SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILcdn1.safmc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/28103812/... · William Conklin LeRoyal Gould, Jr. Jim Gray Danny Hooks William Kelly Dan Kipnis

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

SNAPPER GROUPER ADVISORY PANEL MEETING

Avista Resort North Myrtle Beach, SC

September 17-18, 2007

Summary Minutes

Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel Mark Marhefka, Chairman Charles Phillips, Vice-Chair Charles P. Adams, Jr. Steve Amick Tom Burgess Robert Cardin William Conklin LeRoyal Gould, Jr. Jim Gray Danny Hooks William Kelly Dan Kipnis Scott Zimmerman At-Large Gregory DeBrango Council Members: George Geiger, Chairman Dr. Roy Crabtree Benjamin “Mac” Currin Brian Cheuvront (Liasion for Dr. Louis Daniel) Anthony Iarocci Rita Merritt John Wallace Council Staff: Gregg Waugh John Carmichael Rick DeVictor Kate Quigley Julie O’Dell Observers/Participants: Dr. Jack McGovern Dr. Tom Jamir Dr. Mike Jepson Dick Brame Scott Whitaker Michelle Duval Erin O’Neil Eileen Dougherty Sean McKeon Scott Baker Dan Whittle Katherine Burnham Mike Merritt Bob Gill Zack Bowen Andy High Bonnie Ponwith Carolyn Belcher

Snapper Grouper AP Mtg. North Myrtle Beach, SC September 17-18, 2007

Dr. Erik Williams Margot Stiles Neil Logan Sean McKeon Bret Carlson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Call to Order, Vice-Chairman Charles Phillips…………………………………………………3 Approval of Agenda…………………………………………………………………………….3 Approval of December 2006 Minutes…………………………………………………………..3 Introduction of AP Members…………………………………………………………………...3 South Atlantic Gag Grouper SEDAR Assessment…………………………………………… .4 South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper SEDAR Update…………………………………………. 28 Discussion of Amendment 16……………………………………………………………….. 50 Discussion of Strawman Decisions…………………………………………………………. 50 Discussion of Amendment 15…………………….……………………………………….. 109 Control Date for Charter & Headboat Snapper Grouper Permits.………………………… 125 Other Business………………………………………………….………………………… 132 Adjournment……………………………………………………..……………………….. 134

2


The Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council convened in Ballroom C of the Avista Resort, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Monday afternoon, September 17, 2007, and was called to order at 1:10 o’clock p.m.Vice-Chairman Charles Phillips. Mr. Phillips: I’m Charlie Phillips, Vice-Chair. Mark is not here so we’re going to approve the minutes, and then we’ll start on our Gag Grouper SEDAR Assessment. Without objection, we will approve the minutes. Okay, the agenda is approved without objection. We will now go around the table and start with Jeff. Mr. Oden: Jeff Oden, commercial AP, North Carolina. Mr. Amick: Steve Amick, charter/headboat, Savannah, Georgia. Mr. Kipnis: Dan Kipnis, Miami, Florida. Mr. Burgess: Tom Burgess, Snapper Grouper AP. Mr. DeBrango: Greg DeBrango, Wreckfish AP, snapper grouper. Mr. Phillips: Charlie Phillips, Snapper Grouper AP, Vice-Chair. Mr. Conklin: Phil Conklin, Snapper Grouper AP. Mr. Zimmerman: Scott Zimmerman, Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen’s Association. Mr. Gould: Terrell Gould, Snapper Grouper AP, charter/headboat. Mr. Adams: I’m Charlie Adams, Snapper Grouper AP, recreational fisherman. Mr. Gray: Jim Gray, Snapper Grouper AP, recreational. Mr. Hooks: Danny Hooks, Snapper Grouper AP, commercial. Mr. Cardin: Robert Cardin, Snapper Grouper AP, commercial. Mr. Kelly: Bill Kelly, Snapper Grouper AP, charter/recreational. Mr. DeVictor: The first thing on the agenda is for the SSC representative to talk about the Gag Grouper SEDAR Assessment. In speaking to them in the back, there isn’t a formal presentation right now. I don’t know how you want to proceed at this point with the Gag SEDAR Assessment. You were given the assessment documentation. Ms. Belcher: This is Carolyn Belcher, the Chair for the SSC. Basically, what I’ll do is I’ll just read you the report that we had given to the Snapper Grouper Committee back in June with what

3


our results were or what our discussion and our findings were relative to the Gag Grouper Assessment. Basically, what we summarized is that the benchmark is based on the best available science and followed the guidelines as set forth by the terms of reference for each individual workshop. The SSC was asked to provide guidance on the values for MSST that should be adopted for gag and recommends the use of the one minus M times BMSY as is the current practice and is supported through the science. The second value provided appeared to be arbitrarily chosen and had little to no scientific support for its use. That was the 4 million pounds, if I remember correctly. With regard to the constant versus time-varying efficiency, the SSC could not endorse the use of the time-varying results for F as this value was not based on research data. While we agreed constant efficiency was not correct, we did not feel that the applied rate of 2 percent was any more correct in light of the lack of data. In general, data were handled appropriately; and while small issues were apparent, the SSC concluded that many were of small consequence. For example, this was increase in shore mode, balance fit between two indexes, allocation of landings in the Keys, length distribution shared between charterboats and headboats. These were specific issues that we were asked to review. Then based on the data for the benchmark, the SSC was able to conclude the following about the South Atlantic Gag Stock. The stock is undergoing overfishing as of 2004 with an F ratio equal to 1.31. The stock is not overfished as of the terminal year, which is 2005, and the ratio of SSB for 2005 versus MSST was 1.1. Based on the recruitment projections, gag may be in an overfished state during 2007. The estimate of MSY is 1,238,000 pounds; and using the applied of 75 percent of MSY, the calculated OY for gag would be 1,217,000 pounds. That was the report that we presented to the committee. At this point I will take any questions. Erik Williams is here to answer more direct questions relative to the model and the stock assessment. Mr. DeBrango: In that assessment there, how much of that was recreational? Ms. Belcher: As far as how much – Mr. DeBrango: As far as poundage, how are we coming up with this figure and stating that these fish are overfished? Do you know what I’m saying? Ms. Belcher: I’m still not really sure how best to answer that. I mean, as far as the data that was inputted? Mr. DeBrango: Yes.

4


Ms. Belcher: The data came from commercial landings; it came from headboat data. I mean, our general data stream was supplied for landings for both recreational and commercial I know came forward. But, I am not really sure what you’re saying. Mr. DeBrango: So we have some hard data but also have some assumed data basically to come up with a total amount, right? Ms. Belcher: I’m sure what you mean by assumed data. Mr. DeBrango: Like the recreational sector and all that. I’ll explain later. I will hold on this, okay? Mr. Conklin: My question is how you come up with an amount of pounds for recreational? When they count fish, they don’t count – commercial is pounds and recreational is number of fish. How do you come up with a weight of the fish in this formula? Dr. Williams: To answer your question, Phil, the model typically deals with the population in numbers, and we just convert from numbers to weight based on a length/weight relationship, which basically can translate a given age structure for a number of fish at age two, three, four, five into a total weight for that year. Mr. Conklin: There is no way – I cannot believe that this can be true because you’re not getting all the recreational fish that are being caught. I can’t believe it. I mean, even at home I see the recreational fishermen coming in with fish, and there is no report for them, none at all, so I don’t see how this can be an accurate assessment. Mr. Williams: Well, I’ll expand on that, and it probably expands on the other person’s question, which is the sources of information that go into our assessments in the South Atlantic are generally about the same, which is we have the commercial landings that are reported by weight, and that comes in from trip tickets. We have a pretty good handle on that. In fact, we consider that probably our most accurate data. Then, of course, we have the recreational sector, and we divide that into sort of the headboat versus the charter and shore-based modes. Now, the reason we split between headboat and charter and shore-based is basically the surveys that are used to estimate the catches for those two sectors. In the headboat survey, we think we have a pretty good accounting of that as well because we use logbook forms, and they fill out logbooks for almost every trip, so we have a pretty good accounting there. Now, that last sector of the recreational, the shore and the charterboat mode, yes, that’s where there is a lot of uncertainty. And, of course, there’s been a lot of concern with that survey in a recent NRC review and all of that. What I can tell you is it is the best we have, and it is based on a statistical design that is theoretically unbiased, but, granted, the sample size is probably not as large as we would like it to be, but it’s a sampling design. That’s what differs from the rest of the way we capture

5


landings from the commercial sector and from the headboat sector. There, we’re actually almost hitting every single trip or we have some kind of record for almost every landing that comes in. But, for that charter and shore-based mode, no, we don’t. That’s where we have to just sort of do random sampling, and we intercept people at random and try to then extrapolate, based on those samples we did intercept, to the rest of the known angling population. Mr. Conklin: So you’re having your fish checkers sample the earbones out of gag grouper in the Keys and doing a length on them? Dr. Williams: Let me expand more on – yes, the data collection gets complicated in the southeast. Now, we collect fish for biological sampling. Length is one of the easiest things we can measure for a fish. It’s easy to get easy to get a length measurement. Pulling the earbone out takes a little more time and is a little more costly. And then actually once we pull it out, then it has to go through a whole process of being cut and read and all that, so there’s a heck of a lot more involved. So, often what we see in our data collection is we get far more lengths than we do ages, so we get a lot of length samples and maybe a few age samples that are sub-sampled from that. So, that’s sort of the sampling design now. So, from the recreational sector, what we often see is we don’t get very many age samples at all. We get mostly length samples, so we are sort of inferring what the age structure from the recreational fishery is through the model based on the length structure. I guess to get at your question we’re not actually directly measuring some of the things that we’d like to be directly measuring in the recreational sector. Mr. Conklin: Okay, I’ve got another question. If you measure a fish caught in North Carolina or South Carolina, Northern Georgia, and the fish is 36 inches long and he weighs 18 pounds, if you measure that same fish, that length in Florida, is the weight equivalent to it or is it a lighter fish or are they basically the same? Dr. Williams: We generally assume it’s the same. We fit one equation to all – we basically get all the fish that we have sampled length and weight for, and we just put it into a big equation estimator and get one equation that will basically convert any length fish to a weight. So, we do assume that all the fish of a certain length are going to be the same weight. Now, there is a little noise in that, obviously, for various reasons, but we hope that in the long run that on average it’s always going to be that one-to-one relationship. Mr. Conklin: Okay, another question. The average sound in a hundred-pound weight for the Carolinas is roughly four and a half fish to the hundred. In Cape Canaveral how many fish is there to the hundred on an average? Dr. Williams: That I could not tell you without looking at the data.

6


Mr. Conklin: Then if you’re counting fish that you get data from in Florida, that a recreational man tells you he caught ten gags today, okay, and he gave you nothing else, how are you going to assume the weight of those? Dr. Williams: That’s a good question. What we hope is we get enough representative weight sampling as well that occurs in each area, so that we hope – and there probably is. I don’t know without looking at the data – that there were some weight samples from Florida, and so we take weight samples from Florida and apply it to those numbers, just like we would take the weight samples in North Carolina and apply it to the North Carolina numbers. Mr. DeBrango: I never received a logbook when I got my charter permit. I still have yet to see one, a logbook for the data. I mean, there is no record when I go out charter fishing and I take charters out there other than what I know in my head. There is an FWC guy that stops one out every maybe thirty boats that comes through the inlet to sample. I mean, there is a lot of missing data. Mr. Gould: The charter logbooks have been on a random basis. They pick out different charterboats each year, and they sample you for a year, and then they go on to another person is what they do. Now, Terrell Gould, Carolina Princess, now snapper grouper. From what you’re telling us there, you’re guessing an awful lot, your input is there, with the commercial, that being the best, the headboat being the second best. You take into account there that a man that’s got 80 people on a boat is guessing at the weight just as much as you are. There is a lot of noise into that, too, and it’s probably over a little bit sometimes, probably under a bit sometimes. There is no way that a single man can take and look and tell you exactly what he’s got day by day by day by day. I know basically, but there is noise, which adds to more noise and gets more noise, and directly somebody goes into panic mode, and people start losing their jobs, so we need to take and refine things a little bit and get a better reporting of what is being took, whether it’s observers or whatever, but it now it needs to be done from all the spectrums, because a lot of people has got a lot resting on the decisions that the National Marine Fisheries Service, right on from the boats themselves to the support services, which is not took into account, the socio-economic impact. I see a lot of error in what you all are saying and what I see day by day, and I report what I see to the best of my ability, but, still, it ain’t a hundred percent. Mr. Oden: I would like to question the transparency of the MRFSS data in general. Actually, I am thinking more in lines of another fishery, but it certainly has validity here. I’d just really like to know is there a way that I could get, for instance, in my particular area the intercepts that are being – the people who are being intercepted on this, because I don’t hear of many people up our way being intercepted. I know of one boat, and the name of the boat happens to be the Albatross. This particular guy has three boats and never bottom fishes. He does get intercepted in this. But, of the other people who are involved in my area, I don’t hear any of them saying they’re ever intercepted, and I

7


really would like to see just a general idea of what is being assessed in our given area, specifically. Is that possible? Dr. Williams: I am certainly not going to sit here and try to answer too many questions about the MRFSS Program, because that’s run out of headquarters, but you could ask them. I would suspect that they can tell you where they’re sampling and how many samples they had from various area. The only thing I will add is that the MRFSS Program, because of this NRC review that I mentioned earlier, is being looked at and possibly being sort of revamped in a way. In fact, they have already renamed it. It’s no longer going to be the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, but now they’re calling it the Marine Recreational Information Program. We have yet to see what is going to come out of that, but hopefully what we’re going to get in the end is a much improved survey of the recreational fisheries. Mr. Oden: That will be two years down the road; am I right? Okay, well, a lot of us are going to go under in two years. Mr. Hooks: I don’t mean to pick on you here, but do you feel certain enough about your findings with what you’re calling the very best feeling you have for commercial data and the very worse feeling, from what I can get out of it, for recreational data. Now, do you feel comfortable with the council making a ruling on what you are declaring here or what you say you found? Do you feel comfortable with that? Dr. Williams: That’s a good question. I will not answer questions that basically have me answering my personal feelings about some of these things. That’s the reason I fully buy into this whole SEDAR process, because I don’t want my personal opinions ever getting involved in this thing. And what I hang my hat on is the SEDAR process; and that once an assessment has gone through that process, been through enough review and enough people have had input in on it, that I hope that in the end the product that comes out is as the reviewers say and as the SSC says, usable for management. Mr. Hooks: One more thing. I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t blame you. If I was in your position, I wouldn’t want anybody to really know how I felt either. But, what has happened here is if this were turned around to the other foot and the council had so-so information about what the commercial fishermen were catching, they would shut us down today. They would call all the boats in, and there would be a major panic going on. But, yet, we have a lack of information on another sector, and we are the ones having to suffer for it. So, I think it is time – probably you won’t do it and nobody else probably will, but it’s time for somebody’s personal feelings to get involved in this. Mr. Phillips: I have a question, because I’ve kind of paged through a few of these pages, and I got to the back, and it’s talking about the consensus from the executive summary on SEDAR 10.

8


It’s talking about the recruitment is coming up in the Gulf and the South Atlantic, if I read it all right, and it’s been coming up for a couple of years. So, that’s a good thing. They were talking about the observed SSB around 5 million pounds, and you all talked about maybe taking it down to four and bouncing those around, if I understood that correctly. But, what I don’t understand is this paragraph right here where – and maybe since Carolyn can read it, she can explain it to me. It’s on Page 3 where it says, “SEDAR, South Atlantic Grouper, 2006”. I would like the difference between the – why the MSST specified by the FMP is approaching an overfished condition and projected to become overfished in 2007, but relative to the MSST proposed by the review panel the stock is not overfished and is not projected to become overfished under any suggested constant fishing mortality mid-term. I don’t understand that at all. Ms. Belcher: Erik can probably help with where the origination of that number came from. That was that 4 million that I had referred when I was stating about the numbers that we discussed with the MSY. The second value provided, which is the one that came from the review, appeared to be arbitrarily chosen and had little to no scientific support for its use. So, that’s what we were arguing, whether we used the 4 million or used the other value of the MSST. So, Erik, I don’t know if you know where the 4 million came from. I just know we had had a brief discussion about it, and the bottom line was we didn’t like the fact that it just kind of was a materialized number. There was no basis for 4 million pounds, so that’s when we went back and actually looked at the data that was at hand and used the other value, which is the one minus M times BMSY. Mr. Phillips: Okay, but relative to the MSST by the review panel, is that referring to the 4 million pounds; so if you used 4 million, it’s not overfished and we’re not going to be overfishing; and if we used 5 million, we are going to be overfishing. But, there is some debate on what number should or could be used; that’s what I’m hearing. Ms. Belcher: Yes. Mr. Gould: So, basically, you’re guessing with a million pounds? I apologize; I’m not used to this. I am used to being by myself in a bridge of a boat. What I’m hearing is you have got a difference of a million pounds. If you used the 4 million pounds, it’s not overfished. If you used the 5 million pounds, it’s overfished. Is that what I’m hearing? Dr. Williams: I can’t remember where that 4 million number comes from, and I’d have to look that up. I don’t even remember the origin of that at all. Mr. Gould: Convenient. But, like I say, though, that’s a big difference in what we’re doing there. I know in my neck of the woods there is not as much effort put after gag grouper now as there was 20 years ago when we had the big commercial fleet. We had a lot more smaller boats fishing for them back then.

9


I have seen less effort in the last ten years, especially, there in the recreational side and the commercial side than what we had. I’ve tried to get a handle on the numbers that you’re throwing at us which is showing up and up and up, and I’m seeing down, down and down. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I’m still a little bit puzzled. So if recruitment is going up and we’re not really sure if 5 million is the right number – our baseline number. I will use that as the lack of a better term. So, our recruitment is going up doing what we have been doing, and just as a lay person that would use logical sense, or try to, it would tell me that if our recruitment is going up, we have got enough fish out there to increase recruitment, and yet we’re looking at a 37 percent reduction in harvest when we’ve got recruitment going up. The commercial end definitely can’t increase effort. The only effort that can come is from recreational. I am not quite sure where the justification is for these cuts when we know we’ve got recruitment going up and we’re not sure what the baseline really should be, and you’re going to affect an awful lot of people. It’s not adding up to me. I need some real hard numbers, and I know you don’t have them, but I really need some real hard numbers to justify these kinds of cuts that are looking at these people. Dr. Williams: Well, let me help explain just a little bit about what we saw in the model. The data was suggesting that recruitment was increasing. Now, in almost any fishery recruitment is pretty much independent of fishing effort unless you’re at really low stock sizes, because that is probably the most variable thing we see. It’s nature in its prime. You know, whether we have good year class or not is really out of our control completely. Even when we’re fishing the heck out of a population, sometimes it’s out of our control. But, what was going on in the assessment is we were seeing this trend of increasing recruitment, and that’s what was keeping the population from being overfished in that last year. And that’s why when we projected out, we don’t project that increased recruitment was going to continue into the future. We project based on average recruitment because we don’t know whether recruitment is going up or down in the future. I mean, we might as well be playing the lotto with that. So, when you start to project with just average recruitment, then the stock actually starts to turn back down and go down because the suggestion is that fishing effort was still too high for average recruitment, but because we had that little up-tick in recruitment, it was enough to keep the population from being overfished in that last year of the assessment. Mr. Phillips: So, basically you’re assuming that recruitment is probably going to go back down on average even though it’s on an upward spiral now? Dr. Williams: Yes, that’s correct. Mr. Gray: Erik, one real simple question and then one other one. When you talked about shore-based anglers, that’s recreational boaters that are trailering their boats or whatever; is that what you mean?

10


Dr. Williams: Yes, I probably should include private boats, too. Basically, the MRFSS Survey covers the charterboat sector, the private boat sector, and the shore-mode sector, so that’s all covered by that MRFSS Survey. Mr. Gray: Okay, the other question is statistically you can get pretty accurate projections sampling a fairly small sample size. Do you have a confidence level on the data that you’re using for the MRFSS data? What is that level? Dr. Williams: I’d have to look it up, and it should be in the stock assessment report. We usually get what is termed a percent standard error, which is essentially a measure of the confidence of the data. For MRFSS it typically runs anywhere from 30 percent up to 70 percent, just a rough ballpark. I don’t know what it was specifically for gag, but I know it’s in the report. What I will add, though, and I can understand a lot people’s concern and frustration with MRFSS, is that when the MRFSS Survey went through this review I discussed, they did say that there is potential bias in the survey. Now, that is not covered by any error estimates. It basically means you’re either missing fish the whole time through or you’re over counting fish, either one. They don’t know but they said there is probably a bias in the fishery. That’s the thing we don’t have a hold on. We don’t know what it is in that survey. Mr. Conklin: When you do your recruitment, is that based on the length of the samples taken? Dr. Williams: Now you’re getting right at the heart of why we even do these assessments is ultimately one way to look at these assessments is what we’re trying to estimate is the recruitment, and that comes from several data sources. It comes from the length structure, and it also comes from the age structure. The best estimate typically for fisheries models are ages. That’s why we are always stressing we need more age data, we need more age data, because you get consistent age data through time, you can actually track a cohort as it passes through the population. I have seen really nice fishery data where it shows up clearly. The unfortunate thing is in the southeast we don’t have necessarily consistent age sampling. We have sporadic age sampling is probably the best term for it, and we have length samples. Now, lengths in some cases can serve as a good proxy for age, and so you can sometimes actually even track large year classes just from lengths. Basically, this model is we’re putting every bit of information we’ve got together and we trying to estimate what was the recruitment history of that fishery. Mr. Conklin: Okay, all the fishermen that pack fish with me are fishing for larger grouper, and they’re catching quite a few of them. They weren’t targeting those little fish that are inshore. They’re leaving them alone. They’re not worth touching. Since they went to the 24-inch size limit, they can go in there and burn half their bait up throwing them little bitty things back, and then they’re going to catch some little fish, and it’s not worth anything. They’re not wasting their time.

11


But I’ll guarantee you next month, if you look at the logbooks, there are going to be quite a few turned in here out of the southeast, out of South Carolina, on a few boats that are going to go inshore and they’re going to pound those little fish because they’re going to bite real good. Around this next moon, they will bite, and they know where these fish are. If you go back and look through the logbooks in September and October for South Carolina and you look at the length of those fish that they were measuring, you can see a lot smaller fish. Mr. Adams: Year after year, when I have been in this management or make an effort to management, this MRFSS stuff has come up. NMFS know it’s not great, everybody knows it’s not great, and there is more and more effort coming on the recreational side. It’s just unfortunate and I hope that NMFS will find a better way to get some real numbers. I mean, I’m a recreational guy. Obviously, I want to look out for my constituency, but MRFSS is tough stuff, and it may be real variable. And it may not be biased, but it’s troubling to me, that’s for sure. Mr. Oden: I’m going to direct this to Erik. I used to be on the commercial Weakfish AP. I remember a very pertinent question there that Mr. Conklin brought up. There was a variation in the spawning activity between weakfish in North Carolina at a smaller size level. They were spawning at nine inches, and they could have spawned three times at – and there was a major variation in the size at length, too. And, how can you rectify that between basically what he just said there? I mean, that definitely is a concern when you think – I mean, there is so much variability in this fishery from North Carolina to Florida. How do you account for that? Dr. Williams: Unfortunately, we probably just don’t have the data to start looking at area-specific effects, and so we end up with basically all we can do is a coast-wide stock assessment, and we hope that on average what we’re seeing is reflective of what is going on out there along the whole coast. That’s the assumption we make; and until we get better data, we cannot start to do area-specific analyses. Mr. DeBrango: Basically, I have been involved in it all, and I’m hearing a lot personally by e-mail from the recreational sector, spearfishing friends, commercial. I spent a long time commercial fishing and charter. We’re fixing to put a lot of people out of business. I had a 50-year-old man call me on the phone crying. I’m still upset about it. We’re going to put these guys under without good data. I mean, everybody is being put out of business. We took the tilefish away. These guys have nothing to fish for, no sharks being opened this year, one month. What are these guys going to do, man? They’ve got to feed their kids. You know, we’ve got to think about this. We’ve got to get some good data. I mean, I’m really passionate about this right now because I’m really – I’m hurting for my friends. Mr. Conklin: The longliners that I know that are put out of business are bandit fishing and putting more pressure on a lot of other people. A lot of people that bandit fish, you know, they’re not going to have what they really should have just by what has been done.

