such as during a spawning aggregation. The objectives and content of each plan are different based on the legal framework outlined through their respective underlying laws.

The challenge of fisheries management and a gauge of success is achieving the appropriate balance between conservation goals, angler satisfaction and the needs of the recreational fishing industry. The current management regime at the federal level falls under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In many fisheries, MSA does not achieve this balance and recreational anglers are

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

deprived access and opportunity and our industry does not perform to its potential. This has both negative social and economic impacts. The desired pursue to implement alternative measures in the recreational sector is to strike this balance.

Page 3535 Page

vest target. If the recreational sector exceeds its harvest target, measures are then put in place to reduce the likelihood that an overage happens again and to account for any negative impacts that the overage had on the stock. The two main forms of those measures when applied to the recreational sector are in the form of reactive deductions of quote from subsequent fishing year's recreational harvest target in the amount of the overage (paybacks) and proactive deductions of quota to a recreational harvest target to provide a greater level of confidence in not exceeding the target (buffers). Combine, paybacks and buffers can significantly reduce the amount of fish that recreational anglers can legally harvest. Reduced recreational harvest targets results in more restive seasons, size limits and bag limits which in general, reduces overall angler satisfaction and economic output.

Alternative management in the recreational sector has the potential to create stability with recreational measures, afford growth and maximize recreational opportunities while achieving long-term conservation goals. Ancillary benefits could also include a conversion of mortality associated with discarding to harvest while remaining conservation neutral or the distribution of fishing mortality across sex or size class of a stock that maximizes reproductive performance. Collectively, all these outcomes will create a stronger, more vibrant recreational fishing industry while giving anglers greater opportunities to access As a population of fish rebuilds, more fish become and enjoy our nation’s marine resources. available to fishermen in terms of range expansion, distribution and overall abundance. This increased availability requires managers to implement more reII. What do we really mean when we say strictive management measures to ensure that the recalternative measures? reational harvest target is not exceeded. This action It is the opinion of the RFA that alternative manage- sets up a spirally situation where as the stock continment is the concept of providing the recreational com- ues to grow it becomes increasingly more difficult to ponent of a fishery limited flexibility with the appli- constrain recreational landings and measures increascation of annual catch limits, accountability measures ingly become more restrictive. The recreational Gulf and in some cases, commercial/recreational allocaof Mexico red snapper fishery is an example. tions. Annual catch limits (ACLs), as defined under The situations that lead to the need for alternative federal law, are the amount of fish legally permitted management include relatively low quota relative to to be caught in a given year to prevent overfishing and achieve sustainability. ACL are set in response to the universe of anglers, inadequate recreational alloa rebuilding plan or other requirements as prescribed cation and when the stock sizes increases such that

by MSA. NOAA Fisheries has both a statutory obli- availability of a particular species because very gation to stop fishing once a given ACL is believed to high. Without the flexibility to manage the recreahave been reached and constrain catch in order to not tional sector outside of the federal mandates of MSA with alternative management, managers are left with exceed an ACL. In many fisheries, ACLs are then divided between the commercial and recreational sec- few options and the recreational fishing community tors based on allocation formulas included within the suffers. species specific fishery management plan. On the Atlantic Striped Bass is managed outside of MSA recreational side, this then translates into a recreation- through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commisal harvest target set in pounds of fish from which, the sion, an interstate commission established in 1942 annual recreational specifications (season, size and through an act of Congress. The work of the Combag limit) are then set with the intent of meeting but mission is outlined through the Atlantic Coastal Fishnot exceeding the recreational harvest target. eries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) not This is a relatively straight forward approach. MSA MSA. ACFCMA mandates that the Commission and NOAA Fisheries interpretation of MSA are firm shall establish and enforce fishery management plans in that the recreational sector must not exceed its har- for the 25 stocks and/or stock complexes under its

Page 36

jurisdiction. The ACFCMA continues to state that such plans promote the conservation of fish stocks throughout their ranges and are based on the best scientific information available. The wording of the ACFCMA is far less explicit relative to MSA thus providing the Commission reasonable discretion in regards to the preferred management approach. The Act does not specify set rebuilding time frames or the use of annual catch limits. Under this approach, striped bass was rebuilt from a near collapse in the 1980’s to historic high levels of abundance in the 2000’s. This significant conservation achievement was carried out through the use of a fishing mortality rate targets and in the absence of a rigid rebuilding timeframe and annual catch limits that are prescribed under MSA. Under this approach, recreational measures were not adjusted every year because landings in a single year were not as critical as the overall impact on the striped bass stock over a period of time. During this time, striped bass became one of the most popular and economically valuable recreational fisheries in the country.