12


Mr. Phillips: I’d like to go back to that 5 million pound assessment. How much confidence did they have in that? I think some said the next assessment is 2011. That’s a long time to wait if there is an inaccuracy. I won’t even call it a mistake, but an inaccuracy. There’s going to be a lot of people doing without, for the lack of a better term. So, how much confidence is in that 5 million pounds versus the 4 million or some other number? Dr. Williams: Again, without interjecting any personal opinion, it’s hard to say any degree of confidence, but other than that the SEDAR process, the reviewers as well as the SSC, thought that it was good enough to go forward for management. That’s about all I can say. Mr. Gould: How much accounting is took into effort and non-effort in the charter/headboat or headboat logbooks, because they’re not targeted every trip. Sometimes it’s a bycatch. Certain times of the year we really go after them. I was just wondering how much the effort was taken into account in this MRFSS deal here that you talk about. Dr. Williams: Yes, effort is a tricky one because we have trouble getting a good handle on effort. Usually all we’re concerned about from each fishery is an accurate accounting of the landings because that tells us how much was removed from the population. Then we can sort of back up from that if we know, well, a certain number of fish were removed, well, there had to be a certain number out there in order to have that much removal occur. The other area where effort comes into play is when we actually compute abundance indices, and that’s where we use the headboat survey, and we will look at catch-per-unit effort. There we go to a lot of lengths to try and whittle it down to just trips that were likely to have caught a gag. They didn’t necessarily have to target, but we try to eliminate all those trips where there was no way they were going to catch a gag. Maybe they were in too deep a water or they were fishing in the wrong area or something like that. So that’s where some of the effort comes in with respect to the headboat. We also do the same thing with the commercial logbook data, as well. We try to basically subset the trips down to trips that actually had a reasonable chance of catching the fish we’re interested in. That’s about all I can say. Mr. Hooks: From what you just said, did you have reliable local knowledge in the areas that were tested to know whether or not to accurately say that they were in an area or not in an area to catch gags? Dr. Williams: That’s a good question. No, we don’t have the area data we would like to have. Basically, what we go by is the catch composition. So, in other words, we look at the species that are caught with gag. We do a big analysis and we say, okay, well, what are the top species that are typically caught with gag? I don’t know what they are off the top of my head. So then we can look at trips that caught those species, and those would be trips that we might assign as they should have caught gag if they didn’t or they at least had a chance to catch gags.

13


So, in other words, if we had a trip that was all king mackerel or something, obviously, they’re fishing top water. They’re not going after gag; they’re not likely to have caught a gag. But, if we see, say, scamp and triggerfish and red porgy mixed in there, then we say, oh, well, that trip might have had a chance to catch gag. Maybe it already did catch gag. I mean, we certainly include any trip that caught gag. Mr. Phillips: Do any of you have any motions that you’d like to make for things that you’d like to see the council do with respect to how they’re doing these numbers or doing these assessments, or do you want a quicker assessment done? Do you have any motions you’d like to make to the council one way or the other? Mr. Zimmerman: I haven’t been much of a part of this process, but I was wondering if the National Marine Fisheries Service has to give some sort of socio-economic data on the effect of a closure – or, excuse me, not a closure but a reduction of this nature. I request that the fishery understands those social and economic impacts of this type of reduction. Mr. Phillips: So, you’re making a motion that you’d like to know who is going to be affected and how by this proposed reduction in harvest? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, I mean, I don’t know about wordsmithing the actual motion, but it would be in light of understanding if there is a specific level of reduction, what are those specific social and economic impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. I guess that would be on a state-wide basis. I know a lot of us have spoken about these potential effects here, so if anybody has any input on how this could be better written, just chime in. Mr. Phillips: Do you want to limit this to just gag or do you want to go ahead and add vermilion in there and maybe black sea bass at the same time? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, the whole nine – Mr. Conklin: Yes, I’ll go along with making sure everything is – you know, the whole snapper grouper complex there is done right. But, I’m looking over here in the AP booklet that we got for this meeting here. On Page 4, the council reviews and approves final amendment for formal review by the Secretary of Commerce, June 8th to the 13th to the 2008 meeting. Intend to have regulations in place by January of 2010. How long does it take to make one of these assessments; how long does it take? Mr. Phillips: Phil, I need to get a second on his motion, and then we can go back to you, if that’s okay. Mr. Conklin: I’ll second it. Mr. Phillips: Okay, seconded by Phil, and I’ll let you finish. Mr. Conklin: I wanted to know how long does it take to do a proper assessment?

14


Dr. Williams: I am going to have to defer to the Southeast Region to answer that one. Mr. Conklin: What would be an estimate? Dr. Williams: I don’t do those kinds of analyses. I do strictly stock assessments. I don’t do the socio-economic impact analyses. Mr. Conklin: I don’t see how somebody can make a judgment call for people’s livelihood without knowing exactly how long it takes to do this, where we would have much better data before anybody took a vote on this. Mr. Kipnis: Isn’t there a requirement that the federal government do an economic impact statement on these rules? There is a requirement on every rule. This was too big for me to read in the few days that I got it before the meeting. Is the EIS in here? Mr. DeVictor: Dan, no it’s not. Where we are at in the process, we just had the stock assessments done. A plan team has been formed that includes NMFS staff and council staff and they will write the environmental impact statement. Then your next agenda item or your fourth one down there is to go through Amendment 16, and that’s what we just scoped. So, that’s the starting process of writing an environmental impact statement, so it hasn’t been done yet. Mr. Kipnis: Well, not only an EIS, environment impact statement, but an economic impact statement; that should come under the environmental one. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but we’re supposed to come in here and say we’ll approve these numbers or we’ll recommend these numbers to the council or we will not recommend them, but we really don’t know what the effect is going to be on the users. Doesn’t that seem like we’re putting the cart before the horse? I mean, if we were just concerned about the fish, period, we wouldn’t be worried if this was accurate, you know, precisely accurate. If it looked like it was going to help the resource itself, and that’s all we were worried about, we could probably accept numbers and put them out there and see how they work; and if they worked out, fine, or didn’t, we could adjust them later. But, the reality of the situation is that every single rule that comes out of the council here having to do with fisheries on the southeast coast is going to have a major effect on the users or the producers, major, and it has. I would feel more comfortable looking at figures if I knew, for example, if we go with this quota or this limit or this season, what the economic effects would be on the guys sitting around me or the general population who are the end users of this or producers. I would feel much better in making decisions that way. I guess I don’t want to be blindsided and say, okay, I think the fishery is in trouble, we shouldn’t be fishing during spawning, or on spawning aggregates or this or that or whatever, however we might come up with it, and then find out later that I just took a whole sector out and put them on the gallows and pulled the lever and they just fell and got hung, after I had made my decision about the resource, and I think they need to go hand in hand.

15


That’s the point that I’m trying to get to. They really need to go hand in hand if we’re going to make a decision. You might modify what you think you need to do to maintain a healthy fishery if you saw the effects on the people at the same time. That would balance – somewhere there has got to be a balance in there. It can’t just be all fish and that’s what is good for the fish. Right now we’re starting with just all fish, and it make it very difficult for me to make any judgments whatsoever because I’m not going to put the noose around somebody’s neck until I know what I’m doing either is worth doing that or can be compromised in some way or worked out in some way that we don’t impact the sector as hard as we might. That’s just my personal feeling. Do I make sense on that, guys? Mr. Phillips: One thing that was pointed out to me is that we’re not looking for any cuts on black sea bass, so it probably does not need to be in the motion. I need to make a friendly motion to take black sea bass out of that, a friendly amendment. Mr. Zimmerman: From what I heard around the table a little, they wanted all the species included inside of this motion because we’re all going to be seeing dramatic impacts from these reductions. We’re all looking to play by the rules here. Mr. Gray: I’d like to back up a little bit from what Dan was saying. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, isn’t it required that if the statistics show overfishing or an overfished condition, that action be taken? That is basically where it ends, right? And then from there, you go into one of these and identify the socio-economic impacts and everything else. So, that finding has been determined, right, that overfishing has occurred on gag and vermilion. So, aren’t we now at the point where we just have to decide what to do about that? Mr. Waugh: I don’t want to stop your discussion if you want to have this, but I think you have to understand the rules in which the council is operating. What you’ve got here from the SSC representatives is really the biological assessment. There is talk about SEDAR also doing a socio-economic assessment and doing those in parallel. That’s something that is still in the works. Quite frankly, the agency doesn’t have the resources to do that at this stage. The council, in preparing an amendment, has to do what you all have outlined up there. They have to assess the impacts of whatever management regulations. Having said that, the first criteria is to end overfishing. The determination thus far has been made that for vermilion and gag we’re operating under old Magnuson. If that’s the case, then the council has the option of phasing in the level of reductions necessary to end overfishing. Under new Magnuson, the council doesn’t have that option. I quite honestly don’t understand how we’re preparing an amendment in 2007 after the reauthorized Magnuson Act is in place and we’re being told we’re operating under the old rules, but that will get sorted out.

16


The most flexibility the council has, if you stay with the determination that we’re operating under old Magnuson, is to phase in the reductions to end overfishing over two to three years. You all aren’t going to like this, but it’s what we did for snowy grouper and what we’re doing for black sea bass, phasing in those reductions over two to three years. That’s the most flexibility that the council has to address social and economic impacts. Under new Magnuson, they don’t even have that. They have to end overfishing immediately. We certainly will have to do the economic impact analysis to document the impacts of ending overfishing. But, the council can’t then use that information and choose not to end overfishing. It’s just not allowed. That’s not in the rules under new Magnuson. So, I just want you all to understand sort of the ground rules where we are. I don’t mean to sidetrack your discussions. Mr. Hooks: Getting back to a question that I don’t believe was ever answered, I think that is where we have to start. It was mentioned earlier, like Charlie said, the four and five million pounds that we started with; neither one of you – and I don’t mean to pick on you – neither one of you answered his question. Both of you kind of looked at each other like I don’t know where it came from. Did somebody just reach up here and grab it? We never did get an answer as to – you said, well, it could be four and it could be five. Well, you’re playing with a million pounds of our lives. One says everything is fine and another says we’re in dire straits. And, if you don’t know where it came from, who does? Ms. Belcher: The original number came out of the review panel. The question, again, was the language of it. I don’t have it off the top of my head just because it’s been a while, obviously, since I read the assessment. Without knowing targeted questions, it’s kind of hard to focus back into it. We did have discussion about this, and the big problem was we didn’t really understand where that number came from. It kind of felt like it was materialized where somebody came up with it as an arbitrary call. And, when we went back, looked at the data we had at hand, that was where we came up with the other number as a group. We discussed it, and it’s in our minutes. I can easily pull that out for you if you want to see that discussion. But that number was based on a calculated value where the other one we really weren’t sure where it came from. Mr. Carmichael: If you have the 485-page stock assessment document, if you look at Figure 11, three pages from the end, there is a stock recruitment plot. And what the review panel did was apply a graphical interpretation of that plot in establishing, whatever, 4,000 on the graph, which is spawning stock biomass in thousands of pounds, whatever that is, they looked at that plot and said, well, we don’t have any observations below that, but above that we see we have lowest to highest observed levels of recruitment, so they just took it graphically. And the other number comes from a quantitative calculation. Mr. Hooks: And can you explain that?

17


Mr. Carmichael: Quantitative calculation was taking off of the stock recruitment relationship and how much stock they expect at the level that can produce MSY. So, the one was just looking at the picture. The other is saying, well, if I calculate that line that fits to those plots, that’s the value I get versus the ones that I just look at the picture and apply my eyeball, this is what I get. So, it’s just not certain whether or not that approach is robust enough for use in the federal management system. That’s what caused the consternation on the one hand over the four million pounds. But that’s where it came from; we know where it came from. It wasn’t just out of complete thin air. It was off of the picture. Mr. Amick: I have a question for Gregg. I’m just trying to figure out what stage we’re at. Does the council accept where we’re sitting at as far as the assessment for the gag and the vermilion snapper, or is that in question now? Are we just to the point that, okay, that’s what we have to work with and we’re going from there at this point, or is there a big question of what we’re starting off with? Mr. Waugh: Again, there is a little bit of back and forth about what the rules are that we operate under with the Magnuson Act as it was reauthorized. Under the new Magnuson, it lays out the requirements. The SEDAR process is the peer review process that the council has specified under existing Magnuson and under new. Our council relies on the SSC to review our scientific information. Under the new Magnuson Act, it lays out a requirement for the SSC to provide the council with a catch limit that will end overfishing. The council then has the flexibility to set its annual catch limit at that level or lower. The council cannot exceed that. Under new Magnuson, the council doesn’t really have the – the way a number of us read the Magnuson Act, the council doesn’t have the option of rejecting what comes out of SEDAR. That authority has been transferred to the SSC. There are some that feel that is not the case and that the SSC is just recommending. Once we get the guidelines, that will clarify that some. Dr. Williams: John jarred my memory about that whole four million pounds. I will add just a little more of where that came from. The review of the South Atlantic Gag Assessment was conducted in conjunction with the review of the Gulf of Mexico Gag Assessment. What happened is the Gulf of Mexico Gag Assessment, their stock recruit plot was a lot more uncertain than our was, and so the review panelists were discussing, well, how would you just pick a value off of the plot since they didn’t have a good stock recruit curve. They, out of curiosity, sort of did the same thing to the South Atlantic, but they still, in the end, recommended going with the stock recruit chosen number, the stock recruit curve derived number. So, really, that four million was this sort of – why it made it in the report, I don’t know, but it was really just the review panel trying to be consistent with the Gulf of Mexico, seeing how that number compared just for curiosity sake more than anything, I believe.

18


Mr. Kipnis: Gregg, do me a favor, please. Are you telling the AP that we have a stock assessment that came through the SEDAR process, and that’s what it is and that’s all it is and that’s what we have to deal with and basically that’s what we have to do, period, no matter what? Is that basically what the new Magnuson Act says? Mr. Waugh: The council has set the SEDAR process as its peer review process that’s called for under the new Magnuson. Once an assessment goes through that peer review process and is approved by SEDAR and then goes through the SSC and is signed off on the SSC, and SSC ultimately gives us what their recommendation is for the catch limit – our SSC hasn’t done that yet. They will have that for us at our December meeting. Once we get those numbers, the way I read the Magnuson Act, the way a number of other people read the Magnuson Act, is the council can’t go above that number. There are opposing views, however. And, let me be frank here that the Regional Administrator has expressed concern that is not his interpretation. Mr. Kipnis: Okay, it’s nice to hear that someone is questioning it. Otherwise, there is no reason for us to sit here. You’re going to take the most conservative numbers and that’s what is going to happen, and it’s just a matter of putting it in force right away. Even if there is a question about – I guess the law says that you have to accept what the SEDAR says whether it’s accurate or not, whether it’s within the 30 to 70 percent accuracy range that was mentioned. I know if it was me betting on that, I certainly wouldn’t buy a lotto ticket on it. And if it was a bullet in a gun, I certainly wouldn’t spin it if you said I guarantee you’ve got 30 to 70 percent chance it ain’t going to blow your head off. I mean, it’s just mind blowing to me. It’s almost like sitting on ICCAT, which I do, too, you know, the same deal. Mr. Waugh: Just to clarify, the catch limit that the SSC sets, if you look at the history of how that’s changed in Magnuson, it’s my belief the congress was deliberate in responding to a lot of the criticism that the councils, not the South Atlantic Council, necessarily, the councils had not followed the scientific advice. So there was a pool of opinion out there, headed up some of the environmental groups, that were putting a lot of pressure on congress to take the science decision away from the councils and put it in a scientific group. And, if you read the wording in Magnuson, that’s what the change does. Now, it doesn’t mean that there is no work here for you all or for the council. It just means the first decision point is what you do with that total catch number. There is a lot to be done with it. You’ve got to allocate it between recreational and commercial interests. Then you have got to develop the regulation. You can certainly be more conservative than that number. You can’t be more liberal. I think if you read Magnuson, that is a deliberate change on congress’ part, and it puts us in a very, very tight box. Mr. Kipnis: If I might just say this, I want you to understand that I’m not putting any blame on you whatsoever, and I am not going to murder the messenger here. You’re just the messenger and I love the job you do. You’ve always been great, so nothing personal.

19


Mr. Waugh: And it isn’t taken personally at all. We have been making this point at the scoping meetings. I think it’s important for people to understand the rules that we’re operating under. There is not near the flexibility as there was before. But I appreciate that. Mr. DeBrango: I’d like to make a motion to review – Mr. Phillips: We already have a motion on the floor. Mr. Gray: Based on what Gregg has just said, I don’t think if we make this motion it’s going to make any difference or have any influence on the outcome. I understand everybody’s frustration with the outcome or with what we’re trying to do here, but it looks like we need to be debating more about what to do about the numbers that are in front of us, because this is going to happen anyway. Mr. Kelly: When I look at these numbers and I look at the assessments that have been made, my main concern is we’re considering gag grouper over such a broad range, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand miles of shoreline here. Can we tell where the overfishing is occurred, as perhaps in our area where it would take 7.5 gag groupers to make a hundred pounds of weight compared to the numbers that Bill is talking about at 4.5 per hundred. We’re talking a 22-pound fish on average, according to Bill, off the Carolinas, which is right where that number I would think would be for gag grouper. For us in Monroe County, 13 pounds average per fish is far below what our average used to be. So, to me, it indicates that possibly the overfishing is occurring in the state of Florida, and particularly in our area, and can we split the regulation? If we take action, can we do something that would restrict the bag, say, in Florida or Monroe County and leave you all alone in North Carolina where the fishery seems to be much healthier? Mr. Adams: Just looking at this motion, I think what we’re trying to say here is to develop a socio-economic assessment in parallel with the development of the SEDAR plan that we’re looking at. I think that’s what we’re really trying to say there, because Dan’s concern was lack of information at this time. It’s required that we do that anyway. No matter what we do, they have to do a socio-economic assessment. It seems to me what we really want to say is to have whatever influence we might have to say that they develop in parallel with the development of the SEDAR plan that we are faced with. The second thing is someone asked about how long does it take to do an assessment, and apparently the last one before this one was done in 1998. That would be nine years. That was right here in the information that was in front of us. But at any rate, that’s the two observations that I have. I just want to make sure the intent of the motion is to get across the idea that we really want to, because I’m in favor of developing a socio-economic assessment that helps us with understanding what the SEDAR is all about. But it’s required to do it, anyway.

20


Mr. Phillips: Charlie, do you want to make that as a friendly amendment to the motion? Mr. Adams: I could do that or someone else could do that. I just think that’s our intention here. I would be pleased to do that. I see head nods. Mr. Phillips: Can I get a second, then? Mr. Adams: He has got to accept it, that’s all. Mr. Zimmerman: Let me just get it straight here. What you’re saying is that since a socio-economic assessment is inherent in the SEDAR process, then this is redundant? Mr. Adams: No, what I was saying was it is not inherent in the SEDAR process; that it ought to be; that we ought to have those factors in front of us when we look at a SEDAR and if there is the possibility that it could be put in over time, which apparently there may be; that the reductions be put in over time to end overfishing. What I’m trying to say is we are not armed with that information right now, but it’s required that we are armed with that information after they pass the reductions that end overfishing. So they have to do that, anyway, but they don’t have to do it in parallel with the development of the SEDAR plan. That’s my point. Mr. Gray: It’s inherent in the amendment process, so when you get past the actions that are required to eliminate the overfishing and you come up with an amendment to do that, then all of this happens in that amendment, which is the real plan for putting whatever you come up with into action. The SEDAR process is the evaluation process that comes up with the assessment that there is overfishing occurring, and that doesn’t look at the socio-economic. That looks at what is happening with the fish. Mr. Zimmerman: Make an amendment this motion and we’ll see what it looks like. I wanted to amend the motion with what is highlighted in blue there, to say that the socio-economic data ought to be developed in parallel with the SEDAR program, so that when we have that information in front us so we know it’s going to put headboats out of business or charterboats out of business or somebody who is trying to make a living in the commercial out of business, so that we know what those impacts are in addition to knowing what those numbers are. Now, it may not do any good when you have to end overfishing, anyway, but at least we would have the information in front of us. Mr. Phillips: Okay, Scott, is that okay with you? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, accepted. Mr. Conklin: I’ll accept that. Mr. Hooks: I have a question here. I kind of think Dan brought up a question that I now would like an answer to, because I hope somebody besides me is confused. Gregg, could you possibly

21


tell us what the position and what the function of the advisory panel is now? If we’re not going to be a part of the process, we’re not going to be able to decide what kind of gun we’re going to get shot with, but just how big a bullet, basically. I want to know is the advisory panel completely out of the process as far as the making of the regulation, and now we just have to decide what our punishment will be, or do we still have any input at all, as we were designed to seven years ago? Mr. Phillips: Gregg, before we do that, can we read this and vote on it? Then we will get into that. I’m a rookie; I’m doing the best I can. The motion is request that NMFS perform a socio-economic assessment parallel with the SEDAR process in terms of the reductions required for gag grouper and vermilion snapper. All in favor, say aye; all opposed. The motion carries. Mr. Waugh: Okay, in answer to the question about the role of the AP, there’s nothing that I’ve seen in the reauthorized Magnuson that changes the role of the AP. You all are to advise the council. You certainly can disagree with the results of an assessment. You can point out, as you have been doing, that your on-water experience is very different from the results of this SEDAR assessment. Certainly, that’s a very valid role. You can express your concerns either in agreement or disagreement, and we have had this before. There have been times what the assessment has said the AP has agreed with it, and we’ve have it where it’s been divergent as well. So, there is nothing that has changed the role of the advisory panel. It’s more whether it changes the role of the council and the leeway the council has. So, you all are still free to provide whatever advice you want to the council. Mr. Hooks: But if their hands are tied and they have to follow the Secretary, nothing that we’re going to say is going to make a difference. After the SEDAR and the SSC, we can’t make a difference. Mr. Waugh: Nor can the council. And, if you have a problem with that process, then you need to talk to your congressmen, because they’re the ones that set the rules. Mr. Hooks: I’ve always had a problem with that. Mr. DeBrango: I would like to make a motion to assess adding the golden tile 35 percent we took too much reduction on the fishery; and looking at the red porgy, that if given some of these fisheries to the fishermen, if that will end overfishing as it is occurring. I remember that we took 70 percent from the golden fishery, from a fishery that was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. Basically, that is putting a strain on the grouper population in Florida. The fishermen there have nothing else to fish for. The porgy stocks are good. There is a rush to dive or fish out there a lot. I am sure all the vermilion snapper fishermen here will tell you there are a lot of porgies out there. So, maybe we can look at another alternative to add some more of another one to take the strain off these gag

22


grouper in Florida that are getting hit harder right now because the guys, they can’t even fish for shark, so everybody is fishing for gag grouper. So, basically, what this motion is, is stating let’s throw some other fish in there to take some of the strain off of them and see what happens as far as overfishing is occurring at this time, as they say. Mr. Phillips: John, can you tell us when another assessment for golden tile and red porgy is going to come up? Mr. Carmichael: Red porgy is set for an update in 2012 and tilefish in 2010. Mr. Oden: There has been a little concern there with the 30 to 70 percent confidence level, and I share it. Andy, he threw it over here in my lap. But, I kind of feel like I’m – you know, right in the Atlantic Shark Fishery, which I’m sure he knows a little about, right now they’re talking it’s going to between a hundred and four hundred years to rebuild that fishery, and that’s some pretty sketchy science, you know, that’s getting us there. I’m sure I’m going to hear from Erik that, well, they just don’t have the money to do these assessments, but we’re sitting in a mighty nice hotel, and I would much rather meet in a campground myself and get some decent assessments in there. So, I frankly would like a motion that we get a confidence level upwards of 70 percent – over 70 percent. I would think that would be a very pertinent motion. Mr. Phillips: Well, we need to get a second on his motion first before we go to the – Mr. Oden: I’m sorry. Mr. Phillips: I’m learning, too. Do I have a second anywhere? Mr. Cardin: So you’re talking about the reduction that 13C took or are you talking about the trip reduction? Mr. DeBrango: The quota was one million pounds. The statistics committee or the SEDAR requested a 36 or 37 percent reduction. The alternative that came up in that meeting, that we dropped that down 300,000 pounds, and then when 75 percent of that quota is met, if it is met before September 1st, that the trip limit goes to 300 pounds. It was only calling for a certain amount and it was doubled. These guys are starving, and what are they doing right now? They’re fishing gag grouper. They have been fishing gag grouper except for the one month they got shark. That’s putting more a strain on the gag grouper and bottom fish, any vermilion snapper, anything in our area right now than it has been. Anybody who knows about the tilefish fishery, these guys are going out there and making one set and having to throw fish back, and not making a full set and having to throw fish back, kill fish, basically, because they can’t keep more than 300 pounds. They’re getting beyond that in a

23


smaller set than they ever set, and having to throw fish away. I think if we give these things back, let’s see is there some kind of impact that it’s going to do. If it’s going to take the strain – if you go down to Central Florida now, the Central Florida locations and see the fishermen down there, you’re going to see what they’re fishing for at this time. A lot of it is consisting of gag grouper, which this was not fished for before. They were tile fishermen. They were shark fishermen. So, when we passed that, we put a strain on the gag groupers and not even realized it. And by taking too much, if there is a way we give some of that back and relieve some of the pressure on the gag grouper in that area, that’s what this is all about. Mr. Phillips: Do we have a second for his motion, or do you want to talk about the motion? We need a second for the motion. Mr. Cardin: I’m from Florida; I’ll second it. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we have a second. Now we can discuss it. Mr. Oden: Well, actually, I was going to touch on what he was talking on there, but I guess we’re dealing with the motion. Mr. Kipnis: Discussion on that motion. That might sound good and nice and fair, but if I’m not mistaken, under the Magnuson Act our hands tied again because it was determined that this is what we had to do and you can’t give it back. What the council could do is change starting dates and accounting dates on the quota so that it became more equitable for people in other regions. That was discussed – I think regional management was discussed a little bit. It might have been at lunch. I don’t remember if it was discussed here. It could have been at lunch. But, basically, you can’t go back and give that back. That’s locked in again because tilefish was overfished and that’s what we had to do. Mr. Conklin: The reason I didn’t second that was because in the Carolinas you have to run at least 60 to 65 miles to go tilefishing. It’s not feasible for a man to go and try and catch 300 pounds. These guys are out of business. I mean, you can’t put cable on a reel and they catch a little bit of fish and have it rot the rest of the year, and you’re going to have to buy again the following year. There is no fishery. They have been put out of business, period. And, another thing is the question that Bill had before is there is quite a bit of talk about regional fisheries where the South Atlantic will be divided up into three or four parts or whatever it comes up here with where they can control the amount of fish being taken from different areas. Mr. Cardin: I believe, you know, they’re talking about Amendment 15 changing the tilefish year to September and left in the 300-pound reduction, just fish it to the end. That won’t alleviate any problems you’re talking about? It will probably magnify the May and June gag fishermen.

24


Mr. DeBrango: Yes, the quota was met in May of this year, and that was with a slow start in January. Really, they didn’t fish for them in January. So, basically, they met the 300,000 pounds or the 75 percent within 2.5 months of fishing. That’s how fast it went. Then it went to the gags straight from there. Mr. Oden: Gregg is probably not going to like to hear this, but I asked Roy the other day, during mediation there, if we couldn’t have an incidental wreckfish. I mean, we can’t go deep water fishing. We lose snowies, we go to a hundred pounds for tows. We’re trying to get a little more agreeable trip quota or trip limit, and all this is leading right into regional management; it really is. I mean, each area should have its own historical percentage; and you guys, as far as I’m concerned, should – and I am certainly not endorsing ITQs here, but state, regional allocations I think on historical percentages and let the states deal with it at their own level. So, really, the only way to address this – because it’s coming with king mackerel. We have got it with snowy grouper up our way. The way it’s set up we’re not even going to approach optimum yield on snowy grouper. It’s just going to end up being reallocated. In our case, I mean, we should have the flexibility to deal with this on our state level, you guys included. I’m saying that because I mean we could conceivably go towards golden tilefish up there to mitigate some of our problems, and we only got two or three thousand pound of history on a given year. So, we’re certainly going to be out of the loop in that if it goes that route; but by the same token, I mean we’re going to lose our directed fishery now, and it’s going to end up in the recreational hands up our way, which it already has. Mr. Phillips: Okay, is there any more discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion raise your hand; all opposed, raise your hand. The motion carries. I’m hearing that there is a lot of doubt about the SEDAR numbers. There is a lot doubt about the level of confidence in the SEDAR numbers. I think you might even have a little doubt yourself. I think maybe what we might really want to ask the council to do is instruct SEDAR, when they bring some numbers to the table, instead of giving us a number, give us a range, so that we can interject a little bit of common sense that we know. Then give us the confidence in that range instead of saying this is the number – like Danny says, this is the number we got and this is what we’re going to have to live with. I don’t know if that’s possible, but maybe Carolyn or Erik or John can tell me if we can get some ranges in there so that – it just seems like they’ve made common sense not so common anymore. Come on, John, talk to me. Mr. Carmichael: Typically, the SSC, when they get the assessment, will have maybe ranges on some things. They will have sensitivities around various values and other runs. But, for the most part, they will end up ending a suite of options for various parameters within the model, things like natural mortality and what you assume about the growth rates and what have you, so that leads them to a number.

25


There is always going to be one number. The guidance from the council lately has been that we may have ranges, but within that range we do have to pick a number, and usually what the SSC is giving you is going to be the middle of whatever suite of ranges they have. So, it’s just uncertain at this point how you go about picking one single number. There have been lawsuits that said you need to pick at least 50 percent chance of success. So if they pick a number, it’s going to be the one at the 50 percent, unless the council says or the advisors decide to direct the council to tell them be more precise and pick a number with a 70 percent chance of success. So, largely what you’re getting is a 50 percent chance of success, which is as low as they can go legally. It’s just hard with the push through the Magnuson Act and others to be much more, as they say, accountable and quantitative to fall back and saying, well, here is more range, here is an 80 percent confidence interval, but you really can’t pick something that you’re only 20 percent confidence in. You’ve got to pick something that you’re 50 percent or better. So, what the SSC has tried to do is be as liberal as they can in terms of the rules that they have to operate under. There are a lot of problems within the SEDAR numbers, and most of those problems are because of the just poor quality of the data. There have been a lot of discussions about the complexity of some of the models that have been used for these stocks and why they’re so involved and so many things that are examined. But, the bottom line is that’s being done because there are a lot of gaps in the data, as Erik mentioned. The age data is intermittent at best. We don’t have complete information on a lot of these data sources. If we did, we could do real simple models that these guys could crank out in no time. We’ve got to get better data, and then we can do more of these things. But in terms of giving you a range, you’re probably going to look at the number you have now to a lower numbers in terms of TACs. I think that’s pretty fair, wouldn’t you say, Erik and Carolyn? Mr. Phillips: Well, it just seems like when we see a number, it’s like Moses chiseled it as the 11th Commandment, and we don’t get any leeway from it, is why I say that. Mr. Gould: Basically, what I’m understanding you say is even though we don’t have the best numbers, you’ve got to have numbers to use, so you use them, which in the long run hurts a lot of people economically. I have harped on this before and I’ll say it again, but it also benefits the foreign fishermen that imports into the country, which cuts out more jobs. What I’m seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to a lack of confident data. We have got to do something, Magnuson-Stevens says we’ve got to do something, so this is what we’re going to do. It don’t seem like the best possible science to me to take and go one year things is looking better and then all of a sudden it’s overfished. It just don’t make any sense to me at this time.

26


Mr. Cardin: I’m backing up here; I never got to ask Erik about on the SEDAR you said that the headboat was good and the shore and all that stuff, but you said you liked the commercial the best – excuse me, you didn’t like it the best, but it seemed to be the most complete. You used the words “trip tickets”? That is what this data is based on; not logbooks? Dr. Williams: The landings tend to be based on trip tickets, yes. We used the logbooks for looking at effort and actually computing an abundance index from the logbooks. We’ll try to use that to what degree we have trust in it for even looking at some area effects. Mr. Cardin: Well, why wouldn’t you just assume that the logbook is the same – excuse me, I’m not asking you to assume – why isn’t the logbook and the trip ticket landings the same? Dr. Williams: That’s actually something that is currently being looked into by our staff down at Miami. It’s a tricky thing because the reporting mechanism for each state differ, and so trying to tie a trip ticket back to a logbook record has not been a successful – they haven’t successfully completed that loop yet, and they’re working on that. Actually, your question is a timely one because they are looking at actually trying to tie the logbook record to specific trip tickets. Mr. Cardin: I was under the impression that in the southeast we had a system, the Southeast Data Collection Center or something, that was tying all that together on a daily basis. They haven’t done it yet? It’s not matching? Dr. Williams: I mean, this is where I’m starting to get out on a limb here with my knowledge, but my understanding is the logbook program was put in place more or less independently of the trip ticket program, and now they’re sort of, after the fact, trying to tie the two together. The trip ticket program was in place long before the logbooks, because we needed an accounting of landings, and that was the mechanism. The logbooks were sort of something that came along afterwards. They weren’t implemented until ’91 or ’92. Mr. Phillips: I’m going to let everybody take a break in just a second. But, back to the confidence levels in your 5 million pounds, if we did another stock assessment quicker than 2011, do you think you could get some better numbers or you’d have a higher confidence level? Maybe I missed it somewhere, is your confidence level 70 percent on that 5 million; is it 50 percent? If we know where you’re at, then we’ll know what kind of recommendations we may want to make to the council as far as, you know, what – so everybody can kind of be on the same page. And how quick could you do another assessment because if it actually was or could be closer to 4 million than 5 million, then it might alleviate an awful lot of unnecessary pain for a lot of different – you know, a lot of sectors. Dr. Williams: There are a lot of questions there. It would take a while to answer some of them, but the uncertainty in that 5 million, again, we addressed it as best could in the assessment with sensitivity analyses and so forth. Will that number change or will we get a better estimate further down the line?

27


Well, the data collection systems are improving incrementally. For instance, just in 2003 or 2004 was the first time we were actually finally getting discard estimates from every sector. We finally put a discard field on the headboat forms. We were collecting reported discards in the logbooks. So, that’s one example of something that is improving. Now, is the number of samples we’re collecting improving? Somewhat. You know, I see in North Carolina they’re definitely collecting a lot more otoliths for us and so forth. The other thing about time that helps the assessment models is we do get better estimates with more time because we have more data to show how the stock responded to changes in landings and so forth, so that gives us more confidence in predicting how that stock is going to change in the future. So, it will improve with time. I can’t say how much and how certain that 5 million is. I mean, again, the SSC and the review panel thought it was good enough for management. We hope to do a better job of actually putting uncertainty estimates into it. But, just be aware of one thing, as we start to report uncertainty in these models, with the way the new Magnuson Act is written, the more uncertain things become, the more precautionary the Magnuson Act is suggesting we should be in our regulations, so it actually becomes a detriment to start including all sources of uncertainty in a sense. The question is – and this is, I am sure, what everybody would like to know, and Louis Daniel asked this question, and it’s a pertinent one – is at what point does best available data become worthless data, and it’s not good enough for management? That’s a tough one. We’re wrestling with that one all the time. That’s where we rely on the review process. That’s where we hang our hat on the SEDAR process. We hope that if we ever reach that point, other reviewers, other people that have worked on models and worked with fisheries data will tell us this is just not good enough for management. Mr. Phillips: Okay, if there is no more discussion right now, then we’ll take a ten-minute break and come back we’ll start vermilion.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

Mr. Phillips: Okay, Carolyn. Ms. Belcher: Okay, I was going to go through the report that we did for this section as well, but I think what I want to do first is give you some background on the difference between an assessment and an update. This had a lot to do with how the SSC had to look at this document that was in front of us. Under the SEDAR assessment, that goes through the multi-tiers of a data review workshop, which we still have even at the update level, but it’s not to the magnitude that the SEDAR has where there is a group that is brought together for a week from all the agencies. They sit down and they work out the data.

28


Once the datasets are decided – this is again within SEDAR – a few months later the groups get back together, and there is a stock assessment portion where they all come together and look at the data, decide what method and methodology should be applied and how they’re going to go about doing the data runs. Then they generate their report, which is what is put through a review panel. The review panel then goes through and asks all the questions under the terms of reference to say is it usable, what are our caveats with it, any exceptions, how do we look at the data and what are our outputs back. You know, basically, how do we interpret the results out of the stock assessment? When we do an update, the update has a much more condensed timeline. We have a phone call generally, which is our data workshop. What it is, is all the data that originally went into the assessment is reassessed for new data points. So, if the last assessment was done in 2002, we look to see how many data years we can add to that, can we use the current year or not, is that available to us, do we have to use the previous year, how do we go about basically increasing the data streams that we’re using. Once that is decided, then we have the assessment workshop, which has been generally done at Beaufort. We all get together and we basically do what they call a “turn of the crank”. The model is the same; there is no difference. The only main difference or change is the fact that the data stream has increased in length and it’s updated for the time period. So, all the assumptions that went into the original assessment all hold true. We have no ability to change the model. We can’t do anything that is of a major tweaking to it. All we can do is put in new data, run it through its course, and see what the output now looks like. So, with that, the update is very well limited. We don’t have that scope and ability to play with a lot of the data points that we want to. If there is new data that is available, we can’t always increase that, especially if it’s a new standing stream, like discards, say. If we’ve had discards built into landings before, just because we have discards available through, say, the logbook, we can’t take that data stream out and put that in now separate, because that’s considered a major changeover. So, with that, again, back to what we had in front of us, we had the same model that was run prior. A new field of data has been input into it, and it’s basically just bringing us up to speed for the current date. So, what we ended up finding – when we sat down as the SSC, we did a lot of deliberation on this. I mean, a good chunk of it, as you all know, is basically looking at the size of the impact. I mean, it didn’t fall short on any of us what the impact size was, and we looked at it a couple of different ways. Basically, you know, it was a matter of a few percent of difference in change that we came up with looking at it from a couple of different standpoints. But, we did sit through and look at it. The main thing that was in front of us was is it based on sound science? The answer was yes. We couldn’t dispel the science that was in front of us.

29


And while we all felt – and this has been stated by us on the record for well over a year now that this assessment actually needed to be rerun and not done as an update. This was said by us back in December on the record, and it was said prior to that earlier in the fall that we needed to see this as an assessment because of the fact it was based on lengths and not on ages. But, again, we were told that it would be done as an update, so, again, what we’re looking at is coming into question with what we’ve already said was good science. We went forward with it previously, so, basically, again, our hands are tied with what we can really dispel about what is in front of us. The same issues came up in the update that came up in the original assessment. There is too much uncertainty in the spawner/recruit relationship to be comfortable with using the biomass estimates. We had confidence in the F values that were calculated because, again, those were based on the numbers that we have in front of us as opposed to estimating a relationship and using that estimated relationship to produce our numbers, which is where our biomass comes from. So, with that, again, all we could really look at in front of us for management purposes was the F values. Because the confidence was there, and there is a mechanism through the council to actually act on reductions in F, that was where the SSC made their action to come forward with that. If we had found that the F values, we didn’t have the confidence in those values, then we probably would have been in the dilemma of we can’t accept this as is. We don’t feel comfortable with the biomass, we don’t feel comfortable with the mortality rates; we’re at an impasse, we can’t base it on that science. But, again, the F values were determined to be sound enough that we could base these suggested changes on those values. So, again, just going through the report that we presented to the Snapper Grouper Committee, the update followed the guidelines established through the terms of reference and is based on best available science. The SSC did not endorse the use of the biomass estimate for use in management because of the high degree of uncertainty associated with the recruitment and SSB estimate. However, the SSC did have confidence in calculated F values, and as such recommended management actions be based on changes in those values. The SSC also noted that there were relatively insignificant changes in the F-max. And that was looking at the original value in 2001, which was 0.355 versus that which was calculated for 2006, which is 0.375. The overall F ratio was 1.71 in 2001 and was 2.05 in 2006. In general, data were handled appropriately, although a few issues were noted for the record. Estimates did not address the full issue of recreational discards. As headboat and charter logs were included; however, they were not included in the original benchmark; and adding new data streams was outside of the purview of the update. Based on the data for the update, the SSC was able to conclude the following about the South Atlantic Vermilion Stock.

30


The stock is undergoing overfishing as of 2006; again, with that ratio of 2.05. Without biomass benchmarks, we could not determine if the stock was overfished. F values continue to indicate overfishing is still occurring. And again looking at projections, it is at a slightly higher rate. Based on the F ratio, the calculated reduction of 61 percent of the total catch results in reducing total landings to 628,459 pounds. That was calculated during the meeting to get an idea of what that value was. Mr. Phillips: Okay, questions? Okay, what will you have to do to get a biomass, because I believe you should ideally be working off a biomass if that’s the new rule? So, what do you need to get biomass? Ms. Belcher: This is where I will defer to Erik because this was actually deemed if we were going to be looking at the assessment, there was a discussion of a different methodology being used for the modeling. So, there is no guarantee that we will get a better – basically, based on the spawner/recruit relationship, I don’t know that it will increase our fit within the spawner/recruit relationship, but it’s a better overall approach. I think Erik can give you a little bit more background on that. Dr. Williams: I think what Carolyn said is right. With different modeling techniques, sometime you can elucidate what a biomass estimate would be. For instance, a production model, although we attempted it in the original benchmark assessment, it didn’t work, but we also didn’t use a logbook index at that time, which we now have techniques and methods for estimating a logbook catch-per-unit effort index, so that would be an additional index that might be added into a new assessment. New indices help you get better estimates of biomass. One problem is what we’re basing MSY on largely is that stock/recruit relationship. And if there is no functional relationship there or if the plot just looks too noisy, we don’t trust any of the biomass estimates then at that point. So we don’t have an MSY biomass estimate and we don’t even get an FMSY. And that’s why, in this stock assessment, that was the case, and what we end up with is an FMSY proxy, which in this case was F-max, which is a per-recruit calculation. You don’t need a stock/recruit relationship to do that, and so that’s sort of where we are. I can’t say whether for sure we will get a biomass estimate with any new assessment or not. Mr. Phillips: So, I guess you’re doing the best you can with the data that you have, but I’m guessing your confidence level in it is nominal at best. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Dr. Williams: Well, again, I won’t offer my personal opinion, but, yes, I mean, from the report it is pretty evident we didn’t have enough information to get a biomass estimate, so that should tell you something about the quality of the data. It also meant we couldn’t get an FMSY, so we had to use a proxy for that, which is a per-recruit proxy. As far as the certainty in that, it is what it is and the SEDAR process approved it. Mr. Amick: I’m not sure if this is the correct time to state this, but as far as the assessment on the vermilion snapper, you have your assessment, and I just want to get on record what I feel is

31


going on just off the coast of Georgia, what we see. What really bothers me is not so much as a biomass, but as far as, you know, the statement that it’s overfishing, and just because of the level of recreational charter/headboat fishing off the coast. I know personally, my personal opinion, off the coast of Georgia, the recreational charter/headboat, we’re not overfishing what we have off the coast of Georgia. It might be different somewhere else along the council’s – North Carolina, South Carolina, East Florida. But, in Georgia the overfishing is not occurring. I know we’re a small percentage on the overall catch and effort. Like today, I can tell you there is not one vermilion snapper being caught off the Georgia. It’s as simple as that. Weather-wise, we’ve been off 30 percent of our trips off the coast of Georgia. We just can’t go out. We’ve lost 30 percent of our booked trips. That one inch that we went through three or four years or five years of meetings and APs, and that one inch has substantially – personally, I’m looking at a 30 percent release rate on the vermilions that we’re catching, so that hasn’t affected the overfishing. It’s hard for me to believe what is going off the coast of Georgia, that the stocks are being overfished. Now, that’s my assessment of what’s going off Georgia. Dr. Williams: Can I add one more thing that Carolyn probably should have mentioned, is this benchmark assessment only had data through 2006, which did not have any of the management changes. So, essentially, what was reflected in that assessment was it didn’t reflect that one-inch minimum size limit increase or any of the new management actions that went in with 13C. So, that was one of the other reasons that the SSC had recommended that we not do an update because we wouldn’t have even had any new data to reflect the change in management in the assessment. In fact, the update is perfectly consistent with the benchmark because there was no management action between the time that the benchmark assessment was done and the time that the update was done. So, what it showed was pretty consistent with the benchmark, which just lended more credence to the fact that, well, it was the best we had, and it didn’t differ from the original benchmark assessment, which was approved by a review panel. Mr. Adams: It just cries out for more information. I mean, NMFS has got give it or somebody has got to give us some more information. It just sounds like to me we’ve got an assessment that doesn’t add up. Overfishing may be occurring, but it’s really kind of hard to say – I guess you can say that. As a consequence of that, the council is going to have to do something to stop overfishing, but it cries out for more information. If you’re guessing at F – I mean, it’s simple, that is nothing or not much. And to declare that overfishing is occurring, I guess you’re kind of way out there on a tightrope with that. We’ve just got to have more information to do it, but they’re going to have to do something anyway because they declared that overfishing is occurring. It’s unfortunate.