Making Waves Fall 2016

(15) which reads, establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability, and Section MSA 301(a)(1) conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry, force managers to set recreational measures such that the estimated landings do not exceed the recreational harvest target.

Section 301(a)(1) is further clarified by NOAA Fisheries through the National Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1 Guidelines) which provide the agency’s legal interpretation of the section. NS1 Guidelines describe how to address uncertainty such that there is a low risk that limits are exceeded as described in paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(6) of this section. NS1 Guidelines state that FMPs or FMP amendments must establish ACL mechanisms and AMs for all stock and stock complexes in the fishRFA believes the management approach utilized in ery. This language expressively includes the recreathe striped bass fishery is a form of alternative man- tional component of a fishery thereby binding our agement that holds benefits for the recreational sec- sector to an annual catch limit. NS1 Guidelines also tor. It strikes a good balance between conservation indicate that ABC should be expressed in terms of and the needs of the fishing communicatch, but may be expressed in terms of landings ty. Furthermore, it does not disadvantage recreation- which prevents managers from setting fishing mortalal anglers as the federal MSA approach does for be- ity targets for recreational fisheries as opposed to ing an open access fishery or not having a data colfirm catch limits expressed in pounds of fish. lection program in place that is comparable to the The existing legal framework for federal fisheries commercial sector. prevents the use of alternative management as de-

III. What is allowed under the current law? for federally managed species, such as Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper, the driving underlying law is the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. MSA was reauthorized in 2006 and signed into law in early 2007. Some of the most significant changes that resulted from the 2006 reauthorization included provisions in ending overfishing, setting and enforcing annual catch limits and accountability measures. These provisions set the legal framework with regards to rebuilding and how quotas are set. Two sections in particular, Section 303(a)

scribed above in federally managed recreational fisheries. It is unlikely that a fishing mortality based approach, similar to the one used in the Atlantic Striped Bass fishery, could be used on federal species under rebuilding plans such as Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper. It should be noted that NOAA Fisheries is currently revising their NS1 Guidelines. The proposed revisions may provide some degree of flexibility with the application of annual catch limits and accountability measures. However, the proposed revisions have been under review for over a year and NOAA Fisheries has not given a time when or if those revisions will be finalized and enacted through regulation.

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 3737 Page

allocations. Once removed from those constraints, the recreational sector can improve recreational opportunities, add stability the fishery, improve angler satisAs outlined above, MSA contains provisions that pre- faction and generate more socioeconomic output vent the recreational sector from being managed under while continuing to achieve long-term conservation an alternative management approach in most fisherobjectives. Striped bass, one of the most socially and ies. Amendments to sections 302(h)(6), 303(a)(15) economically important recreational fisheries on the and (304(e)(2), (3) and (4). Furthermore, adoption of Atlantic coast, was rebuilt from near collapse to recrevisions to the NS1 Guidelines as seen in the draft ord high level of abundance using a management apdocument released for public comment in May of proach that could be classified as alternative manage2015 would be extremely helpful in pursuing alterna- ment. tive management.

Under alternative management, recreational data colAnnual catch limits are not the only obstacle to imple- lection programs which continue to be criticized as menting alternative management. In light of the sum- flawed and inaccurate will not be used as the hammer mary judgement of Guenon v. Pritzker, the allocation to punish our sector since it will not be bound to an set between the commercial and recreational sectors in absolute landing limit set in pounds of fish. The lack mixed fisheries must also be revisited. It was the con- of confidence and inaccuracies in these programs is clusion of the Court that “Under the MSA, NMFS has classified as management uncertainty and managers a statutory duty to: avoid decisions that directly con- typically adjust the recreational harvest targets downflict with the FMP’s allocation of catch.” The judge- ward to account for this. ment was specific to the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, however, the legal precedent will have impli- The recreational fishing industry is a multi-billion dolcations for all federally managed species. An amend- lar industry which provides significant positive imment to the Reef Fish Management Plan might be nec- pacts on local, state and national econoessary in order to allow recreational landings to devi- mies. However, under the present MSA based management approach, the recreational sector is not emate from the assigned 49% of the annual catch limit powered to perform to its maximum. The conseunder an alternative management approach. quence of this is the loss, often permanent, of our recV. Conclusion reational fishing infrastructure such as tackle shops, marinas, and head boats. Furthermore, the current Management of our nation’s marine fisheries under approach does not permit growth in the recreational MSA has had a disproportionate negative impact on the recreational fishing community. Compliance with sector due to excessive constrained regulaMSA provisions has significantly reduced angler sat- tions. Recreational fishing businesses, just as any business, need to have new participants entering into isfaction in many federally managed species such as the fisheries. Growth is necessary for investment and red snapper, summer flounder and black sea bass. The inability to accurately estimate recreational long-term stability. Recreational fishing measures promulgated under MSA simply do not encourage harvest coupled with the application of annual catch limits as mandated by MSA has had an unfair, delete- people to go fishing and they certainly do not encourage to invest in equipment or large purchases such as rious impact on our community. These impacts become more profound as a stock size grows and man- a fishing boat. Alternative management stands to enagers are forced to institute more restrictive measures courage people to go fish which in turn will help the to constrain harvest. To experience the same benefits recreational fishing industry thrive.