32


Mr. Phillips: So, let me make this clear. The assessment is we’re overfishing according to the old regulations, not the new regulations; is that what you just told me? Dr. Williams: More or less, that’s what that assessment suggests to us because we did not have data that included any time in which the new regulations had gone in place, so, yes, what that is is an indication of the time before Amendment 13C, essentially. Mr. Phillips: Was there any way that you could have interpolated or – and I guess because you did an update, you had to follow in a narrow scope so you couldn’t necessarily say, well, what if this regulation – I just want to be clear. Dr. Williams: I mean, we do try to do a lot of – we try to interpret the regulations – you know, like if we know a minimum size limit is going to go into place, we try to account for that in the model, but oftentimes the reaction of the fishery to a management policy is about as predictable as recruitment in many cases, frankly. Well, the other added factor is when you have something like Amendment 13C going in place, it’s affecting more than just vermilion snapper. It’s affecting a whole suite of things, and the whole fishery changes completely, and so it’s beyond prediction, almost. Mr. Hooks: This is very hard to believe. And only fishing from the state of North Carolina, it smells a whole like the red porgy debate. It was shut down for – or cut down for approximately a month, and then all of a sudden we had an emergency closure. It sounds to me like the data you have is pre-regulation, and we’re not even getting to see what is going to happen, and now we’re introducing more regulations. I mean, how do we know that by the time we get to Atlantic Beach in December we’re not going to say 81 percent? How do you keep getting ahead of yourself in such a way? Maybe you can tell me; I don’t understand it, and I don’t think most of you do, to be honest. I mean, how do you keep manipulating numbers when you don’t know what is actually – numbers are easy to manipulate; fish aren’t. The fish are only doing one thing. You’re doing a lot of things with the same numbers and coming up with different answers all the time. How can you regulate when everything keeps changing so quickly? Nobody has time to see if anything is working anymore. Mr. Phillips: Well, I have got another technical question. I read in this little stack of papers vermilion were basically mature at eight inches, give or take a half inch. We’re catching 12-inch fish. They’re mature within a year, two years at the most. We’re under limited entry. We don’t have an increased effort unless somebody gets pushed from fishery to another. Shark fishermen may be doing some B-liners or something so they can eat. But, we don’t really have increased effort. We have had the same landings, with the exception of the cold water year, for the last ten years, more or less. If we are overfishing something that is mature at less then two years, why didn’t we have a huge stock crash before now? I mean, how did we avoid that? I mean, surely, you can have some good recruitment every now and then, but

33


I mean on the average how in the world did we – common sense tells me this doesn’t add up. I’m just a fish monger, but common sense tells me somewhere we should have had a huge crash, and the landings don’t show it. Help me. Dr. Williams: Well, one thing to understand is overfishing does not equate with stock collapse. Stock collapse is an entirely different is an entirely different phenomena. Overfishing can lead to a stock collapse, but you can overfish a population and maintain it an overfishing level sustainably. The problem is that level you’re maintaining it at is a very low level. Basically, it’s what we term growth overfishing. You essentially are catching more of the fish too quickly, or you’re catching them too quickly before they actually have time to grow and get bigger, so you’re actually not getting the maximum sustainable yield out of it. You’re getting some lesser sustainable yield, and so that is why that’s basically overfishing. So, what we’re saying is if you back off and the population recovers, you actually will get more yield out of it. You will get that maximum yield at a lower fishing mortality rate. Mr. Phillips: Okay. Well, they’ve been letting me come to these meetings for a while, and I was back when they used to be a spawning stock ratio. That was probably before my beard got gray. And I remember being told specifically when the stocks are healthy and the healthier they got, the bigger the fish got. When you started overfishing the stocks, the fish got smaller. So, if we’re overfishing, technically what the fishermen were bring in to me should have been a smaller grade of fish. And, I know I don’t see it. Maybe Phil can chime in and tell us what he is seeing. But, over the years – and I have been packing fish for 15 years, give or take – I’m not seeing that size change, so help me understand why I’m not seeing that. Dr. Williams: Well, I’ve looked at that. I’ve tried to look in more detail what in the assessment is sort of hinting that there is overfishing is going on. There is a reduction in the size. What we’re seeing is the biggest fish, age six-plus, over 18 inches, their numbers are declining. Now, it’s not say that they’re not out there, but their numbers are declining relative to the small fish. In particular, what we consider our better data sources, a fishing-independent survey, the MARMAP data, it shows a pretty severe decline. I’ll give you an example. We do have some age data for vermilion that went into this assessment, and that was primarily from MARMAP. In 1999 25 percent of the fish were age six-plus. By 2005 that percentage was down to 2 percent. So, that to us was suggesting there was a severe truncation of the age structure, which suggests some rapid increase in fishing. That is what I think is at the core of this assessment of overfishing is occurring. Mr. Gray: This is all length-based on vermilion, right? It’s not age-based. I understand there is a huge number of otoliths in the lab that are sitting there to be analyzed. What are our options to defer any action and request that those be analyzed to really get a better idea of the age structure and what is going on rather than just using the length-based data?

34


Dr. Williams: I can’t really answer that right now, but I think that question is going to be probably answered by others other than me. Mr. Hooks: Erik, one question, you just mentioned the year 1995, I think? Dr. Williams: 1999. Mr. Hooks: 1999. Since 1999 there’s probably – I can’t remember exactly, but I’m thinking that there were like 1,800 permits. There are actually less than 400 being used now. Would that not have something to do with that? Besides the fact, the larger B-liners, I don’t know if you all do, but most of us know, are mainly in deeper water that not a lot of these smaller boats that are able to get to that mainly your bigger boats are getting to and staying on them. Probably in ’99, there was quite a bit more effort than there is now. We’ve have been reduced down to a very small amount. How did you figure that into your equation? Dr. Williams: Yes, I think I mentioned earlier for this assessment we did not use the logbook data because this was back in the early stages when we weren’t sure how to use the logbook data because there are some caveats with using that data. You have to run a bunch of analyses similar to what I mentioned earlier about choosing trips that are going to actually have a chance of catching vermilion and so forth. The data that went into this as far as abundance indices that included effort was the headboat index and then we had the MARMAP abundance index. Those were the only two abundance indices we had in there. I will say this, the headboat index actually showed a slight increase in the population; whereas, the MARMAP index suggested a pretty steep decline. And given the choice between those two, assessment scientists are going to go with the fishery-independent index, if they have to choose one or the other, because there are a lot of problems with fishery-dependent catch-per-unit effort indices. We try to use them, but there are some issues with them. So, given the choice between those two, we’re going to hang our hat, so to speak, on the fishery-independent index. And in this case, as I mentioned earlier, the fishery-independent index suggests a declining population, and the age structure from the fishery-independent survey suggested a severe truncation of the age structure. Both are indicators of a population in decline to us, and that’s I think what is behind this assessment result. Mr. Adams: It just seems to me the common sense thing, since you have to do something, the council has to do something because they’re faced with this overfishing thing, is to do as little as we can, and then also to get the information. If it’s based on best available science and we’ve got these bones sitting over there ready to be measured and getting some sort of an age thing and we have got headboat information that we’re not using, that looks like best available science to me is not being made available. It’s crushing to me to think that we have to do what affects people’s lives on the basis of having information on the table that we’re not even using. So, if you’re required to do something, then

35


in my situation I would say do the least you can, council, and get this other information on the table and use. That’s my common sense sort of approach. Mr. Gray: And following on what Charlie said with Gregg back in the room, Gregg, I had asked the question with all these otoliths that are in the lab unanalyzed and the vermilion assessment being based on length rather than age, what are our options to delay action until we get those otoliths analyzed, and what can we do as a minimum until that analysis data is available? Mr. Waugh: Well, as I understand, there are some discussions ongoing now about that. This has been raised at the scoping meetings for Amendment 16. I am not sure exactly right now where that situation is. We are supposed to get a report at our Snapper Grouper Committee meeting tomorrow, and we’ll just have to see. That’s the best I can answer now. Hopefully, we’ll have a better answer for you tomorrow. Mr. Phillips: If we were to ask for another assessment, how fast do you think we could get one with some logbook data in it and with the results of the new regulations actually being incorporated in it? Basically, they’re asking us to make recommendations on more regulations, as Danny said on the old regulations, and the regulations that were given in the meantime, they are not even in this, so we’re actually trying to work off of outdated data. Mr. Waugh: Well, we’re talking vermilion actually, but we have vermilion data through ’06, so that is really recent. I think some of the commercial data and maybe some of the headboat data were filled in a little bit, but that’s pretty darned good in terms of having data and data availability. As far as having some data with regulations in place, if you’re referring to the commercial quota of 1.1 million pounds, that was always designed just to shave off those high years, which we had hoped would prevent overfishing. So, you might have to wait quite a while for that to hit. If you’re talking about the increase in the recreational size limit, it caught a couple of months last year, but then you’d have to wait for all of this year to have that data become available. I don’t know that this is an important consideration, to be honest with you. To me, it’s more getting the assessment done based on ages versus based on lengths. In terms of how fast that can happen, Erik might have a better handle on that. My view, my personal view without having spoken with Erik from an assessment standpoint and with John Carmichael or with the folks at the Beaufort Lab who would be in charge of processing these age-based data, if the council is in a box, they’ve got an approved SEDAR assessment update, it’s approved by the SSC, they have to impose that level of reduction. We have got a letter in hand that says we have to finalize that by June. To me, the level of impacts are so huge, it seems incumbent upon the agency to do the assessment, have it provided to the SSC at June, so that the council – if they’re putting this June requirement on the council, then they should be able to devote the necessary resources, in my personal opinion, to do the analysis with the age-based data by then. Now, I don’t know what other demands are on their time, and they would certainly have a different view than mine, I can guarantee that.

36


Mr. Phillips: I can’t imagine them not wanting to do another vermilion assessment and getting some biomass in there and those recreational limits, if nothing else. I am sure they can do that; I have confidence in them. Mr. Hooks: This question is for Gregg again. You just mentioned this data for the commercial and the headboat were filled in. Can you explain that, how you just fill in numbers and data for a fishery? Mr. Waugh: Well, I think for the commercial some of the Georgia landings were not available when the assessment was done. I don’t know if Erik has a better recollection of the specifics here. But, I mean, it’s certainly not making up data. The assessment was done, and we didn’t have all the data from ’06, so you’re missing several months, so what is your best estimate based on previous landings of what those missing months are. We, the council, wanted them to do the assessment through 2006 to make sure they had the most recent data. So, where there was some data not complete – and I believe it was the commercial and the headboat – those data were filled in. I don’t know if Erik wants to add anything more to that. Dr. Williams: No, I think Gregg summed it up well. We were only filling in like the last few months, so you look at the behavior during those last few months and the last few years, and say, well, if they were catching X percent of the total of the year in October through December, we’ll apply that same percentage to the last year. Mr. Hooks: Can I ask what months those were? Dr. Williams: You’re really testing my memory, but, yes, I think it was like just the last three months or four months, at the most. Mr. Hooks: Which months; do you know? Dr. Williams: October, November, December. Mr. Adams: Well, you know to me this seems simple. I would think that we would suggest to the council that they do the least amount possible and to get that information that’s already on the table and use that information to upgrade or update or whatever you want to call it to the assessment so that we’re basing any larger cuts on the basis of the best information we can get; so, delay until June – do the least you can and then get the information on the table and then make a decision. Mr. Conklin: One of the things that you need to look at, when you do the earbone thing, is – I know that there is a lot of earbone sampling in South Carolina, a whole lot of it. Now, I don’t know how much they’re doing in North Carolina. I mean, there may be more in South Carolina than any other state. I wouldn’t base the size of the fish or the age limit of the samples you get out of South Carolina as to the ones you get in North Carolina. There is a much bigger stock of bigger fish in North Carolina than there is in South Carolina.

37


Mr. Oden: That kind of ties in with what happened with snowy grouper, I guess, being as they all came out of South Carolina and got sampled, right, and we’re stuck looking like all we catch are five pounders. Mr. Phillips: Charlie, did you want to make that in the form of a motion? Mr. Adams: I make that in the form of a motion. My motion is to suggest to the council that they do the option that has the least impact that still satisfies the ending overfishing – that they do the least action that they can take that qualify for overfishing – that will end overfishing; and that we get the information, the data that’s already available and use that to improve the information that we have to make a better decision after June. In other words, delay until June and get the information going as quickly as possible to get the best information we can get, and revisit it as soon as possible. Mr. Phillips: Charlie, basically, you’re saying that you want a new vermilion assessment with all the updated data, the logbook, the regulations with the new regulations on the recreational – you want the newest data, including logbook, and basically you’re asking for a new assessment before they do these drastic – Mr. Adams: I’m asking for an assessment that uses all of the best data that we’ve got, to use that, in addition to requiring – to do what we have to do in terms of ending overfishing. I mean, we can’t just say you can’t not do anything, because that’s the law, but get the information out there. In other words, do everything we can do to get NMFS off the dime and get into that bone information and the other information that’s already there, that could be included in improving the assessment we already have. I’m sorry it was too long, but it’s best I can do. Mr. Oden: Yes, I want to be on record of seconding something Charlie has proposed; can I do that, please. Mr. Adams: This is a first, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Phillips: Okay, is that what you’re talking about? Mr. Adams: I’m sorry, I think the council get the sense of what I think our sense is; that we’re kind of outraged that this information is out there available to be used and it’s not even being used. Mr. Gray: It’s not analyzed. Mr. Adams: It’s not analyzed, and I think that is very unfortunate and we need to remedy that. This is definitely for vermilion. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I’ve a first and second. Now, discussion?

38


Mr. Zimmerman: What were the other types of data that were left out? I understand that there is otolith information, but can somebody just – I know we talked about it earlier. Mr. Phillips: Erik, could you give us a laundry list of what you’d like to be able to put in the new assessment? Dr. Williams: Yes, what was left out that we normally have in our assessments is all this additional age information, as well as any information from the logbook. Usually what we get from the logbook is another abundance index, the catch-per-unit effort index from the logbooks. Those would be the two big ones. Mr. Phillips: Any more discussion? Mark, do you want to chip in? Mr. Marhefka: Yes, I want to apologize for being late here, but I had to unload some vermilions. There were some large ones; there was a good range class all the way around. I have a quick question. Why wasn’t all this stuff – I mean, this is the second time we’re going through this since 13C. Why are we now just deciding we’re going to go and look into this again? I mean, why wasn’t this already used? We’re grinding this right now and talking about it. I mean, I’m asking the SSC. You know, with reading the final report and everything that I see that you guys – you know, you guys are gods now from the way I would read it. Why wasn’t this used then? I mean, help me out here. Dr. Williams: Excellent question. You see, I have to be careful with my words because this is my own agency I’m talking about here. But, essentially, priorities were shifted for other species. We cannot keep up with annual aging of all the otoliths that come into the lab in Beaufort. We have to archive a lot them, and we focus on the species that is next on the list on the SEDAR list, and we try to get up then with that particular species. In this case our lab was gearing up for a white grunt assessment that was on the SEDAR schedule, and we had over 10,000 otoliths of white grunt that they were grinding away at. Then along came this request for an update, and we couldn’t shift in time, so basically we never shifted the aging to vermilions; and being an update, we were kind of restricted. Because as Carolyn mentioned earlier, an update assessment is very restrictive. It has to follow the original benchmark and just update the time series of data that went into the benchmark. So that precluded us from including the logbook data, because otherwise it would have been a whole new model. So that’s sort of where we ended up. Again, for us to do a new vermilion assessment, we’re going to have to shift gears again and try to get – I can tell you we have 9,600 otoliths at the Beaufort Lab waiting to be aged. Mr. Hooks: My question here is from what I understand – and this is a letter that came to the office of the fisheries’ organization in North Carolina from Congressman Jones’ office that Dr. Hogarth had told him, because of whatever reason, that there would be an age-based assessment done. And, if we’re not working off of the assumption of this, why are we pushing ahead?

39


Mr. Waugh: Events are sort of unfolding here. In June we got a letter from the Regional Administrator saying that vermilion we’re still overfishing, gag we’re overfishing and approaching an overfished, and the council has to take action under old Magnuson to prepare an amendment within a year. So, at our June meeting – I think June 12th was the date of the letter. We have until June 12, 2008, to prepare an amendment or the Secretary will prepare an amendment under old Magnuson. Under the reauthorized Magnuson, the timeline to prepare an amendment is two years. So, it may be an easy out is just for the realization that we are in ’07, and we should operated under the reauthorized Magnuson, and that would give us two years, and we could probably have a vermilion assessment done in two years. So, there are a lot events unfolding here very quickly. I haven’t seen the letter you’re talking about; I don’t know that the council has. Again, this will be discussed at our Snapper Grouper Committee meeting. We need to get some clarification from the National Marine Fisheries Service as to what deadline is the council supposed to meet. Mr. McKeon: Sean McKeon, North Carolina Fisheries Association. Bill Hogarth called Congressman Jones’ office on Friday and told them, himself, that he agreed, after speaking with Louis Daniel, our director, and talking with Congressman Jones and hearing from us, that it should be done and it would be done. I think it would be kind of simple. Somebody from the National Marine Fisheries Service ought to call Bill Hogarth’s office and say this is a topic of discussion; is that in fact happening? We were told it was. And he said, also, that it probably will be done before the June meeting. I asked Louis Daniel if that , as a scientist, is possible. He said it’s very possible unless – I am not a scientist – there is some cutting that might have to happen. They have to cut them in half or slice them somehow, which could take longer. But, what I asked specifically in the event that it does not get to the June meeting, what then, and Dr. Hogarth told Jones’ office, and they told me about 30 seconds after the fact that he said, “I will recommend holding off action until an age-based assessment is done.” Mr. Zimmerman: I just, you know, want to bring us back to the main point here, which is if we don’t have the time and the ability to do or to follow the SEDAR process based on what the Magnuson Act is asking us to do, then that’s an inherent flaw in fisheries management. You know, like I say, our lives – and that’s why I asked for that socio-economic assessment, and if we can’t conduct a proper SEDAR, then we’re not – regardless of what the law says, we’ve got serious issues. Mr. Phillips: Roy, can you come and explain the rules, please. We don’t know which set of Magnuson’s we working under and we need some help. Dr. Crabtree: Why don’t you tell me?

40


Mr. Phillips: Are we working under the old Magnuson where we have a little bit of wiggle room on vermilion, in particular, right now; or, are we working under the new Magnuson where we absolutely must do the cuts that come from the committee? Then what we really would like is a new assessment before anything is done, so we can get some biomass and get logbooks and get the most updated data before we take a 60 percent reduction in harvest. Dr. Crabtree: Okay, the catch limit requirements don’t go into place until 2010 for stocks that are undergoing overfishing; and vermilion, under anything we have, is undergoing overfishing. And then the requirement that council’s actions much be sufficient to end overfishing immediately goes into place in the middle of 2009, so that’s not in effect now. Now, that doesn’t change the reality of that. We have been working at phasing out the overfishing of vermilion snapper I think since the first status report to congress was done back around 1996, so that’s a problem. Now, I know there are concerns about the assessment, and I know there has been a lot of discussion with folks and Dr. Hogarth and others. I think what we are trying to do now – and I have talked to Bill about it – is council is going to talk about trying to move up the vermilion assessment. I think all of us would feel more comfortable if we could get all these otoliths read and a new benchmark assessment. So, we’re going to talk about that and try to see what we can do. We think that we could get it into the SEDAR schedule in 2008, and probably the best option is bump white grunt back and move it up. So, we’re going to see about that. Now, there are somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 otoliths; I am not sure how many. Dr. Williams: 9,600 at our lab. Dr. Crabtree: 9,600 otoliths that need to be read and we’re going to have to see what that entails and when that can be done. I think we have to have those discussions this week, but I think we will be able to get the assessment moved up. Now, in the meantime council needs to keep moving forward. Amendment 16, remember, is not just vermilion; it’s also gag, but we need to keep looking at options for vermilion because there is no assurance. If we get a new assessment, it still may come out overfishing. It may not; I don’t know. But we do have constraints on us in terms of timing. The law does indicate the council needs to take action by their June meeting. I think we’re going to have look at how all this can done, when it can done, how it all times out, and all. I suspect we’ll talk this week. The science side will look at what they can do. When we come back at the December meeting, we’ll probably have a lot better idea as to when things can be done and schedules and who is doing what and where we are on this. I think in the meantime we need to keep moving forward, but I think we agree – I think we’re all in agreement that we’d like to see this assessment done, and we’d like to see it done before we put any regulations in place, if we can.

41


None of us want to do something and make a mistake; so, to the extent that we can get all this done, I think we will be better served. But, there is a lot to do in one of these assessments, and we’re going to have to take a look at when and what can be done, and then do the best we can. Mr. Phillips: Okay, so you’re telling us that if we were to approach this kind of like we did snowy grouper where you took 10 percent one year, 20 percent next year, and 30 percent next year, or something along those lines, toward ending overfishing, while we were working on our new stock assessment, that would kind of cover you and give the fishermen and the recreational fishermen and the headboats some relief in the meantime until we get a new stock assessment. And if the new stock assessment says the same thing as this one, we’re already building that way, so something like that might work; is that what I’m hearing? Dr. Crabtree: Will, I think we’re going to have to take some action. All of that is going to depend on the record we can build and whether we can defend what we ultimately decide to do. There is a whole ‘nother group of people out there who think we’re taking way too long to do these kinds of things, and so we’ve got to be careful. I think we’re going to have discussions about all those things and try to figure out the best course of action. Mr. Waugh: But, Charlie, there won’t be the opportunity for three steps. The earliest regulations could get into effect with Amendment 16 would be 2009. And as Roy just pointed out, the requirement to end overfishing and to have these catch limits in place that end overfishing comes on line in 2010. So, the most liberal the council could be is to have one step. So, assuming now we go with the 61 percent, they could take one chunk of that in ’09, but then come January 1, 2010, the regulations would have to be in effect to end overfishing. Dr. Crabtree: Yes, Gregg is exactly right on that one. There is not much flexibility left. And, remember, it’s like pulling a tooth, if you want to do it real slow like, it might hurt a lot worse when you get all said and done and finished with it. Mr. Hooks: The problem I have with this is the decisions that are going to be made under the assumption that this is going through as it is now and that the new assessment does not change anything. The decisions that I make and other people make about vermilion, it rolls over into gag grouper. It rolls over into sea bass. Those of us that fish multiple fisheries have to consider each part of it instead of just one fishery, that that’s all I do is catch B-liners, vermilion snapper; or, I just catch grouper. When you catch everything in multiple fisheries, a decision you make on one thing affects everything else. Now, how can we make good decisions when we don’t know what is going to happen with the current situation? I cannot honestly say that I can make a good decision on gag grouper when I don’t know what’s going to happen with vermilion snapper, because my business depends on it. You’re leaving a lot of uncertainty in everybody’s mind, but yet you’re nice and safe. By taking some, you’re

42


covered, but you’re leaving us uncovered. I don’t think it’s fair to ask us to make a decision when you don’t even know what’s happening now. Dr. Crabtree: Well, I understand what you’re saying, Danny, and we can talk about that, but if we’re going to do another assessment next year on vermilion, I don’t know what it’s going to come out and show. So, I don’t know what to tell you in terms of what the final bottom line on vermilion snapper is going to be. We’re going to have to get farther down this process and try to work through some of this. But, if we just drop vermilion and wait until the end of next year, then we’ll be all of 2009 working through vermilion and we’ll be into 2010 before we get anything done. We’re going to have to be careful about that. Mr. Hooks: Well, if I may offer up something, it seems like the council is very quick to want to take a little bit and then wait and see what happens; and then if it’s not right, I guess your feelings on this is we would reverse it, possibly, if the assessment shows up different than what it is now; am I correct? It’s a possibility. Dr. Crabtree: It really depends on what happens. That’s one way it could work out is that the council could take action and then if the assessment came out in the fall and it was wrong, the Fishery Service could disapprove it or not forward with it. But, until we have discussed it, I don’t know how the council is going to want to do it, because we haven’t had any discussions about any of this. Mr. Hooks: I understand it is early in the week, the first meeting, but instead of you taking some and then we wait and see, why don’t you give us some and then we’ll wait and see? I mean, what is the difference? Isn’t that just as fair as whatever you’re putting up? You’re offering to take a few and we’ll wait and see; I’m saying give us a few more and then we’ll wait and see. Dr. Crabtree: Well, we can talk about that, Danny, and you can tell me what it is you want and we can look at it. Mr. Hooks: Give us another 2 million pounds. Dr. Crabtree: Well, I don’t think you’re even going to catch what we gave you this year. Mr. Hooks: That’s what I’m saying, we haven’t reached our quota yet. Mr. Marhefka: You know, I just want to ask Erik – and I don’t want to put you guys on the spot, but the other SSC members – do you really think you’re going to go and find something different? Do you really think you’re going to find something different after working the models and running into logbooks, CPUE, and cutting up a lot of otoliths? Do you really think you’re going to go and see anything different, and is the overall picture really going to go and change, if it does, and how much – I mean, you’re really talking about a

43


huge amount to make it change, okay. Is it really going to go and happen? And if that’s the case, then, yes, we really need to sort of slow things down. But, I’d like to go and hear this from the SSC, do you really feel that we’re going to go and get some sort of bang for our buck by doing these extra issues? I understand they should have been done, to me, before we’re even sitting here discussing this right now. Can you just give me some sort of level of what you think? Dr. Williams: Actually, probably not, Mark, because I really don’t know which way this will go, and I don’t even want to try to forecast what’s going to happen. I mean, the bottom line is more data is better. The more data we throw at these models, that, without a doubt is better, usually. Now, better means we get estimates that we think are more accurate and more reflective of what’s really going on out there, and that’s what I mean by better. Mr. Oden: Did they not do an assessment in the Gulf and it changed things there? Dr. Crabtree: They did. Mr. Oden: And it changed things? Dr. Crabtree: It did. The stock had been overfished and undergoing overfishing, and the assessment was redone and it came out that it was not overfished or undergoing overfishing. So, you know, that did happen. Remember, we tend to think of overfishing and not overfishing as black or white, but, remember, it’s not like that. It’s usually it’s probably undergoing overfishing or that’s the most likely, but I don’t know that we could ever say with 100 percent certainty the status of anything. So, in general, if it’s more likely than 50 percent that it’s undergoing overfishing, then it gets classified as undergoing overfishing. Some of you probably don’t agree with that, but that’s the way it is. But, you’re right, that assessment did switch. Now, I can show you a large number of other assessments where the models were changed and it didn’t switch, and that’s really more often the case than the other. But, I can’t tell you – I’m like Erik, until it’s done we don’t know. Mr. Amick: We have a meeting in December, so between the time period now and December, from the AP what does the council expect, you know, as far as input from the AP? You know, I came here kind of I’m not sure – I was surprised by the reductions. And, also, between now and December, what is the council looking for? Dr. Crabtree: I would think they’re going to want to hear from you that if we do have to get these reductions – and let’s assume this assessment is going to come up that we’ve got to get reductions – what are the things we need to start looking at, what are the ways we might want to do it so that we can go ahead and try to do a lot of those analyses so that if we can get these otoliths read and we can get this assessment done, when we get the results, we can move forward very quickly. That’s going to be the concern.

44


The council is going to have to sort out how they’re going to handle that, and are we going to move forward on something in June or what are we going to do? That, we’re going to have to talk about, but we’re going to need to deal with – I think it would be a mistake for us all just to say, well, let’s just assume everything is going to be fine and not do anything. I just think that would be irresponsible on our part. I think we ought to assume that while the status may change some, there is still likely going to be problem. Let’s get out in front of this thing and talk about how we’re going to fix this and what are going to do about it, because we’re not going to have much time when we get there. Mr. Hooks: Roy, I want to ask you a question I asked Gregg earlier, the role of the advisory panel member. Are we still advising on fisheries management or just fisheries reduction? It seems like from what is in here, we are no more than just advising on what cuts we can take anymore, because everything else has – our actual job has been taken away as advising on fisheries management. It seems like everything is cut and dried now. Dr. Crabtree: Well, I think you’re advising on fisheries management. I think there are going to be cases where there are going to be discussions about, all right, the TAC can go up, what do we do about that? I know it doesn’t feel like that now, but if we get the overfishing under control, we’re going to start seeing TACs go up, and I think that’s going to be there. There are other issues such as do you want to move forward on individual fishing quotas or any of those kinds of programs. There are a lot of things. This is tough times in fisheries management for all of us, and I know these reductions are tough. Congress has come in and they have really laid a lot tougher law on us to end the overfishing, and we’re just to have to get through it as best we can. Mr. Hooks: It just seems that I’ve heard all this before. You know, in 1978 I was in Naples, Italy, with the United States Navy, and a bunch of us wandered into a park. They had rock and roll music playing, and they were telling everybody, “Go along with what we’ve got to say and things will be better for you for a long time”, until about 15 of us looked up in the corner, and there were red flags up there with a sickle and hammer on them. Now, we got out of there quick. It was communist rally and they were telling us exactly the same thing, “believe us now and everything will be a lot better”. And this just kind of feels like this – Dr. Crabtree: I don’t think I’m telling you that, Danny. I think what I’m telling you is that there will be occasions when the TACs are going to be able to go up, but this is a tough time now. I can’t tell you what is going to happen in the future and where all this is going. But, we’ve got to do what the law requires us to do. Mr. Kipnis: Danny, you won’t be around when the TACs go up. Mark is not going to be around, you’re not going to be around, you won’t be around. Okay, it has gone down and down and down. Now, unfortunately, congress, in its all-knowing ways – you know how smart they

45


are up there, that’s why we elect them – has tied Roy’s hands, the council’s hands, our hands by law, and you won’t be around. The TACs will eventually go up, because if there is nobody there to utilize these fisheries, that’s the best form of management there is. Nobody takes them, they’re going to grow, and then there won’t be anybody to use them. It’s the reality of the situation, Bud, and the law has been changed, and we’re all going to suffer, major. Start calling your congressmen. I guarantee you this, that a lot of the environmental groups, of which I belong to some of them, have pushed this in hard way. I’m not happy with them either. They don’t want you around. They want us closed down like the California coast is right now, half of the California coast. They want marine protected areas, because I sit in at their board meetings. Trust me, it’s on the agenda, they don’t want you. They don’t want recreational anglers either, a lot of people. They don’t want recreational anglers either. Believe me, it’s coming to the recreational side also. And that’s what the reality of the situation is. You can stave off on vermilion snapper as long as you want, because I really don’t believe the assessment. I think the new assessment would be more like the Gulf of Mexico one. I don’t necessarily agree that the gag grouper one is not correct. That could very well be. But, you know, there isn’t time; they took the time away, man. And you have been asked to take cuts for years. I have been sitting here for 12 years, cut after cut after cut. And the reason that I’ve switched from being a conservationist is because I’m also a humanitarian, and I’ve watched what’s happened to you guys, and it really bothers me. I think people have to come sometimes before the resource, and you’ve got to find a balance and there is no balance. Congress has mandated that you don’t count and fish do. My statement is made. Now I can go home back to Miami. Mr. Waugh: Just coming back to a comment that Steve Amick made about you all coming back in December, this is your December meeting. We moved it up because when the vermilion and gag issues surfaced, we wanted to get your input before the council starts selecting alternatives. So, this is your chance for input right now on what will go in Amendment 16. The council is only looking at options at this stage. The intent, though, is that at the December meeting they would approve options to go out to public hearing in order to meet that June deadline. So, this is your shot for Amendment 15 and 16. Certainly, you can attend the public hearings, but as an AP this is your shot today and tomorrow. Mr. Cardin: I thought we were talking about that if the B-liners turned out to be five, six, seven – excuse me, four, five or six years old, that it would be very relevant in the growth overfishing, whether it was occurring or not? Dr. Williams: Yes, if the new data were to show – the new age data were to show that there were a lot more older fish out there than what the MARMAP survey was saying, then, you know,

46


that’s something that might sway this assessment in the other direction, but I don’t know how that is going to turn out. We don’t know. Mr. Cardin: But it’s more than a minute possibility that it could actually make a big change? It’s totally relevant if they are five- or six-year-old fish? Dr. Williams: That data is going to be relevant no matter what it says. I mean, it’s going to be important additional information that’s either going to confirm or contradict. Mr. Adams: I just wanted to note that we have a motion in front in front of us, and I’d like to go ahead and get a vote on it. Mr. McKeon: Just a point of order, I’m not familiar with your process. Is it not possible to convene an emergency meeting of this AP if the results of something were moving in that direction, you could request an additional meeting? Although this is now considered your December meeting, if things changed, is it not possible to request an additional meeting to address anything that might come new to affect what you’re going to be in effect voting on in December? Mr. Phillips: I’d have to bring this up with council staff. Mr. Waugh: As I understand it, the question is can you request an emergency or another meeting of the Snapper Grouper AP; and if that’s the question, yes, you certainly can. It depends on our funding. I think it would be difficult to hold another one this year, but we generally plan on one each year. So, there would be one next year, and we could do it earlier, if your desire is to have it prior to the June meeting. Mr. Phillip: Okay, we have a motion on the table, so we need to vote. Does it apply to the motion? Go ahead, Steve. Mr. Amick: I agree with the motion, but if this is the opportunity to talk about the possibility of reductions, I’ll go ahead and do it now off the top of my head. If I may, I mean, as far as possible reductions as far as the charter/headboat for the council, one way that you can get a reduction that I’ve seen in the charter/headboat, like in the Gulf you have the bag limits for the captain and the mate or the crew that are excluded from the catch, and we don’t do that in the South Atlantic. So, that would be a percent, like in a six-pack boat you’ve got a limit of 60 vermilion snapper for the anglers, and then you have the captain and the mate, that makes 80 vermilions on a possible charter. So, I mean, if you exclude the bag limit for the captain and crew, you’re cutting it 20 percent, so that’s 20 percent that you could reduce. I haven’t talked to anybody, any of my fellow captains about it, but, I mean, that could be a possibility. I wasn’t prepared to do it, but I believe they do that in the Gulf. As far as the seasonal closures during spawning times in the middle of the summer, you know, we’re limited weather-wise on when our season is at.

47


Anything that you close the season two months, May, June, July, August, you know, any time period you say we’ll close the vermilion snapper fishing during that time period, the way the offshore fishing is as far as the snapper grouper species, you cannot get away from the vermilions and conduct business without touching into the vermilions. I am, you know, completely against a mid-season closure, you know, a mid-summer closure. And as far as the reductions, like I say on the coast – I mean, I realize everything is different up and down the coast, but in Georgia, I mean, I just don’t agree with the overfishing status. I mean, in the late seventies and eighties, the only vermilion snapper that you were catching were seven and nine inches. I mean, when we came up with the ten-inch vermilion snapper, it’s incredible, it will never happen. We’ve watched them grow, grow, grow in numbers and size. So as far as reductions in numbers and bag limits – and I know that’s being looked at, different numbers from nine to one and a certain percentage – I just at this point can’t agree with it. Thank you. Mr. Phillips: Okay, is there anymore discussion about the motion before we vote on it? Mr. Kelly: Yes, I’m in support of Motion Number 3 for a number of reasons. I’d like to make this comment that we’ve been talking about vermilion snapper here for several years now. In South Florida and the Florida Keys we have found that it’s really a very robust fishery, and we have heard that from just about everybody in this room. Our fish down there are probably averaging right around 1.95 pounds apiece, almost two pounds. As I mentioned, they’re a very robust fishery for us, and it’s continual. It’s 12 months out of the year. We fish them much deeper than you all do up here, generally speaking, 190 to 200 feet of water, and then again out in broken bottom areas where we deep-drop to 440 feet of water. It’s a healthy fishery for us. Everyone one that we have surveyed has not only said the size has remained the same, but they’ve actually increased slightly. There is no decrease in populations whatsoever. While I’m talking, I would like to make this comment on gag grouper, which we find is exactly the opposite of what’s going on with vermilion. In South Florida and the Florida Keys gag grouper are under assault. We have seen serious reductions in the number of fish. We’ve seen serious reductions in the size of the fish. We firmly believe, from a charter recreational standpoint, that they are being very heavily overfished, which is quite contrary to what’s going on for you all up here in the Carolinas, and that’s what most of the discussion has been about, a commercial fishery in North Carolina and South Carolina. We’ve got big problems in South Florida with gag grouper, and we would encourage the council to take serious action in our neighborhood to curtail what we consider gross overfishing. Mr. Phillips: Anybody else?

48


Mr. Cardin: Bill, do you have any knowledge if your gags are like – do they travel south to you or are they coming around from the Gulf, or what fish do you think you’re missing? Mr. Kelly: We believe that our fish stocks are coming from the Gulf. They just recently did stock assessments there. They’re having serious problems in the Gulf of Mexico as well. We have watched these fish in the course of the past probably 18 years go from an average of about 20 to 22 pounds apiece down to 13. The numbers have steadily decreased. We saw that happen along with the implementation of fish traps in Monroe County and both sides of the state of Florida. And then once they were banned along the Atlantic side and then up along the western coast of Florida, we started to see a resurgence in grouper, especially in blacks and reds, but the gag groupers have been very slow to respond to that, if in fact that was the reason for their demise, but we seem to associate that use of fish traps with the decline that we saw in gag groupers and all groupers across the board. Mr. Cardin: Thank you. And, one more time, you believe those are Gulf fish? Mr. Kelly: That is correct; that’s my understanding. Mr. Phillips: Anymore discussion about the motion? The motion is recommend to the council to take the least restrictive action possible in terms of management regulations that ends overfishing of vermilion. Use all available information in a new benchmark assessment. All in favor, say aye; all opposed, nay. The motion carries. Mr. Conklin: Back to the question a little while ago there about having an emergency meeting of the AP, I would have to go along with that. If we see that the assessments that they’re doing in Beaufort are leaning towards a better stock, I think it’s mandatory that we do that. We’re not going to be able to vote on something in December if we’re seeing a better reading of stuff in October. I mean, there is just no way you can do it. I mean, we’d have to come with some way to get in touch with everybody and give you the information or a percentage of the information or have an update in October sent to us of what you’re seeing when you’re doing your assessment. Mr. Kipnis: Well, we could come back to a motion on that if you wanted to, but, guys, knowing what we’ve just been told, I don’t know where we sit on our agenda. Are we sticking close to our agenda? Pretty close, okay. Well, don’t you think that it would behoove us, just in case things don’t come back like we’d like to see to them, or gag groupers go the way they go, that we’ve got today and half of tomorrow, that we need to come up with some kind of plan that would at least mitigate, to the best of our ability, getting shut down or getting reduced – I mean, we need to come up with something. We just can’t send it out to the council and go. It’s up to you guys, but we have to come up with something. It’s not a good thing we’re going to be dealing with, so I don’t know how to do that.

49


Mr. Phillips: Well, Gregg is supposed to give us an overview; and after that is when we get down the worse-case scenario. Mr. Kipnis: That’s what I was talking about. Mr. Phillips: So, if it’s your pleasure, we’ll take a five-minute break, Gregg can set up, and then we’ll come back and get down to the other part.


Mr. Phillips: If you all are ready, Bill wants to say one thing, and then Gregg is going to take over. Mr. Kelly: Thank you, Charlie. I know we ended on some comments that I made about serious problems with gag grouper in South Florida and the Keys. I just wanted to clarify my statement. It is widely believed – and I see Roy is here so he can probably help us out on this, if I’m lying – and that is that it’s widely believed that in the Keys, which these islands run east to west from Miami over towards the southwest corner of Florida, that we’re fishing a west coast stock of gag grouper, and that probably, in large part, accounts for the differences that you all see in your fishery, particularly along the mainland and further north up through the Carolinas. So, I wanted to make it clear that when we say we need some help and some support for gag grouper populations in South Florida and the Keys, I’m talking about south of Miami and Monroe County, from Key Largo over to Key West through the Tortugas. Thank you. Mr. Waugh: What we will do now is go through Amendment 16, the options for it. Everybody should have received a hard copy of this in addition to your electronic copy. It says, “Strawman Options Paper, Snapper Grouper Amendment 16”, dated September 2007. Let me just give a little background on this. The council has not talked about this document. What we have done is they asked us to put together a range of options to address what needs to be done for gag and vermilion snapper. So, what we have done is gone through and put together alternatives – we have identified the issues – and what I want to do is walk through this this afternoon, because we’ve got about an hour before the final scoping meeting, answer any of your questions. You can talk about it and think about overnight, and then you all come back tomorrow morning and give us any recommendations on these issues. So, if we start over on Page 3, that just outlines the major dates that the species have been assessed, the date the SSC approved it and whether we’re dealing with overfishing, overfished, and the rough percent reductions we’re looking at. I want to just touch on the schedule at the top of Page 4 for Amendment 16. Those of you that have been to a scoping meeting will recognize this information. This timeline is included in the scoping document as well. So, the final scoping meeting is tonight. You all will provide your

50


input today and tomorrow. The council will review this options paper and provide direction to staff and the team that will put Amendment 16 together at this meeting. The team and the council staff will work on this document and have a Draft Amendment 16 document based on whatever direction we get from the council this week for our December meeting. The SSC will look at it at December, and the council will approve the amendment and the DEIS for public hearings at the December meeting. Our intent is to hold public hearings in January and February, the council reviewing public hearing input and approving actions in March, we finalize the document and give it to them in June, and they give final approval to send that document to NMFS. That meets the deadline that we were given in the letter that we received at the June meeting. As we talked earlier, there are some discussions about maybe changes in that timeline, and the committee and council will be discussing that this week, but right now that’s the timeline we’re on. The intent is to have regulations in place beginning January 1, 2009. So, the first species we’ll deal with is gag grouper. Charlie, what I’ll do is go through each decision and then see if there any questions to clarify. The first issue is dealing the management reference points. We need to define the maximum sustainable yield for gag grouper. The alternative is the current definition, which is Alternative 1 – and this is on Page 4 – is the yield produced by FMSY, and we use 30 percent SPR as the FMSY proxy for all stocks. One of the changes in the ’96 act is we need to make changes any time we’re using SPR, spawning potential ratio, for any biomass-based parameters. So, we really can’t stay with no action. Alternative 2 is to use the MSY that’s the yield produced by fishing at FMSY, and that’s using information from the SEDAR assessment, and so you get an MSY value that’s shown there of 1.238 million pounds. The council then steps down OY from that; and for the most part, what they have said is they’re following the technical guidance document, which would generally recommend a 75 percent of FMSY. So, the MSY is 1.238; the OY that the council will likely choose, based on their alternatives in Amendment 15, is 1.217. So you can see that just fishing down 75 percent of FMSY rather than FMSY, you don’t lose a lot of yield. Over on Page 5, the minimum stock size threshold, the council has set a formula to determine this. The way you determine whether a stock is overfishing if you’re catching too many is if the fishing mortality rate exceeds the fishing mortality rate that would produce the maximum sustainable yield. So, you dealing with sort of rates, how fast you’re taking fish out of the water. In terms of whether the fish is overfished, we’re talking about how many pounds of fish are out in the water. So we set a quantity of pounds that you don’t want the stock to go below, so it’s a safe threshold that you don’t want to push the stock below. That value is calculated using the formula one minus the natural mortality times the spawning stock biomass at MSY.

51


The estimate of that that came out of the SEDAR stock assessment is 6.816 million pounds. So the spawning stock biomass at the start of 2005 – and this is shown in Table 4 on Page 5 so you can follow along – is 7.470 million pounds. So, at the start of ’05 the spawning stock was above our minimum stock size threshold, so it was not overfished. Within the assessment, there are projections that project ahead what the stock’s biomass would be. The biomass at the start of 2007 is 6.062 million pounds, which is less than the minimum stock size threshold. So if you compare those values, you would conclude that the stock is overfished. Thus far we have only been notified that the stock is approaching an overfished level, but that’s something that the committee and council will be talking about, and that’s Decision 3 over on Page 6. I’ll pause here and see if you have any questions about that. MSY basically is a calculation that comes out – and Rick has got it projected – the calculation that comes out of the SEDAR assessment. The OY, the council is taking 75 percent of the FMSY, and then the minimum stock size threshold comes of the SEDAR assessment as well. Okay, if there are no questions, then I’ll move on to the item, which is on Page 6, Item C. It’s annual catch limits. This is a requirement under the Reauthorized Magnuson Act. The annual catch limits must be set at a level that ensures overfishing does not occur. They must be implemented in Fishing Year 2010. So what the council has to decide is are they going to use Amendment 16 as the vehicle to get the annual catch limits in place starting January 2010, or are we going to do it somewhere else? Our recommendation as staff is going to be that we do it in Amendment 16 because the regulations for Amendment 16 would come on line January of 2009, so we’d have to do a whole ‘nother amendment to specify those values and have that in place by 2010. Now, what do we set as the annual catch limits? Well, the values shown in Table 5 are the projections of yield that would prevent overfishing that came out of the SEDAR assessment. At the time the SEDAR assessment was done, they were assuming that we could have regulations in place in 2008, so that’s why those figures start in 2008. The Table 6 on Page 7 just shifts those. It uses the same numbers but starts them in 2009. Our recommendation is going to be that rather than request that the National Marine Fisheries Service redo the projection analysis, just to slide them one year. So what this is saying is that the preliminary annual catch limits the council would be looking at would 694,000 pounds in ’09. And then because the stock is overfished, we can’t harvest the OY out of it yet, so we have to lower the total catch to 694,000 in the first year of the plan amendment and then gradually increase it as the stock is projected to rebuild, and then at 2015 you would be up at the OY level. Mr. Phillips: Okay, so we’re overfishing gag now, moving it back a year – using the 694,000 and the 716,000, even though we’re overfishing, we’re not going to overfish the stocks down enough where it’s going to make a difference on the table just by moving it back a year and everything is still going to work out the same or real close to it?

52


Mr. Waugh: And that’s certainly something that we could ask the SSC to look at, but, yes, the feeling is it wouldn’t change much. You can look at the difference in going from ’09 – well, flip back to Table 5. The difference between ’08 and ’09, you’re dealing with 20,000 pounds of fish, so it’s not that much of a difference. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I was just curious how that worked and whether it would work on another fishery or just specific for this one because of where it’s at. Mr. Waugh: Specific for this one because of its condition, and these are the projected yields that we could allow in order to get back up to OY. Mr. Adams: Gregg, I’m a little confused about which Magnuson Act we’re acting under. It seems that the numbers that you’ve got in here are based on matching up with the new one, and yet the assessment was done under the old one; is that correct? Mr. Waugh: Well, I don’t think which Magnuson we’re operating under doesn’t affect the assessment itself, but it affects when we have to have regulations in place. Mr. Adams: Okay, that’s in 2009 and 2010? Mr. Waugh: Right. I thought what Roy said was that mid-2009 he would expect the new requirements to go in place. I mean, the vehicle then to meet the new requirements is Amendment 16. In other words, we wouldn’t be working on another amendment to have a different set of regulations take effect in ’09, because the Amendment 16 regulations would just take effect in ’09. Mr. Adams: Does that preclude the opportunity to go stepwise in the reductions by using these new numbers to match up with the new act? I mean, I’m not saying that’s what you want to do. I’m just confused by it, that’s all. I know we have done that before. Mr. Waugh: The council could – if we’re operating under the old Magnuson, we could do that because, certainly, jumping to this 694,000 ends the overfishing. I guess they would have the – they could make some adjustments. But, again, if you look at the difference in the numbers here, they’re not that great for gag. If the council were to want to look at some alternative, then we have to request that a projection analysis be done. I think we got the question answered. Roy, I was just saying that earlier you said in mid-2009 is when the requirements for the new Magnuson Act would come on line. The question was when would we expect the requirements of the Reauthorized Magnuson Act to come on line? I thought you said mid-2009. Dr. Crabtree: I mean, there are a lot of new requirements in the act. Some of them are in effect now and some of them come on at different times. The catch limits are required beginning in 2010, and the new requirement that actions have to be sufficient to end the overfishing immediately.