IV. What Needs to be Done to Move Forward with Alternative Management?

that the commercial sector experiences when a stock rebuilds, the recreational sector needs to be managed with alternative measures.

MSA and the current NOAA Fisheries Interpretation of MSA, do not afford many options in regards to pursuing meaningful alternative management in the recreAlternative management primarily needs to afford the ational sector. Minor revisions to MSA and/or the recreational sector pliancy with regard to annual catch NS1 Guidelines could allow the recreational sector to limits and in some fisheries, commercial/recreational explore a wide range of alternative management op-

Page 38

Making Waves Fall 2016

tions that would meet conservation goals, improve angler satisfaction and promote a vibrant recreational fishing industry. Commercial and recreational allocation established under federal fisheries management plans may need to be revisited to ensure the recreational sector has the capacity to adopt alternative measure without violating the Guindon v. Pritzker judgement.

has a limit on the number of participants, the recreational sector is open access so grandfathers can take their grandchildren fishing and people can enter the fisheries as their time and income permit. Whereas the commercial sector has accurate real-time landings information so when quotas are met the fishery can be close, the recreational sector is monitored through a survey designed to provide long-term, broad geographic estimates on landings. These programs were Legislators and fishery managers need to acknowledge and understand that the recreational sec- never designed to accommodate the demands of annutor has unique needs that are different from the com- al catch limits as mandated by MSA. mercial sector. The recreational sector also has differ- For all these reasons, it is absolutely justified and necent qualifiers for measuring success. Whereas the essary to manage the recreational sector under an alcommercial sector measures management success in ternative management approach. It is unfair and unterms of efficiency and profitability by landing their productive to continue to attempt to manage commerquota in the shortest amount of time and smallest ex- cial and recreational fisheries in the same manpense the same cannot be said for the recreational sec- ner. Alternative management would be a benefit to tor. Whereas the commercial sector, in most fisheries, recreational fishermen and the nation.

If you like reading Making Waves and want to subscribe click here. Just enter your email address and every new copy will be delivered directly to your InBox.

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

Page 3939 Page

RFA NEWS & VIEWS uses. Some municipalities have habitually denied the public's rights to these areas. New Jersey has a legal obligation to promote, protect and safeguard the public's rights to reasonable and meaningful access New Gretna, NJ - At an August to tidal waters and shorelines. meeting the New Jersey SenIn response to a legal chalate Environment and Energy lenge of their 2012 rules, New Committee and the Assembly Jersey Department of EnvironEnvironment and Solid Waste mental Protection (NJDEP) is Committee held a joint meetcurrently proposing amending where they discussed ments to rules that govern S2490 sponsored by State Sen- public access to tidal waters ators Bob Smith, chairman of and shorelines under the the Senate Environment and Coastal Zone Management Energy Committee, and Chris- Rules. While that process is taktopher Bateman, which would ing place, the public is left with provide protection of the pub- weakened or no regulations lic's rights under the public that protects their rights to tidtrust doctrine as it pertains to al waters which is of great contidal waters and adjacent cern to recreational fishermen. shorelines. While not going as At the meeting RFA-NJ refar as the Recreational Fishing quested that the bill's sponsors Alliance (RFA) would have amend S2490 to provide an liked in terms of specifically adexemption for marinas condressing vacating of street sistent with language included ends, ensuring reasonable in the 2012 NJDEP public acparking, requiring 1/4 to 1/2 cess rules. The marina exempmile access points or including tion was widely supported duran exemption for marinas, the ing discussions when the 2012 bill is a step in the right direcpublic access rules were retion. vised. Unfortunately, that lanAt the heart of the matter is guage was not expressively inthe longstanding and inviolacluded in S2490 when it was ble rights afforded to the pub- introduced. lic under the public trust doc"Marinas serve as critical infratrine to use and enjoy the structure for the recreational state's tidal waters and adjafishing industry and provide cent shorelines for recreational access to tidal waters for our