53


And that the councils have to take those actions, and they have to be implemented within two years, I think that becomes effective for stocks that are determined to be overfishing after July 2009. There are probably other requirements, and we could talk to Monica about that, if you wanted, but is that what you were asking about? Mr. Waugh: Yes. Dr. Crabtree: That’s my understanding of how that works. Mr. Waugh: I see a lot of glazed looks around the table. To me, where you all should focus is starting with Table 6 on Page 7. That’s your total harvest. The SSC is going to look at this information and give us their specification of the catch limit that should be in place. They will give us that at their December meeting. For right now, I’m sort of trying to put myself in your shoes to see how you would make your recommendations. You should use that Table 6 and look at those catch limits and sort of assume that’s going to be your total catch. That’s recreational and commercial. Mr. Phillips: If I remember right, we had another stock assessment on gags in 2011. Did I hear that or was I dreaming? Mr. Waugh: I can’t remember. I can find out when that is coming up. It would be an update of the assessment that we have now. Mr. Phillips: Is it an update or will it be as another assessment? But it seems like you get different things when you do different ways. Mr. Waugh: The assessment we’re operating under now for gag is what is called a benchmark. That’s a full stock assessment. An update to that is scheduled in late 2011. When that goes through the full process, the time the council would get that would probably be late 2012. Mr. Phillips: So technically when they got that, then you’d look at it and decide whether we needed to ratchet up or ratchet down, so we’re looking at basically five years of this, and then we’re going to get an update, I guess, instead of a benchmark. So we’ll get an update and then get to look at it again and see where to go from there? Mr. Waugh: That’s correct, and what you would hope is that it’s going to show that the stock status that was projected – and it shows a dip in ’07, going below the minimum stock size threshold, and then the stock gradually increases. You would hope that the assessment update is going to confirm that, and then you can continue on these paths. That assessment update may give you different specific numbers than these here, but the hope would be that the management is working and you’re going to see that stock increase. Mr. Gould: This looks real good there from a rebuilding point of view and everything. My main concern is that you’re cutting us down 30-some percent over a year’s time and then rebuilding.

54


You’re going to have a problem with the pirate fishermen. Has that been factored into this, the people that goes out and catches them and comes into different inlets there unmonitored, or is there something going to be in place like a VMS system or permitting system for everybody that goes out there to help monitor what’s being caught, which hasn’t been done in the past? What is in the pipeline on enforcement on this? This is a big hit for everybody, and it should be distributed equally amongst everybody. If you’re going to do this, you need to be able to monitor it. Mr. Waugh: And that’s always a concern, and the council has asked for more law enforcement, but, again, it’s resource limited. The council did consider requiring VMS on commercial snapper grouper vessels, but has deferred that pending the LAPP Workgroup’s work and to see if we’re going to make some adjustments in the number of commercial fishermen before making a requirement for VMS. Mr. Gould: Your problem would not be from the commercial side. It would be from the recreational side. You know that as well as I do what is going to be done. Mr. Waugh: I mean, you all know, as well as we do, what the level of enforcement is. If you feel that there should be more enforcement and that continuing with the existing level of enforcement will negatively impact the stock rebuilding, I would urge you to make that recommendation to the council. Mr. Marhefka: Gregg, what has been going on with the 225 permitted vessels? Can you guys give us an update? You know, how many vessels do you have here, how many vessels are still producing? I am just sort of curious why these haven’t gone away through attrition. We keep on taking cuts here, and I am not seeing any cuts on these 225s. It seems like they’ve pretty much had themselves set in place for a LAP since they got given to them. Yes, they have to go through these other hoops that we have to jump also, but they’re not reducing in the amount that they’re allowed to go and catch. I’d like to see something done with this before we get going. Mr. Waugh: Yes, and we have that information. That’s an item that the LAPP Committee will be addressing. We’re asking them to give some guidance for the LAPP Workgroup on how to deal with those 225-pound trip limits. The expectation was that – not to be harsh, but that was given to a group of elderly participants that indicated they just wanted that as a part of their retirement until they died off. That’s not happening so we have got some efforts ongoing looking into that. But, just as an example, on Page 12, when we talk about a potential gag grouper trip limit, we make the point there that if the council is establishing a trip limit, consideration should be given to a separate trip limit for those permit holders already under a 225. So you’re right, that in the trip limits we’ve put in place, we haven’t specifically addressed that 225. We’ve heard that message and we’ve got it in here that if the council is going to look at a

55


gag grouper trip limit, they need to establish one for the unlimited group and a different one for the trip-limited group. Mr. Cardin: Gregg, the 225 came up, and I would like to add the amberjacks went to a thousand pound trip limit; they stayed at 225. The snowies, the tilefish, like everyone says, everyone took a cut but the 225s. But, you did comment on that, but you said that the – well, I’m on the LAPP Group, and you said the LAPP Workgroup is considering what to do with that. As a member of the LAPP Workgroup, I don’t like that, and as a member of the Snapper Grouper AP. I mean, why isn’t that a grouper snapper issue and not a LAPP issue? I mean, I would like to see us handle it more on this level. Mr. Waugh: Well, the issue is the council took action based on public input to grant this group the ability to fish at 225 pounds a trip as part of their retirement until they died off. That’s not happening. It appears those permits are being leased, traded, whatever. That was not the council’s original intent. Also, when the council did that, the understanding of available yield from this fishery was much higher. What we’re seeing come out of our SEDAR assessments consistently is a lower available yield. So, what we’re asking the LAPP Committee to give some guidance on is given that we have this much lower available yield from the snapper grouper fishery, do you see a continuing role under a LAP Program for this 225-pound trip limit group? I personally don’t see how you justify keeping that group in there when we’ve got to make such huge reductions. That’s my personal opinion. I don’t know what the committee is going to do. You know, it’s hard to honor that original intent because the available yield is so low. But, we don’t want to wait and have the LAPP Workgroup finish its work to then have some discussions about what happens with that 225-pound trip limit. So, we’re asking the LAPP Committee and then the council to give some guidance; if we ultimately end up with an LAP, do you see this group having a role in that? Mr. Cardin: I would like to apologize. I thought you said the LAPP Workgroup was looking into that. It’s the committee, thank you. Mr. Waugh: So, if we come back to Page 7, then, if we’ve got this total catch limit, annual catch limit, and in the first year of the plan it’s going to be 694,000 pounds. The first thing the council has to do is divide that between recreational and commercial. So, that’s Item D, allocation. Thus far the council has not looked at allocations for gag grouper. They deferred that in March until they got the assessment. So, what we have worked up is a couple of alternatives here based on the same sets of years that they have used for vermilion snapper. If you used years 1999 through 2003, you end up with 51 percent commercial and 49 percent recreational. If you used 1986 through 2005, you end with 61 percent commercial and 39 percent recreational.

56


There are certainly lots of other alternatives that you could come up with. Attachment 1 to this document, on Pages 8 and 9 give a lot more tables. Jack McGovern, working with Rick and myself, put a lot of those analyses together, so we’ve got a whole host of years that you could look at using, and those tables would then show you what the split would be recreationally and commercially. Mr. Marhefka: Gregg, for myself and others around the table here, can you give me a definition of the council’s definition between a commercial and a recreational allocation? Mr. Waugh: Sure. The way the council has chosen thus far to manage the commercial fishery is what is called a hard quota or a hard TAC. So, when you have a total catch, you split it. The portion that is allocated to the commercial is called a quota. The fishery stays open until that quota is taken; then the fishery closes. We’ve got a much better handle on tracking the commercial catch in season. Thus far the council has chosen to manage the recreational fishery differently. The percent that’s allocated to them is called an allocation. We don’t have the means in place to track it in season as well as we do for the commercial, so the council has chosen to use a less direct way of limiting the recreational harvest to that allocation. The way they do that is a combination of size limits and bag limits. The best way to look at the longest times series is to look at king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, and the regulations have kept the harvest below that allocation. There are certainly other examples, summer flounder being a good one of where the recreational regulations that have been in place have not been sufficient to keep the recreational sector below their allocation. This is an issue that you all will talk about in Amendment 15 when Rick goes through this. There are options in there on what you do about overages and underages for both the recreational and the commercial. Under the new Magnuson Act, when we set these catch limits, those catch limits can’t be exceeded. There is still some debate about whether an annual catch limit really is an annual catch limit or whether you can go over it. If it is a catch limit – and if you Magnuson, that’s what it says – then the council has to have regulations that keep the recreational sector below their allocation. If they go above it, then you have to change your management regulations to keep them below it. Mr. Oden: Keeping them below it, though, as you said with summer flounder, it has not constrained it, and it has come back to haunt the commercial sector, as well. What assurances do we have that any overages from the recreational sector will not be coming out of our hide down the highway? Mr. Waugh: Well, I would urge you to make those comments when you get to that in Amendment 15, and just make your views known. This is getting ahead a little bit – Rick, correct me if I’m wrong – but the council’s preferred alternative now is to allow the recreational sector to go over for three years’ running before any action is taken.

57


Now, does that meet the requirements of the Magnuson Act? I don’t see how it does. We’ll have to see once the guidelines come out. You all should weigh in on those alternatives. There are alternatives in there to adjust the recreational regulations if they exceed their allocation. The problem isn’t with the idea that the recreational sector has an allocation and the commercial has a quota. The problem is the recreational regulations, say, for summer flounder have not been sufficient to limit the recreational catch, and people know that ahead of time, so what is the surprise when the recreational sector goes over? Mr. Hooks: If I understand this right from what you’re saying now, that with 694,000 pounds in 2008, the commercial sector meets its quota, we would be shut down; am I correct? Mr. Waugh: That’s generally how we manage the commercial sector. I am sure that’s what would be done here. Mr. Hooks: And if the recreational sector met theirs, they would have three years of overfishing before there was any stopping of fishing? Mr. Waugh: If the council’s current preferred alternative in Amendment 15 stays their preferred and is implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service and becomes law, then, yes. But, the determination has to be made first that it is consistent with what is in the Magnuson Act. Mr. Hooks: And I’ve read it once, and that’s all I’m going to swear I’ve read it. How many times in the Magnuson Act do the words “fair and equitable treatment amongst all fisheries”, where does that pertain? How many times do they have to say it before anybody starts doing it? This is absolutely wrong. It is absolutely unfair anywhere in the world that you would go. Mr. Waugh: And make those comments when we get to Amendment 15. Mr. DeBrango: Of course, here we go, a problem lies in enforcement and monitoring of it. Number one, the commercial guys are so regulated – I mean, we pass this, all of a sudden two weeks later, the middle of the year, gags are shut down like the tilefish. We pass that one and all of a sudden, boom, no more fishing the rest of the year for gags. Is that going to happen? The recreational, I mean, I’ve seen it firsthand. They just need to shut these things down for everybody when it’s spawning. A lot of fish are being taken – a lot of recreational poundage happens when the fish are spawning when they’re at their best biting. That’s the state of Florida records from the FWC. They need to be shut down from everybody. And from what I understand, the amount is so great that it would make a substantial difference to the fishery. Mr. Gray: Gregg, on Table 11, it says that the source is the MRFSS Website’s NMFS Headboat Survey. Is that just headboat or has that been extrapolated to include charter and the NMFS data, also? I mean, does this percentage represent the total recreational catch?

58


Mr. Waugh: Well, what you’re looking at, Table 11 on Page 12, what that shows is the percent reductions from a spawning season closure assuming that it’s 100 percent effective. We have got columns there that show the commercial reduction – Mr. Gray: Wait, I’m looking at this over on the attachment, I guess, Table 11 back on nine. Mr. Waugh: You’re in Attachment 1? Mr. Gray: Yes. Mr. Waugh: Which is the gag, the detailed analysis? Mr. Gray: Right, the MRFSS Website and NMFS Headboat Survey. Mr. Waugh: Right, that Table 11 shows the percent recreational, and that figure includes the private MRFSS. It includes the charterboat and it includes the headboat. Mr. Kipnis: Not to Gregg but to the vice-chairman, sir. Do you think we could get – because we’ve only got half an hour left – we can get Gregg through this, because the discussion we’re having now is really discussion we need to be having tomorrow. We need to get him through it so we can spend our full time having the discussion we’re having now. Do you think you could do that? Mr. Phillips: Absolutely. Mr. Waugh: All right, we’re on Page 8. Table 7 shows the preliminary commercial quotas and recreational allocations for gag grouper. Those numbers are the same ones in the annual catch limit that we talked about. Allocation Alternative 1 is the 51 percent commercial and 49 percent recreational. Allocation Alternative 2 is 61/39. In terms of percent reductions, you have to then look at what historical landings are you going to use. We’ve got the issue of updating the 2006 commercial data. So, once the council picks an allocation alternative, then we can talk about what level of reduction it is. We’ve got information shown at the bottom of Tables 8A and 8B that gives some indication, between 32 and 37 percent for Alternative 1 on Page 8B. Mr. Gray: 8B, 2006 total landings appears to be a bad number to me. It looks like it should be 916,384. Mr. Waugh: For the total landings? Mr. Gray: Correct. Mr. Waugh: I’ll double check. Mr. Adams: The numbers are incorrectly added.

59


Mr. Waugh: All right, I’ll double check that. So, all this is to get over to Page 10 where we look at potential management regulations. The current regulations are shown there. If we have a commercial quota, 2A establishes a commercial quota of 353,940 pounds. That is based on Allocation Alternative 1. Alternative 2B gives you a commercial quota slightly higher. That’s Allocation Alternative 2. We’ve also got the issue of what happens after the quota is met. You’ve got continued fishing for other species. This is called post-quota bycatch mortality. Under Alternative 2A, that would estimate – let me back up for a second. If you set the commercial quota at 353,940 pounds, it’s projected that the quota would be met some time in September. So then you have to estimate what harvest would be caught and discarded for the remainder of the year. That’s estimated to be almost 61,000 pounds. If you add that to your commercial quota, that level of mortality exceeds your total mortality from the recreational side, so the council needs to talk about how they’re going to handle that. I am not going to go into all the numbers for 2B, but it’s basically the same thing. The quota would be met later in the year, so the post-quota bycatch mortality would be less. We’ve got your suggestion to divide the commercial quota by state, so we’ve got some information there that shows the landings by state. And if that’s something you all are interested in, you can make your recommendations as to what percent you would recommend. Just as an example, in Table 10 – well, Table 10 for 2005, 1.5 percent of the Atlantic gag landings commercially were from Monroe; 21 percent from Florida; 5.1 percent from Georgia; 35 percent from South Carolina; 37 percent from North Carolina. So you can see how those numbers change going back in time. Alternative 4 on Page 12 is to establish a gag grouper spawning season closure that applies to both commercial and recreational sectors. There would be no fishing for and/or possession of gag grouper allowed. Table 11 shows the percent reductions from the spawning season closure assuming it’s 100 percent effective. And Jack did some analyses, looking at what would be done if it’s less than 100 percent effective. We’ve also got the option of establishing a gag grouper trip limit if the council wanted to try to stretch the quota out the full year. And, again, I’ve pointed out we’ve got tables in here that show the impacts of various trip limits that you all can look at. Alternative 6 on Page 13 deals with the recreational sector. Now it’s to reduce the existing bag limit from two gag or black grouper within the five-group for aggregate bag limit to one gag or black grouper. And assuming there is full compliance, you can see that for MRFSS and headboat, you would get a 9.1 percent reduction there. Factoring in the level of non-compliance, it knocks it down almost in half, down to 5 percent. Then there are any other measures that the council would consider. So, they’ve got to figure out what years they’re comparing – what years they’re choosing for the allocations and compare that

60


to recent landings to see what your percent reduction is, and then how do you go about getting that. We’ve got a full range of alternatives in here; and if you all can think of anything else, have at it. So let’s run through the same thing with vermilion. It’s basically the exact same thing with one big difference in terms of the MSY and OY and the minimum stock size threshold. The SSC and the assessment update is saying don’t use these values; we don’t have confidence in them. The legal interpretation of the Act is that we have specify these values, so we will be talking about how we deal with this. The MSY figures are shown as Decision Number 8; OY, Decision Number 9; and you can see that we went with the values that are included in the SEDAR update, it would be about 2.7 million pounds for the MSY. The council went with 75 percent of FMSY. For the OY, it would be about 2.6 million pounds. Minimum stock size threshold, that value is unknown at this time. Given that we’re just dealing with ending overfishing for vermilion, that percent reduction would give you your annual catch limit, so the 628,459 is right now the projected harvest to end overfishing, and that would be your annual catch limit into the future until we get another stock assessment. So, again, we do allocations. The alternatives that the council has identified – and we’re going to be pushing them to give preferred alternatives, so that the analyses can done – you’ve got laid out there 2A is 1999 through 2003; 2B is 1986 through 2005, 1 percent difference between those two sets of years. Then, again, all we’ve done is taking the annual catch limit and converting it to gutted weight, and then splitting it the same exact way we did for gag. Management measures begin on Page 19. 2A and 2B, again, are commercial quotas. Based on the average of 1995 through 2005 monthly catches, the quota under 2A would be met some time in June. Post-quota bycatch mortality is a much bigger issue with vermilion. The quota is projected to be met earlier in the year. The post-quota bycatch mortality is estimated to be 230,000 pounds. You add that to the commercial quota, that exceeds the commercial portion of the ACL by 59 percent. So, the stock is not going to build if you’re just throwing back dead fish, so we have to figure out how we address that. The same thing with spawning season closure, it applies to both commercial and recreational sectors. You’ve got the percent reductions from various months by the various groups. The vermilion snapper commercial trip limit, again with the point that you need to look at that 225-pound trip limit group if you are talking a trip limit. Trip limit analyses are shown in Table 30 through 32 in Attachment 2. And we will be here – I’ll have to be bouncing back and forth tomorrow morning, but Rick will be in here, too, and we can help walk you through some of these analyses as you’re talking about it. If we go with that 61 percent reduction – for instance, Alternative 5 on Page 21, it shows you what you have to do with a bag limit. If you go from the current ten down to a one-fish bag limit is where you start to

61


get the level of reduction that you need if you just set your bag limit on the recreational side to limit them to their allocation. The final section deals with some regulations for additional species. We’ve got some other species that could be lumped into a shallow water grouper unit. This would allow us to address overfishing that’s going on with these species. The alternatives are to establish gag, red grouper and black grouper. 2B would include scamp; 2C would include more species. We’ve got the recent harvest for those species by the various groups. Then the council would need to talk about what quota-based regulations should apply to the shallow water unit, what spawning season closure would apply versus just having one for gag. Decision 16 is one you all should definitely give some guidance on. If you start looking at these individual regulations and quotas and you end up with a lot of discard mortality, so one option is to get the gear out of the water for a period of time. Decision 16 lays out a couple of alternatives to do that. Alternative 2 would establish a common spawning season closure for the entire snapper grouper fishery, commercially and recreationally. Decision 17 is the aggregate recreational grouper bag limit, to reduce that. And the final item is Decision 18, consistency with Florida and the Gulf Council. We’ve got particularly gag that occurs in both areas; vermilion it occurs in both areas, so the issue is do we attempt to work with the state of Florida and the Gulf Council to come up with the same regulations at least for Florida, so that their fishermen don’t have to switch regulations when they go out on a trip. That’s a quick overview. As I said, it’s lot to absorb. The attachments have a lot more detail for gag and for vermilion snapper, and we’ll be in here tomorrow morning to help you work through this. Mr. Phillips: Okay, if there is nothing else, then I suppose we’ll recess. Mr. Oden: May I ask a question of Gregg? Is there a reason that you can’t send us information a little more expeditiously the next council meeting we have. I believe I got it two days before the time to come. I believe I got it Friday or Saturday, I am not sure. Mr. Waugh: The short answer is yes, but, I mean, there is a lot of work that goes into doing these analyses, and this task was just given to us at the last June meeting. Mr. Oden: Are you talking about the strawman’s options or 15? Mr. Waugh: Yes, strawman options. Mr. Oden: Okay, well, 15, too. I mean, that’s a lot to consider as well. Mr. Waugh: Sure, but 15 you’ve seen before.

62


Mr. Oden: But not the options in here? Mr. Waugh: Oh, yes. I think there’s only a few items that are new in Amendment 15. The vast majority of that you’ve seen before and commented on. Certainly, we try to get this out to you as soon as we can. That was one of the reasons, talking specifically about gag and vermilion snapper, that we got those fact sheets out as soon as we did, to give you all a heads-up as to what was coming. Mr. Phillips: Now we recess.

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at 5:50 o’clock p.m., September 17, 2007.) - - -

TUESDAY MORNING SESSION

September 18, 2007

- - -

The Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council reconvened in Ballroom C of the Avista Resort, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Tuesday morning, September 18, 2007, and was called to order at 8:00 o’clock a.m. by Vice-Chairman Charles Phillips. Mr. Phillips: Welcome back, gentlemen. Let’s start on our F and go through these decisions and decide how we’re going to do it, if we really have to go through this. I guess we’ll start with the decisions on gag grouper and have discussion on that. Mr. Waugh: Charlie, to kick it off, as far as MSY, OY, minimum stock size threshold, those are basically calculations that are coming out of the SEDAR assessment. You can say you agree with them or don’t agree with them. Even with the council, that’s what comes out. The one that the council has some options with is setting OY, and this is the bottom of Page 4. The question is how much of a buffer do you build in between MSY and where you set your optimum yield, OY. And what the council has decided basically across the board is to use 75 percent of the fishing mortality rate that would produce MSY. As I said yesterday, the difference between fishing at 75 percent of FMSY and MSY, you can see you’re talking about giving up 21,000 pounds. I mean, that’s hardly worth talking about in terms of the differences here. So, unless you all want to make a comment about where we should set OY, I would suggest leaving the MSY/OY and minimum stock size threshold and jumping right over into the annual catch limits and some of the discussions we’ve got there almost beginning with allocation. Now, having said that, I don’t want to preclude you all having some of those other discussions. Mr. Adams: We don’t even get back to OY. Assuming we do the cuts that eliminates overfishing, we don’t get back to OY for four or five years, do we?

63


Mr. Waugh: That’s correct, you can see that Table 6 on Page 7. That basically shows you the timeframe that the annual catch limit in 2009 would be 694,000, and then it gradually steps up. The last value shown there is 2014 at 976,000 pounds. The next year we would be at OY, which would be the 1.217 million pounds. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do we want to talk about what kind of confidence we have in these numbers, or do we want to talk about allocation and how we would allocate it? What is your pleasure? Mr. Marhefka: I would like to go and ask the SSC to go and put a confidence level on these catch limits and these catch landings, pretty much just a confidence level of what they have – a percentage of confidence in what they have going into the models, just as the way they do it up in Alaska. I am not really for certain how they go and they structure that, but I would like to go and have that. I think that would be real important to go and take to the fishermen that this is a percentage of some sort that we know that we can hold on to, that we can grasp. I mean, to me, I really think it’s important to move on with management. Mr. Phillips: Is that a motion? Mr. Marhefka: Yes. I mean, we can make that as a motion that – I don’t know how to go and word it, but a motion to the SSC that they need to go and apply a confidence level to data or value – the data put in to the modeling, you know, into the assessment for management purposes, what is their confidence level in that data. I mean, Gregg, maybe you can help me on this. Mr. Waugh: Are you looking for confidence – generally, what they would be able to provide would be a confidence level based on the output of the model. You can certainly make a request about the inputs, but generally when you do an assessment and you give the confidence levels, it’s generally on the output of the models. For instance, that annual catch limit comes out, what is the confidence interval around that value for each year. That would be more straightforward. If you want some confidence level about the input data, that’s going to be a little more tricky, but we can certainly make that request. Mr. Marhefka: You know, I think both should be requested. I mean, because as it is now, we’re just using the terminology of best available science, and I would like to go and see some sort of confidence level in our scientists who are actually doing these assessments, to say, you know, yes, I think this is – you know, and put something there. And each time that we go and we do a SEDAR, I think it should be there. And that way, without a doubt, we can go and question this level. The motion reads the AP requests that the SSC apply a confidence level to the input data and the assessment results for gag grouper, and, also, can we couple with that as far as the output data, the confidence level.

64


Mr. Waugh: I think that’s what is meant by “assessment results”. I think you have got it covered there, Mark. Mr. DeVictor: Mark, do you want this motion to apply for both species or just gag grouper? Mr. Marhefka: For all species. Mr. Phillips: Mark, do you want this level to be in a percentage or do you want it to be like poor, fair, good, strong, excellent? So they will know kind of what you’re looking for, what kind of – do you want a percentage or something other? Mr. Marhefka: Well, you know, I’m going to ask the AP what they feel would be more transparent for them and for their constituents what would be easier for them, fair, poor, good or would we be able to put a level of percentage on it. Mr. Adams: Well, first, I’ll second the motion. I like the idea here. I would say the more accurate the better. And, in general, what I have to respond to, when people ask me, a percentage level, plus or minus, is the kind of confidence level that people are used to hearing and what people are used to – and, really, it is a confidence builder in explaining the position of why we have to make these draconian cuts on a lot of these things. It’s really tough stuff when are some of these guys are saying, “How do you know, what’s the numbers?” And fair or poor doesn’t get it. I think you need to be as accurate as you can with that number. Mr. Kipnis: What’s the timeframe on getting this information back? I mean, are we going to ask them to do it – are we going to ask them to do it quickly or are we going to just say we need it by the next time we meet, which is a year from now? Mr. Waugh: My suggestion would be – they next meet in conjunction with the council in December, and that is when the council will be looking at – assuming right now we keep going forward with gag and vermilion, that’s when they would be looking at a document to approve for public hearings. My suggestion would be to have the SSC address this at their December meeting and provide that information to the council and to the Snapper Grouper AP by the December council meeting. Mr. Kipnis: Do we need to add that into this motion? Mr. Waugh: I don’t think so. I mean, I think if you all are clear that’s your intent in terms in timing, I think that’s something that is feasible. What they would probably address at the December meeting would be not for all assessed species but focus in on gag and vermilion at December, and then we would add this as a requirement for each species as it is assessed. Then perhaps at the June meeting they can go back and look at some of the other species that have already been assessed.

65


Mr. Gray: Ideally, we would know this number before we deliberated on the rest of these questions, but, of course, we won’t have that. So, my question is how do we balance our decisions on the rest of these questions not knowing that number and move forward? I mean, to do what we are supposed to do as an AP, we’ve got to give our guidance and counsel to the committee, and I guess we’ll just have to take our best cut as we go through here, but maybe counter it with depending on the outcome of the confidence level, we may want to change our recommendations. Mr. Phillips: I’m not sure we’re going to meet again in time to change our recommendation after they do that, before they make some final votes. Mr. Gray: You know, if the confidence level is high, this is what prefer; if it’s low, this is what we prefer. Mr. Phillips: Yes, and I’m not sure how much – I guess it depends on which Magnuson Act we’re working on as to what kind of wiggle room they may or may not have, that they can use this confidence level in their deliberations. I’m still not sure which one of those Acts we’re working on for which species and stuff. I guess, like you say, we’ll muddle our way through and give them some options of this is kind of how we feel if that is the way it’s going to go. Mr. Adams: I would say that the sense of this group is that we are not sure about these confidence levels, and the message to the council is the fact that they would consider a weak confidence or a strong confidence in these numbers based on their final decisions as to this thing, but we’ve got to muddle through this one or another, I think, to come up with what our guts are on this thing. But, there is no question that when I see a guy in the hall and he’s asking me about how sure I am of that number, to say I’m okay sure, sort of sure, kind of sure, and the next guy says, “Well, I’m fairly sure,” and if we had 85 percent with a 15 percent leeway, we can use a 15 percent chance of being wrong. At least you’ve got something to hang your hat on. So, there you have it. Mr. Waugh: I know you all received a lot of material, but the gag assessment SEDAR 10 results, the assessment did look at what is called a sensitivity analysis, and that’s a way at getting at this idea of what is your level of confidence in the output results. And without going into a lot of detail, what they say – and it’s in Section 5.3.3 of the SEDAR report – but it says, “Sensitivity analyses included six model runs and a five-year retrospective analysis” – that’s just looking backward in time – “in addition to the base run. All six sensitivity model runs estimate that the exploitation rates are above their limit, suggesting the stock is undergoing overfishing.” So, what that is saying is varying the input parameters away from what everybody agrees is the best estimate of them, all of the results from those show that gag is undergoing overfishing. So, in terms of the confidence that the scientists have with gag, that is pretty high, because it’s saying varying all the input parameters to anything that is reasonable, all of the results from all of those runs show that gag is overfishing.

66


Now, when we come to vermilion, that will be a different story, but for gag that is saying that the confidence that the scientists have in the results are relatively high. Mr. Marhefka: So, Gregg, what I’m asking here on these confidence levels is that – so, say, when we start looking at the post-mortality bycatch and things like that, I mean, those kind of figures sort of are like guesstimates to me, I mean, by historical landings, da, de, da, de, da. But, the way a commercial fisherman would change his behavior, as far as catching these species, you know, a lot of this I want to make sure is in the meat here. I don’t want to go and have my landings reduced because we went and, you know, speculated that, well, they’re going to go and catch these and keep on going this whole way. There are ways you can go and sort of back off of it if you need to. So, I mean, those are some of the questions that arise when I’m sitting here looking at these rebuilding plans. Mr. Phillips: Is there anymore discussion? Mr. DeBrango: I think in the Gulf, didn’t they go on a 20 percent mortality rate on the release of the gag grouper, and then they dropped it down to 5 percent because they found themselves to be wrong? What kind of percentage are looking at in these statistics here of mortality rates? Mr. Kelly: I would like the advisory panel and the council to consider a more regional management plan on gag grouper. I’m interested in what the statistics would show if we were to examine gag grouper and whether or not they were overfished north of, for example, Miami-Dade-Monroe County line, along the Eastern Seaboard. We know they’re in trouble in the Gulf, and we have a very serious issue with it in the Florida Keys. We have done it in the past with king mackerel where we have done a regional management plan that has worked. We cut it off at that Miami-Dade-Monroe County line. I think that it would be in your best interest if we did a more regional management plan that would come up with numbers to support what you guys are talking about with regard to gag grouper and probably would support what I’m saying because we believe so many of the gags that we’re fishing for are part of that Gulf stock. So, at some point I would like to consider a motion that we go to a regional management plan on gags and establish a cutoff point somewhere in that Miami or South Florida area and work it north and southward. Thank you. Mr. Phillips: All right, is there anymore discussion on this motion? The motion is the AP requests that the SSC apply a confidence level to the input data and assessments results for all assessed species. All in favor, say aye; all opposed. The motion carries. Mr. Hooks: After yesterday afternoon and listening and what I’ve read, we’re pretty much at the mercy of the SSC. We, as the advisory panel, have been reduced to only advising on our own poison and not in making any of the decisions when it comes time in actual rulemaking. I would like to ask somebody look into the possibility of us possibly advising the SSC, being an advisory panel for them, to where we feel like we would be more apt to make a difference. Right now

67


we’re just determining which poison to take. I would like to have a determining factor in if I take it or not. Mr. Waugh: Danny is right in describing the situation. I would just say it a little differently; that congress took the scientific decision away from the councils and gave it to the SSC. That’s just a change in the rules on how we operate. The second part is how you all want to advise them. Each of you has been contacted about serving on these SEDAR assessments, coming to the data workshop. I know the last thing you all want is another meeting to go to. You all want to be out on the water fishing, because that’s what you do. The way you want to have influence is come to those SEDAR data workshops. That now is absolutely critical. The data workshop is where they go over all the data and look at the catch-per-unit effort trends. That’s where fishermen can have the input. If you start to have your input at the end of that, after the SEDAR process is finished, your potential for having influence is greatly reduced. Where we need your input, where your input would be much more beneficial is on the front end of the SEDAR processes; definitely at the data workshop and the assessment workshop. The review workshop would be best also, but the more critical is the data workshop and the assessment workshop. So, it’s in your hands. When we call you and ask you to serve, you guys need to figure out who from the AP is going to be at those meetings. Mr. Gray: Following up what Gregg said, Tom and I both were at the SEDAR wrap-up meeting in St. Pete. From my viewpoint, you need to be there earlier than that, because that was a lot of really detailed, in-depth statistical stuff that sails right over head unless you are a modeler and really into the fine-tuned scientific tweaking and tuning. I don’t know if you concur with that, Tom, but you need to be there earlier than that one, and that will give you the background. If you want to go the final one, fine, but it doesn’t do you much good in at that point. Mr. Kipnis: Aren’t we kind of like closing the door after the cows got out, because this is the baseline now for gag grouper and vermilions; so when it comes to these two, at least under the new rules we’re done; is that not true, Gregg? Mr. Waugh: I would say for gag that’s true, but we will have an assessment update to gag in the future. But, vermilion I think is still very much in play. We will be discussing later today with the Snapper Grouper Committee and council on when this age-based assessment is done for vermilion. So when that happens, that will start at the data workshop, and you guys need to be there. Mr. Marhefka: I want to go back to Bill’s proposed motion, and, Bill, would you like to go ahead and put up on a motion. And at the same time I would like Jeff to go and listen in on this, because you guys have the same issue up there in Hatteras that these guys have in Key West that we don’t have in the mid-area. I mean, just work to couple it together in some fashion, but, anyway, go ahead, Bill.

68


Mr. Kelly: All right, basically the motion would read that the South Atlantic Council would work with the state of Florida and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to develop regional management rules for gag grouper and would be south of, blank, whatever we would determine here amongst the advisory panel, and northward along the Atlantic coastline. So the blank is what is that boundary going to be; is it going to be the Miami-Dade-Monroe County Line or in some discussion here from the other Florida representatives if we can move that boundary a little bit further up, because, obviously, there is a different of opinion on what is going on with you all northward and for us down in that southern area. Mr. Phillips: Can you repeat the motion, so Rick can get it written down like you want it. Mr. Kelly: The South Atlantic Council would work with the state of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to develop regional management rules for gag grouper south of blank and northward along the Atlantic coastline. Mr. Waugh: Just a question of clarification because I thought yesterday you all were talking about looking at how the assessment is done. My understanding of this would be to take the assessment results and to recognize the regional difference, similar to what we do with king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, and develop different management regulations for different parts of the South Atlantic Council’s area. And if that’s the case, that’s a much cleaner issue to deal with. I thought yesterday we were getting into wanting the assessment redone using a different boundary, because right now all gag in the South Atlantic Council’s area of jurisdiction, going right down through the boundary, are encountered as Atlantic, and the ones in the Gulf is Gulf. But, if you’re just talking about taking the results, and when you develop the management regulations take in account the regional differences, that’s something that’s much easier to address. Mr. Kelly: From a scientific and assessment standing, I understand the problems you’re dealing with, but the fish don’t see that line. And that infiltration that we get from Gulf of Mexico, I am sure there’s a blend somewhere as there was with king mackerel. But, that hundred miles that we’re including in the Keys may be drastically affecting the outcome for these gentlemen to the north, so how do we address issue? Mr. Waugh: That’s something that can be looked at the next time an assessment is done, but just like with king mackerel and perhaps less – perhaps the mixing isn’t as dynamic as for king mackerel, but we’ve got tag recaptures of fish from the Gulf moving into the Atlantic and some vice versa. We just need to be careful when you explore this in getting into whether the councils need to deal with this jointly – and we’re trying to get out of joint management in mackerel – or whether you just recognize that there is this zone of mixing. There is some mixing taking place, and it’s higher, no doubt, on the Atlantic side of the Keys. But, take that into account when you develop your management regulations. And the council could do that, you could look at the sizes and

69


ages of gag off of the Florida East Coast, the lower Florida East Coast, and take that into account when you develop your regulations. Mr. Kelly: All right, with that in mind, I would let the motion stand, but I’m agreeable to any modification that the advisory panel would like to place on it or adjustment, but I think we need to address that issue. Thank you. Mr. Phillips: Well, we need a second. Let’s get Jeff and then we’ll see if we’ve got a second. Mr. Oden: Well, I kind of hate to redirect the discussion. I mean, basically, what Gregg just said, you know, regional variations in gags, I guess we could say that wasn’t done on snowies, for instance, but I would like that motion to read for all species, you know, and a regional or a state, you know, allowance – anyway, wait a minute. Would you have a problem with all species in that, for all species, regional management for all species? I mean, that to me seems – it’s coming with king mackerel, as he said. It will be coming with kings, absolutely. I mean, it’s something that needs to start being explored, you know, because there are so many variations, you made the point. I mean, it’s doesn’t matter if it’s kings, snowies or gags, vermilions, whatever. I mean, it’s different every state. It has to be addressed. Mr. Kelly: My direct response to the question is no, I would not like to see that for all species. I think we’d really open up a can or worms for the councils. I think case by case would be preferred, and in this case I think it’s very warranted. Mr. Oden: For just gags? Mr. Kelly: For just gags, correct. Mr. Zimmerman: I sit on the LAPP Workgroup, and it has been discussed that regionalizing the fishery could help benefit some sort of management way forward. It’s something that I have heard, but I’m not absolutely sure where they’re going with that. It could just mean that it makes it easier to implement an IFQ, but I have heard that regionalizing fisheries would help benefit fisheries management in the South Atlantic. Mr. Phillips: Okay, can I get a second on the motion? Okay, it dies for lack of a second. Mr. DeBrango: I’ll second that. Mr. Phillips: All right, discussion. Mr. DeBrango: There are some things I’ve seen down in the Keys. I spent a lot of time down there last winter. I know a lot people down there. One thing you have down in Key West is you have an influx of two different types of permits that come down to Key West to unload. You have the Gulf permit and you have the Atlantic Grouper Snapper Permit.

70


There are a lot of law enforcement issues down there where somebody with a Gulf permit can go fish gags down there, longline, you know, as long as they don’t caught and then they can come into the Keys and unload. Even though, you know, they have this Gulf permit, they’re going to be allowed to come in to the Keys with all these gag grouper. So that might be something that needs to be looked at as far as your different types of permits that you have down in Key West, how all this is going to be addressed if you go to a regional allocation or – how do I say this – basically, there is going to be something that needs to be done with people with the Gulf permits coming into Key West and the Atlantic. So if you want to pass something regional like that, there is going to be an enforcement issue there. Do you understand what I’m saying? Mr. Kipnis: Don’t we have boats in the Keys – Bill, you probably know this – that carry dual permits, Gulf and Atlantic. You’ve got a bunch of boats that have that. When they catch a fish, how is it reported? Is it reported as a Gulf fish or both or an Atlantic fish? I’m just curious. Mr. Hooks: Bill, I just wanted to say I think one reason that – and the one reason I didn’t second it, because I’m in favor – I like your motion. I think it is very good, but I have to say I like the idea of regional management for all species. Also, I can see what you’re talking about and where you’re coming from here. But, as far as the discrepancy up and down the coast for vermilion, gag, snowies, I think that’s the only way that it’s going to be fairer to the people in these areas is to have some sort of regional management for most all species. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Mr. Kelly: Danny, I appreciate that. My concern here is if we don’t break out what is happening in my neighborhood, then every time that we come up with a discussion about gag grouper, I have got to go their defense and I have to vote against all of you, and I don’t want to be in that position. What I’m trying to do is get this defined so that I can support your efforts north of whatever that line of demarcation is. Otherwise, I have got to go to the support of the resource and protect gag grouper first. So, it’s putting me in a very difficult position because I don’t want to be voting against you guys. I want to find a way that I can support your efforts northward and have you all support mine to the south. In our area, gag grouper is definitely in trouble, so how do we address that? Like I said, we can adjust this motion that I made any way you want. I respect your opinions on it, but I’m trying to find a way that maybe Dan or myself or guys from South Florida will be able to lend more support to your effort up here, because you don’t have the problem that we’re facing. Mr. Adams: I guess that’s what troubles me about it a little bit. I like the idea that it’s specific to South Florida, but it doesn’t seem to recognize the regional differences, for example, in North Carolina where you’ve got a deeper water fish. You know, you’ve got a shallow water fish in Florida and south, and there’s a lot of differences between how you catch them in different places.

71


I think the sense that I get is to say to the council, yes, we are dealing with a fish that has different habitats in different areas, and that needs to be recognized in terms of management options that we take. That is kind of my feeling. I like the notion that you have, that Florida and the Gulf is a separate thing, but there are some differences between how gags are handled in North Carolina in deeper water and in South Carolina, and they come in shallower as you go south. I think it’s a recognition of the regional aspects and the necessity to have regional management aspects to this plan. Mr. Gray: If we’re talking about expanding it to regional evaluation, I’m just concerned about how fine the statistical people can cut the regions. I would put a limit on it by state or by number of regions somehow, so that we’re not asking them to slice this thing so fine that they can’t get reasonable numbers. Mr. Marhefka: Mandatory electronic logbooks would have took care of that a long time ago. But, you know, North Carolina also has a diverse kind of gag area, too. They have got the Onslow Bay gags, which are the smaller gags and spawning areas, also. It’s sort of like what Bill is talking about down in the Keys, also. Mr. Cardin: Call me slow, Bill, but I thought yesterday we were talking about it was belief and there was some science that your fish was the Gulf stock. And, with this, we’re asking the South Atlantic to manage a Gulf stock, which it is already being managed by the South Atlantic. And if we ask to do it regionally, it’s already regionalized through there. I don’t understand how this will help the problem. Mr. Kelly: The issue is we’re asking the councils along with the state of Florida to work together on this because it’s a blended area. We had the same situation with king mackerel, and we had to draw a line someplace, and that line became the Miami-Dade-Monroe County Line. Somewhere in the process we have to try and narrow and pinpoint where that line of demarcation would be. I just think that this is perhaps the best way to do that to help you and to help us, because, again, we have an issue with it in the Florida Keys. There is a problem with gag grouper, and the testimony and the comments you guys are making up here doesn’t reflect that same problem. How do we do this so that I can help you and you can help us? Otherwise, we’re going to just be voting against one another time and time again here. Mr. Gray: This is a question I guess for Gregg. If you go back to Page 11, Monroe County is reported separately in the landings. Okay, my question is, is Monroe reported to the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Council? Is it already included in both, or why is Monroe separated out? It looks like we’re already doing it. Mr. Waugh: The issue of Monroe goes back to back when the councils first started back in ’76. There was always an argument about where the boundary was between the two councils. That was resolved in 1980, and the current boundary that basically splits Monroe County was

72


established. The problem is our data collection programs were never altered to collect data to reflect that difference. This has been a constant issue over the years with assessments. Right now the logbook program has been modified so that you can show – the logbook collects data showing that boundary. Some of the landings data are harder to split by those areas, but the assessment for gag was done splitting Monroe County’s catches by council area, so that difference has been accounted for in the gag assessment. Mr. Gray: Then why is Monroe reported separately? I don’t understand. It looks like if it’s split by the U.S. 1 Boundary that’s the standard boundary for Gulf and Atlantic, it ought to just be lumped into the Florida catch. Mr. Waugh: The reason it’s shown separately is because commercial landings are reported by county; so when you get the data, it’s broken out by county and then you have to take Monroe County and allocate it between the Gulf and the Atlantic. It’s much easier right now just to show Monroe separately so that you get an idea. Mr. Kipnis: Gregg, are the Florida landings just the Atlantic coast landings? The way they’re reported here, it says Atlantic and Gulf. Mr. Waugh: You’re talking about Table 10 on Page 11? Mr. Kipnis: Yes. Mr. Waugh: That Florida is just Florida east coast. That’s Dade north. Mr. Kipnis: Except Monroe County? Mr. Waugh: Correct, and that’s why Monroe County is broken out separately in Table 10. Mr. Kipnis: So there is the possibility that when we’re looking at Monroe County being maybe 1 percent or on average 1.5 percent, even with that anomaly of 4.1 percent at the bottom there in 2006, that it really might only be 0.7 percent coming from the Atlantic? Mr. Waugh: That’s correct, these percentages show entire Monroe, so the proportion that would be attributable to the Atlantic would less than that; you’re correct. Mr. Kipnis: So, the actual impact on the overall gag grouper numbers that we see, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, would be miniscule. It would be under 1 percent of actual gag landings, theoretically, come from the Atlantic side of the Keys, which also backs up what Bill is saying, that they’ve got an issue there, because you would think that a place as prolific in producing fish as the Florida Keys would only produce 0.7 percent Atlantic side, say, or 1 percent of the total gag grouper landings?

73


You would think it would be a lot more in an area that’s as prolific as the Keys is in fisheries, so it’s probably backing up what Bill says. But in the overall picture of things it’s not really that significant in the overall catches if it makes up 1 percent or less. Mr. Marhefka: Since Jack is here, I’ve got a real quick question because I know some of your fishermen, Charlie – and I don’t mean to get off on this, but as far as actually where these landings are coming from, Jack, were they pulled from the area or were they pulled from where the logbook was sent from, where his home residence is? Because, my concern is that some of the heavy hitters that were fishing out of Charlie’s, you know, in Georgia lived in Florida; and if they were sending their logbooks in from North Florida, then this clearly shows where there is an imbalance in the landings, and can you clarify that for me? Dr. McGovern: It’s just state landed; that’s what these data reflect. Mr. Marhefka: So, by the grid and not by where the logbook was sent from? Dr. McGovern: Right, the port where they were landed. It’s not the statistical grid. Mr. Conklin: Some of the fish that I unload are caught in a different state, and in the report sheets you have got a grid there that people are fishing up in North Carolina, basically, fish are coming out of North Carolina waters, but they’re being landed in South Carolina. And at different times of the year, in the wintertime I’ve got guys that will run 150 miles to go catch B-liners down off of Georgia or North Florida, and you’ve got a whole different area there. Dr. McGovern: I could do the same sort of thing by statistical grid. That would be easy to do. Mr. Phillips: Bill, just as a point of clarification, when you say “develop regional management rules”, are you talking about a separate quota for down there or separate size limits of whatever it pans out; is that what you’re talking about for management rules? Mr. Kelly: Yes, that the state, the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Council would develop management rules that would govern that area. Mr. Phillips: Any more discussion? Mr. DeBrango: I agree with Bill. I spent a lot of time from, let’s say, West Palm Beach southward in South Florida. It’s a huge difference in the reefs when you go north of West Palm Beach, like, say, Jupiter, Fort Pierce, that area, what you see as far as fish goes. I believe, along with Bill, that South Florida is in a lot of trouble right now with the amount of fish stocks there. If you actually go and you look at some of the headboats unload, some of the fish you’re going to see down there is – it’s pretty upsetting to see what they’re unloading and they’re bringing in, you know, to make their living. The reefs down there, diving the reefs and everything, unless

74


you’re in the sanctuaries – now, the sanctuaries is a great program down in the Keys because you’re going to see a great bunch of fish there. But, as far as the general reefs down there, I mean, it’s a whole world of difference, and I agree with him that they need some kind of regional stiffer plans for down there to bring those areas back. Mr. Kelly: You know, I mentioned last night that I did a survey with our local charterboats. And, you know, 15 or 18 years ago we had some pretty impressive numbers. You would go out for a day of fishing and target gag grouper in January, February and March, and it wasn’t uncommon to catch ten or fifteen gags in a day during those months. Now, we’ve got out of the 13 boats that responded to the survey what I think was 49 days of fishing on average per boat, and they’re capture rate is 0.88 fish per trip. We’ve got a real problem down there and we need to address it, and we need your help doing that. How do we do that, again – I know I’m being repetitious – how do you guys help us in South Florida and the Keys without impacting yourself. That’s the dilemma I have and that’s why we need something to define where that line is going to be, so that we can support one another. Mr. Phillips: Okay, anymore discussion before we vote? Mr. Gray: I think we need to define the line before we vote on the motion. Mr. Kelly: That’s exactly the point I wanted to make on this issue. Phillips: Okay, that’s the point you wanted to make and then come back and get blank, but we can get the blank now. Mr. Conklin: I would think maybe the line should be moved north to Palm Beach County south, because the reefs there off of Miami and Broward County and that are so close to shore, and, you know, it kind of breaks away at Palm Beach and starts moving offshore a little bit. I would say that we need to change the line to the Palm Beach County Line. Mr. Kelly: Well, we have a very distinguished representative from South Florida, Dan Kipnis, and he’s got a feel for what is going on there. Dan, I know you were a gag grouper fisherman for many years; what are your thoughts on this? Mr. Kipnis: One of the things we’ve got that skews the whole thing is that we’ve got 145 artificial reefs from 60 feet of water out to about 400 there. All right, our natural reef is basically dead and gone. Coral bleaching and pollution and sewer outfalls and all kinds of stuff like that have eaten it up pretty badly. But, we’ve got artificial reefs; they hold a lot gags at certain times of the year. We lost our spawning aggregations. They were caught out; you won’t find spawning aggregations anymore. When I was fishing in the sixties and seventies, there were a lot of gags in spawning aggregations. I don’t think we’re the same as the Keys, though.