RFA Offers Conditional Support for New Jersey S2490 to Protect Public Fishing Access

fishermen, our charter boat operators and head boats," explained Jim Donofrio Executive Director of the RFA. "It is essential that S2490 is amended to ensure that an excessive liability burden is not placed on marinas or that these facilities are denied the ability to expand."

In a letter submitted to Senator Smith, Marine Trades Association of New Jersey Executive Director Melissa Danko stated that "the very nature of their (marinas) business operations ensures that the public has use of public trust waters. In order to do so, however, marinas must be able to reasonably control and manage their property. "The NJMTA is also requesting an amendment to S2490 to exempt marinas.

What is clear after reviewing S2490 and proposed revisions to the DEP public access rules is that this issue will not be resolved in the short-term. RFA is encouraging anyone who has the ability to make Thursday's meeting in Toms River to attend and advocate for the public's rights to tidal waters and adjacent shorelines.

"Getting this bill passed would be a step forward for land based anglers but there's more work to do," stated Greg O'Connell, National Access Coordinator for the RFA.

Page 40

Making Waves Fall 2016

submitted in the VTRs. Many folks simply refused to participate in dockside or telephone interviews, or surveys sent out via U.S. mail. This is dangerous, as lack of participation could backfire and result in future fishery shutdowns. The recreationOne of the problems identified al sector has been warned by by the National Marine Fisheries NOAA as well as state fishery officials conducting such interService (NMFS) is that only 18 views that anglers and for-hire charter boats from New York captains need to cooperate so submitted VTRs documenting that accurate and timely data is their landing of black sea bass used to manage the black sea for 2015. The small data set resulted in greater variability and bass fishery. –Capt. Mike Pierdipoor validity. NOAA’s historical nock, Massachusetts Chapter response has been that they agree that the data is poor, but Restrictions on Tap for is required to make decisions based on “the best available sci- Porbeagle Sharks, but ence.” This, however, is about are They Really Necesthe only instance I can remember where we did not hear the sary?

The black sea bass fishery avert- “party line,” and the status quo NOAA’s comment period recented a coastwise closure during was indeed maintained for the ly closed on a proposed rule that an emergency conference call black sea bass fishery, so a clowould place prohibitions or limiby the Atlantic States Marine sure was averted. tations on the recreational landFisheries Commission (ASMFC) Federal VTRs are required to be ing of porbeagle sharks in East this past July. The preliminary Coast waters. The rule has now submitted to NOAA weekly. black sea bass stock assessment NOAA has reported that some been finalized and is scheduled to for 2016 was on target, but the be implemented in September. captains wait until January to inclusion of the for-hire fleet submit all of their previous sea- The rule states that if a recreationFederal Vessel Trip Reports son’s reports. This is not only out al angler (either in the HMS An(VTRs) for black sea bass landof compliance with NOAA regling or HMS Charter/Headboat ings during the last leg of the quirements, but results in the sector) hooks into a porbeagle final stock assessment indicated delay of submittal and proand it is alive, of legal size, and an increase in landings, specificessing of data to make timely brought next to the boat that the cally by the New York and Conand sound management deciangler cannot keep the shark if necticut charter boat fleet. In sions. Hopefully, on-time VTR he or she already has a tuna, billtotal, black sea bass landings submittals will be the norm in fish, or swordfish landed on the were 30% higher than originally the future. boat. The shark may be retained if estimated. it is dead at boat-side. This rule NOAA reported that dockside NOAA’s Marine Recreational Inwould not affect HMS permitted and telephone interviews conformation Program (MRIP) estiducted of for-hire captains and fishermen who target sharks only mates recreational angler fish anglers participating in the for- and do not retain tunas, swordlandings each year in order to hire trips were in some cases in- fish, or billfish. project quotas and bag limits for consistent with the information

Emergency Black Sea Bass Closure Averted

by ASMFC

the upcoming season. However, MRIP continues to be plagued by poor data in which to make these fishery management decisions. In many cases the data is statistically poor or invalid, and this is the case with black sea bass.

Page 4141 Page

MakingWaves Waves Fall Summer Making 20162016

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the intergovernmental fishery organization responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species, including sharks, in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. ICCAT concluded that the porbeagle populations are in poor shape and require such stringent measures. However, the studies conducted were limited, and were not done in U.S. waters. Such restrictions may be applicable to porbeagles in the Mediterranean Sea, but do not appear appropriate for our waters. NOAA Fisheries consults with, and considers the comments of, the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel (HMS AP) when preparing and implementing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and sharks subject to ICCAT’s purview.

The HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat (recreational angler) category porbeagle restrictions in our Western Gulf of Maine waters as well as offshore east and south of Cape Cod do not seem to be supported by our observations.

Porbeagles are plentiful, and they are one of the few sharks present during the winter months. They migrate north or east into colder waters well offshore during the summer. As a result of their migration patterns, few anglers encounter

porbeagles unless they brave the winter seas of the North Atlantic or venture well offshore during the summer. The typical recreational angler does not possess a vessel suitable to safely transit such distances offshore in order to encounter these sharks. Ultimately there is no lack of porbeagles in our waters, but perhaps more realistically, a lack of sightings and catches well offshore. Porbeagles are typically encountered

safely transit well offshore into colder waters And, will the “dead at the boat option” promote unsound catch and release methods if an angler wants the shark dead on arrival in order to retain it? This option appears more applicable to the commercial fleet.

Most experienced captains and recreational anglers targeting sharks utilize solid catch and release practices so that the fish is released with as little harm as possible. Do we want to change this? Most of us don’t think so.

Porbeagles are goodeating and result in food on the table for many, as well as a memorable catch during a day of groundfishing for cod and haddock or targeting tuna. Many charter boats and headboats successfully land porbeagles and rely on these and landed while anglers are groundfishing in deeper water catches to help promote their businesses. The cod restrictions east of Stellwagen Bank or in the deeper waters in the West- north of the latitude 42 degree ern Gulf of Maine as well as east line have already resulted in a significant detrimental financial and south of Cape Cod. impact to the charAs the season progressives and ter/headboat fleet, so additional the water temperature increases restrictions prohibiting they migrate north or into deep- both porbeagle and bluefin tuer waters where anglers may na on the same trip would cause encounter them while fishing further erosion of the fleet. for bluefin tuna or other large pelagics in the Western Gulf of The bottom line is that there doesn’t seem to be much solid Maine as well as offshore east evidence to support the “must and south of Cape Cod. Some shark tournaments held during release a porbeagle if alive and a tuna or billfish is already aboard” the summer months see landregulation is warranted in East ings of porbeagles since many Coast waters.—Capt. Mike Pierdiof the larger vessels participatnock, Massachusetts Chapter ing in these tournaments can

waves

M A K I N G

Page 42

Making Waves Fall 2016

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

The RFA Mission Safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers Protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs Ensure the long-term sustainability of our nation’s fisheries.

Anti-fishing groups and radical environmentalists are pushing their agenda on marine fisheries issues affecting you. The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is in the trenches too, lobbying, educating decision makers and ensuring that the interests of America’s coastal fishermen are being heard loud and clear. Incorporated in 1996 as a 501c4 national, grassroots political action organization, RFA represents recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues on every coast, with state chapters established to spearhead the regional issues while building local support.

“The biggest challenge we face is the fight to reform and bring common sense and sound science into the fisheries management process, says James Donofrio, RFA founder and Executive Director. “Antifishing and extreme environmental groups are working everyday to get us off the water.” Despite the threats to diminish access to our nation’s resources, Donofrio says that RFA offers members hope in an organization that’s designed from the ground up to fight back. “As individuals, our concerns will simply not be heard; but as a united group, we can and do stand up to anyone who threatens the sport we enjoy so much – fishing!”

After nearly 20 years working inside the Beltway and within state capitols along the coast, RFA has become known as one of the nation’s most respected lobbying organizations, and our members have a lot to celebrate.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance Headquarters P.O. Box 3080 New Gretna, New Jersey 08224 Phone: 1-888-JOIN RFA toll free Fax: (609) 294-3812

Jim Donofrio Executive Director

Capt. Barry Gibson New England Director

Jim Martin West Coast Director

John DePersenaire Managing Director

Gary Caputi Corporate Relations Director

T. J. Cheek Southeast Director