75


The Keys still have a fairly healthy reef going, although it’s only probably 50 percent or 40 percent live, like it used to be. They have lost a lot. They don’t have as many wrecks. But, there is no doubt that our fishing area, the miles that we can fish is pretty small. We can fish a couple of miles and then it falls off too deep and you won’t see any gags. We’re in 600 feet of water in Miami; the same thing for Palm Beach south, Broward County. I don’t think we’re getting the mix of the gags in Dade County like out of the Gulf, very few, if any. I think most recreational fish come from the north; not from the Carolinas but Canaveral or North Florida. So I don’t know where you draw the line, bottom line. I wouldn’t like to see really stiff rules that might deal with the Keys, 1 percent of the total catch, showing that there is a severe decline in their fishery where I don’t think Dade County has the same problem. I know my ex-partner on the Reward Fleet has days with four and five and six gags recreational fishing on a regular basis in January, February and March when the fish are in. So, I don’t know, Bill, I would draw the line at Dade/Monroe County. I know that Palm Beach County has a substantial gag fishery, still, with aggregations because the guys dive them. The only way I think they can get them diving is with them aggregating like that. That’s my thoughts on Dade County, if it makes any sense. It doesn’t make sense to me. Mr. Kelly: Prior to coming to this meeting, I did talk with Jimbo Thomas, who runs the Thomas Flyer out of Miami Marina Bayside. He’s one of the busiest charterboat captains in the area. He does a lot of deep-dropping. His experience was that there is no change in the size of gags in the deep water fishery. I’m talking 200 to 400 feet of water. He is catching fish that average right around 20 pounds. He has found a lot of juvenile fish in Biscayne Bay and along the inshore reefs, but they have been generally small fish, up to about five pounds. So, I would tend to concur with what Dan said, I would be more inclined to draw that line at Miami-Dade-Monroe County. Mr. Kipnis: Just as an anecdotal piece of information, Biscayne Bay is loaded with small gags. They were not there for a long time. When I was a kid growing up there, we used to catch a lot of fish 10 and 12 pounds. In the wintertime we saw lots of little ones. Now, I know fishing in the Bay, we’ve got them this big all the way up to 15 and 18 pounds in the Bay now. All the drop-offs, everywhere you go, any little wreck that’s in the Bay, any little rock pile, a lot of fish – now that to me is very exciting because we went through a long period of time where there were none. So, we might have done stock assessments here and come with what is going on or maybe we just got lucky and got good recruitment for a few years. But, I have seen five years or six years of really good recruitment of small fish, and I want to make sure that anecdotal evidence gets put into the record. Thank you. Mr. Phillips: Okay, anymore discussion before we vote? The motion is the AP requests that the SAFMC work with the state of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to develop regional management rules for gag grouper south of the Miami-Dade-

76


Monroe County and northward along the Atlantic coast. Can I get a show of hands in favor; against. The motion passes. Mr. Waugh: Mr. Vice-Chairman, if I could just urge you all to try and pick up the pace, we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I guess we’ll get over here to the allocations. That should go real quick. Any discussion on allocation? Mr. Waugh: Rick, could you put up that table, Table 10. Everybody has this. Table 10 from Attachment 1 for gag shows the whole time series from 1986 on, looking at the percent commercial, so it’s Table 10 in Attachment 1. The material that is shown on the bottom of Page 7 shows you the allocations using the two years that the council is looking at for vermilion. Now, there is no guarantee they’re going to stay with those or pick those, so you all can look at the table, Table 10. It shows, for instance, from the whole time series, 1986 up through 2006, the percent commercial would be 60 percent and 40 percent recreational versus just looking at 2006 the percent commercial would be 47 percent. So, the full time series of data are there. If you have some suggestion in terms of what years should be used for whatever reason, years before regulations, whole time series, that would be very helpful to provide to the council. Mr. Phillips: Okay, can we have some discussion on that, and you may want to keep in mind – if we go to a LAPP and we have to do years on who gets what kind of allocation in LAPP, we would probably like for them to match the same years that we’re going to do with this allocation. I would think that might be a good idea just to keep in the back of your mind. Mr. Oden: Well, not being a partner to the LAP Programs, what years are going to be the assessed years? I mean, is that a given yet? Mr. Phillips: No, that’s not a given. It’s way down the road if it is down the road at all, but I just thought I would throw it out there. Mr. Cardin: Well, maybe we should go with the original control date in 1991, around that period of time, since that’s when a lot of management issues really kicked in on the gags. Mr. Waugh: So, Bobby, what you would be suggesting, then, looking at Table 10 from Attachment 1, looking at the data 1986 through 1991? Is that the suggestion? That would give you 64 percent being commercial. Mr. Cardin: Yes. Mr. Gray: That just totally does not reflect what has been happening in the last few years. It does not recognize the value of the recreational fishery at all.

77


Mr. Adams: I agree with Jim, I think something closer to 50/50 would make some sense to me. Mr. Cardin: Up to 1998 the recreational had a five-fish limit, and it seems like they – now they’re down to two; and when you were allowed to catch more, it seems like that would be a good number to use. Mr. Gray: But, you know, as we know, the population of Florida, at least, and I think all the other states keeps increasing, the number of boats on the water keeps increasing, so even with the lower bag limit, the balance is more close to the 50/50 number than what historically was happening back there when there were far fewer boats on the water. Mr. Phillips: Well, in lieu of the growing recreational effort and commercial being static, if it would be the pleasure of the advisory panel to go 50/50, would you entertain hard TACs on the recreational just like the commercial, so that if it is grew, they would still have to stay within those numbers? How would you like to do that? Mr. Adams: One other thing, this three years of going over the top in recreational I think is – I’m speaking as a recreational fisherman; that doesn’t make any sense to me. You’re managing behavior in recreational, but I don’t think you can go there. I think you’ve got to say, you know, this is what it is and this is the allocation. We recognize that it’s a growing part of the, you know – but, the three-year thing I think flies in the face of trying to be fair. Mr. Kipnis: I agree with Charlie. I also think that in light of what is coming with the reductions, that a two-fish – I’m just trying to move this process along – that two fish recreationally is too much. I think it should be one. We recognize the fact that we have more recreational anglers. Usually there is more than one person on a boat; there’s two or three or four, and I would be happy with four gags, especially if they weighed 15 or 20 pounds apiece. We have more recreational anglers. I think a 50/50 split, if we hold true to the catch levels that we want us to do and we don’t mess around with a three-year reporting lag on it, would be a reasonable thing, and I think we have got to reduce the bag limit. We’ve got to reduce it. Mr. Gray: I could also live with if the commercial months for spawning aggregations were closed, that the recreational is also closed. Mr. DeBrango: I agree with that. I have never had a problem when any fish is spawning to shut them down. I think that’s everybody’s best interest no matter what species it is or anything. I would like to see – you know, since we’re taking into account all these different things and all the recreational information in the science and statistical committee’s – I think, you know, when Joe Fisherman goes to Wal-Mart – I mean, I don’t know how much a program like this cost – and buys his recreational license through the state of Florida, the FWC, and all that, we need to get some kind of data input from the recreational. Anybody knows that goes out in Florida all the time, you could drive your boat down through South Florida, and your radar looks like it has the measles, there are so many recreational fishermen out there. But there needs to be some kind of program instituted – I mean, other than

78


an FWC guy in the inlet stopping one out of every thirty boats and asking them a survey, you know, but we need to get better statistics from the recreational side if we’re going to go a 50/50 issue like that. I mean, like you side, we could be going over for three years, I think it was, on the recreational side of the grouper, and we have no clue. It’s all guessing. No matter what we say in all this, every bit of recreational fish is a guess in any of these assessments. Mr. Kipnis: I’m speaking for the chairman here, because he grabbed me and said, “Do this,” and I agree with him. I think it’s time that we – we have a tuna license or offshore pelagic license – recreationally, you have to have a tuna permit. To catch billfish now, too, it falls under that. So, I think it’s time that we have a recreational snapper grouper that would encompass white grunts and amberjacks and groupers and snappers and tilefish and all that. I think we should know how many recreational anglers we have, and one way to do that is to implement a permit like that. It’s been twenty-five bucks for the other ones. I don’t think with the price of fuel and boats and this and that anyone is going to complain about it; and if you need statistics, that’s the way to get statistics at least on how many people partake in the fishery, so we should entertain that. Mr. Waugh: This issue of data collection, I don’t want to see us spend a lot of time on it now. Everybody knows there are huge problems with MRFSS. The solutions have been known for a long time. I’m glad to hear that more and more of the recreational community are opening up to the idea of having a permit versus killing it as a tax. We’ve talked about this for years and years. I mean, there is a lot of effort out there looking to improve MRFSS. If we can get beyond just holding a bunch of meetings and talking about what to do and actually doing something, it will help. This council is planning on requiring a permit for anyone that’s going to harvest any South Atlantic species from the EEZ. Each of our four states now have a salt water license, so it could be as simple as requiring anyone fishing recreationally in the EEZ to have one of those four state permits. We don’t even have to get into the issue of issuing permits. Those solutions are out there. Mr. Hooks: I think instead of when you go from one to two and a five-fish aggregate bag limit for grouper – and I’m sure down the road – and I have heard talk of looking at red grouper. And like Dan said, very seldom does somebody go out on a boat by theirself, especially something big enough to go and catch grouper. Now, I’m speaking from a North Carolina perspective and not five miles offshore in Florida. Going 30 or 40 miles, one man pretty much is not going to be going by himself. When you give that many people five fish per person, okay, when they each catch their one gag grouper, they’re going to go and target red grouper or scamp. How would the recreational feel of reducing that back to three, the way it was six years ago when it was three per person, but back down to a three per person bag limit total with one being

79


gag grouper. I mean, we’re talking here millions and millions of anglers; and in the Florida area, like I say, we’re only five miles offshore. So, how would you feel about that one. Mr. Kelly: First off, with regard to licenses, I’m sure we want to see some reporting and stuff, but I don’t want us to get in the position where we’re licensed to death and the twenty-five bucks keep coming and coming and coming. We see that with charterboats, and there are 17 different licenses they’re required to carry just to operate their business, and what you guys are going through as well. I think we need to seriously adjust the recreational quota. Two gags within a five fish – that’s per person and not per boat – is unrealistic. And now let’s throw this into effect, south of the Miami-Dade-Monroe County Lines, that 0.88 gag groupers, that’s per boat per day when they’re targeting these fish. They can’t even get one fish per boat let alone one fish per angler. So, sure, we need to get some adjustments here. Now, do we take all of that poundage and just say, well, here, we’ll give that to the commercial sector; no, because that’s not going to help the fish stocks either. So we need to find a balance, but I’m for a very serious reduction in the bag limits for recreational anglers, both aggregate and individually on gag grouper and the five fish per person per day. It’s unrealistic. Mr. Adams: I was just going to say that I think the one fish, one gag, the three fish, I’m open to all that. I don’t know that I know what the numbers are or exactly how that allocation ought to be chopped up. I think that my sense of what I would say to the council is that from my perspective the recreational community is willing to – or should be willing to – some of them won’t like it, no matter what we do, but the fact is that if we’re going to ask these kind of cuts from one side of the fence, that we need to make sure that those cuts are done on the recreational side as well. I say one gag, maybe three of all species or something like that per day makes some sense, but I don’t know exactly what the numbers are and I don’t think it’s our job to sit here and hash that out right now. But, I’d say stay off of them when they’re spawning, go to three fish, maybe one is a gag, and that kind of thing, and I think we could live with it. Mr. Gray: I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. We’re on Decision 5, which is the allocation; and when we get back to Decision 7, that’s what the regulation should be. That’s probably where we ought to discuss the numbers. But, if we’re ready, I’d like to go ahead and make the motion that the allocation be 50/50, with any spawning aggregation closures to apply equally to recreational and commercial. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we have a second? Mr. Kipnis: I’ll second it. Mr. Phillips: Okay, discussion? Mr. Adams: Do you want to add anything about the number of fish to it –

80


Mr. Gray: Let’s do that back here with the regulations. Mr. Phillips: Let me read it: The AP endorses a 50 percent commercial quota, 50 percent recreational allocation for gag grouper. Any spawning aggregation closures should be applied equally between sectors. Mr. Gray: I would just change that last wording to say “equally to both sectors”. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I’ve already read it. All in favor, say aye; all opposed. The motion carries. Mr. Cardin: I mean, you know, I do business, I count money, and I count fish, and I count my cows; and if I had chickens, I’d count my chickens, and numbers mean something to me. This allocation, that 50/50, that gives them 264,000 pounds a year. Now, with 17 million recreational trips is what it’s supposed to be the South Atlantic, if one out of every hundred trips catches one gag grouper, they’re going to exceed the 264,000 pounds. I mean, theoretically, to me, this is already exceeded this year, next year and the year next. It’s already been exceeded three years just by the numbers alone. You know, I just don’t see – it’s just not making any sense to me. Thank you. Mr. Oden: I think if we’re going to get into the allocation discussion, we also need to discuss accountability. I believe that is the first, because it absolutely has to happen for any of these allocation scenarios, the whole weight down the road. I mean, yes, we can say we’re going to divide it 50/50, and if one side is allowed to continue overages – and we know we’re not going to be or it’s going to come out of our butts the following year. I mean, I know that is going to happen in snowy grouper, and it needs to be discussed before it carries on. If we’re going to divide it up, great, but let’s just make sure later on down the road it doesn’t get diluted, the conservation efforts we put forward. Mr. Waugh: And that’s your next step, so let’s just move on to the next decision. You’ve decided to split the pie 50/50. Okay, so now do you want to allocate that commercial quota by state? That’s what we’ve got out on Page 11. And then you get into the spawning season closure. We’ve already said that it’s going to apply to both recreational and commercial. And then you get to your bag limit and trip limit. So, those decisions are all here. Let’s don’t broaden the discussion and get mired down again. Mr. Cardin: Okay, we’re talking about allocating by state. We’ve already heard these are on the state trip ticket landings, this chart? So, they’re not necessarily on the grid, where they were caught, or where the fishermen – Mr. Waugh: That’s correct, Table 10 is from the NMFS accumulated landing system, so that’s your trip tickets. That’s on where they are reported. By state, we can certainly go into the logbook and look at it, which would change those numbers.

81


Mr. Cardin: Well, if we’re talking about allocating to state and if the fish were caught from the state, then those fish should be applied to that state. This chart here wouldn’t do that; would it? Mr. Waugh: So, then, if you all want to allocate by state, say you want to allocate by state and tell us to look at the logbook data. That’s all you’ve got to stay. Mr. Adams: I like the idea of the state allocations. And, again, looking at the logbook makes some sense, so I would so move to allocate by state. I think we’re already headed there with this regional thing that we’ve done in Florida. Mr. Waugh: And this is allocating the commercial quota; is that what we’re talking about? Mr. Adams: Right, that’s the question. Mr. DeBrango: I think if we do that, like I said before, I think we need to look into the fact of the dual permit holders for the Gulf and the Atlantic. Something needs to be done where they can unload their fish. So, with dual permits, there’s ways of getting around everything. So, in the best interest of the Keys and all that, something has to be discussed here as far as that goes. Mr. Cardin: Question for Gregg. The Gulf fishermen have VMS on their boat right now; so if they have Gulf fish on their boat and they’re heading to port, then the authorities should know that ahead of time. So then the problem might be that the boat is in the Atlantic catching Atlantic fish, and we’re afraid he’s going to go to port and report it as the Gulf? Okay, so the VMS fixes that, so the problem is our South Atlantic boats catching Gulf fish would be the problem. Mr. Marhefka: What the people like myself to where you moved from one state to the other, and your landings – you know, the majority of your landings were in – say, my landings were in North Carolina and then I moved to South Carolina and for the last six years my landings came out of South Carolina; how would that go and affect the commercial fisherman, Gregg? Mr. Waugh: The way this is done – and it’s been done for years in the Mid-Atlantic and New England area. Summer flounder is a good example. They have state-by-state by quotas, and any fisherman from any state is free to fish on that quota, and they can only land in that state as long as that state’s quota is open. There are processes in place for states transferring allocations from state to state. Those details would have to be worked out. And, you all need to talk about some of the specifics. It would divide the commercial quota by state, and so you’d have a quota for South Carolina; and once that quota has been landed, that quantity has been landed in South Carolina, then no more gag could be landing in South Carolina. But it wouldn’t just be South Carolina fishermen fishing that; it would be anybody from any state who was landing in South Carolina. And we need to clarify up there if we’re talking about using the logbook data.

82


Mr. Hooks: Here, again, I like the idea of state management, but with what you’re talking about, like you just said, I’m afraid we’re going to wind up with a traveling circus going up and down the coast, and that’s not really going to solve the problem if you’ve got a caravan of boats going from state to state with whoever is still open. I’m not sure that’s really what I like. Mr. Phillips: So, you’re thinking because everybody is fishing the same pie and they’re just going in different states, that splitting it up to states is not really going to help anything, so you’re thinking more regional? Mr. Hooks: I’m thinking they’re going to travel anywhere that there is an open fishery. Fishermen are going to find fish. Mr. DeBrango: I agree with what Danny over there is saying. I leave my port, I’m traveling 200 miles to go fishing. It ain’t nothing but some time, and that’s it. But, back to the VMS that they were talking about, VMSs can be shut off. They can be turned on, they can be shut off. I know I’ve used them already in the swordfish industry. So, that doesn’t always hold true to everything. Mr. Oden: You can also be fined when they’re turned off. Mr. Gray: Just one quick question. Do the allocations by state have to be landings in the state or could the data be reported by the logbook grid pattern as to where the fish were caught versus where they’re landed? Mr. Waugh: There’s two parts to that question. One is how you allocate the commercial quota across the states. Do you use the landings data or the logbook data? Then, in terms of monitoring it, the way it’s been done in the past is by the landings, the state of landings. We could certainly look at other ways of doing it, using where it’s caught, but generally it’s done by where it’s landed in terms of monitoring the quotas. Mr. Oden: I still don’t see why it can’t be done by port of call. In our case, Louis is more than happy to take our, for instance, miniscule allocation of snowy grouper and allocate it to where we can still have a minimal fishery and survive. If your port of call is South Carolina, let it go against South Carolina. I don’t care if they fish off our state. Let’s just allocate our historical percentages to each state. Let Mark fish in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, I don’t care. But, if he’s got a port of call, you know, state where that is and allocate it against that state’s history. Mr. Kipnis: I’d just like to say I like that idea. Mr. Phillips: So, if you did a port of call, you’ve pretty much got to stay there. If you’re in North Carolina, you’re not going to be able to work – Mr. Kipnis: That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that your allocation is going to be where your port of call is no matter where you’re fishing, which is a pretty simple way of doing it.

83


Mr. Adams: For the second time in two days, I like what Jeff said there. I would add that to my motion. I don’t know if it’s got a second already or not. I would add that to my motion, that port of call be the way it’s accounted. Mr. Phillips: Seconded by Jim Gray. Mr. Waugh: So, what we’re talking about doing then is we would be looking at each individual’s home port, because on the permit you show a home port. We would allocate the quota based on the landings data that exists now. Then the way you monitor that is each fisherman, their landings, regardless of which state they land in, would be attributed to their state’s home port. Then when that state’s quota was filled, then that fisherman can’t fish anymore? Then what do you do in terms of where that – Mr. Oden: In that fishery, no more snowy grouper. I mean, it’s basically coming with ITQs anyway. I mean, it’s just another way of doing it. I mean, if that doesn’t happen. Mr. Marhefka: What do you do about the folks that are out of New Jersey that have snapper grouper unlimited permits and they don’t have historical landings of snowy grouper in New Jersey, and they come down to the Carolinas and they go and they fish the Carolinas and they go and they land them in, say, South Carolina; are you going to go and apply it to a New Jersey port that doesn’t have any landings? Mr. Oden: Well, it seems like right now we’ve accepted Virginia as part of the South Atlantic right now, so I guess maybe we want to go ahead and just accept the whole east coast. It wasn’t my fault. Mr. Conklin: I don’t go along with putting what the boats catch to their state, because I’ve got two boats that their home ports are in Jacksonville and they fish year round in South Carolina. Now, one boat, it says its home ported in Miami and he’s in South Carolina, and there is one boat from Georgia that travels back and forth between Georgia and South Carolina. I think it should be the port where the fish are landed and not the state. Mr. DeVictor: What program are the landings coming from, the logbook or the state? Mr. Phillips: The landings are going to come through the state landings or the logbook is going to show what – the trip ticket is still going to show the state no matter whether it comes the logbook or the state landings; right? Okay. Okay, I’ll read it: The AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state. Landings from the state trip tickets should be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted towards a fisherman’s home port – counted by a fisherman’s home port. Mr. Burgess: So what we’re talking about here is all species, is that correct, in the snapper grouper complex?

84


Mr. Phillips: No, this is just gags. Mr. Kipnis: Phil, just talking about the home port, you can report your boat from Miami to wherever you want to. I mean, if this rule goes through and the guy is really fishing in South Carolina, he should be home ported in South Carolina. You can do it. I thing it’s $125 or something like that. Mr. Conklin: Yes, but the documentation papers are where he has got his home, which is in Florida. Mr. Kipnis: I’m pretty sure I spent $125 to report one of my party boats from New York to Miami Beach on my documentation papers. There was one form that I filled out that was $125 fee, and they changed it. It was an addendum that slid into the documentation paper with a new home port on it. Mr. Oden: It’s really irrelevant; I just added four feet to my boat, and I had to redocument that and it didn’t cost me a dime. I mean, as far as changing a name, I don’t think it’s much, if anything. Mr. Marhefka: I just think that we’re going to go and open up a lot of cans of worms that we’re not familiar with in the documentation office here and some of the fishing vessels. I’m thinking about my brother. His boat is documented in Jacksonville, Florida, and he’s been fishing out of North Carolina for over 20-something years now. His business is based in Jacksonville, Florida, but he’s running out of North Carolina. Anyway, I just wanted to throw that mix in there. Mr. Burgess: Would this be determined community-based management, and would that fall under the LAP Program as far as – is that what we’re doing; we basing our future landings based on, of course, our historical participation in it, and we would be limited to that. And, basically, what would happen – and this is a question – that however many gag grouper were landed in my community, that that’s it. Now, would it be divided among the fishermen who have the historical landings and catching these fish, or would it be, say, if there was a small allocation to my community, would it be the possibility that people would start to jump out there, and if we only have, say, just to give you a number, 5,000 pounds of gag grouper landed in my community, and what years would that be, and with that small of a number, I could see a potential for people jumping out there and wanting to get their fair share, you know, and things of that nature. I’m not sure if I’m on the right track here, but is that a possibility? Mr. Waugh: The community right now as defined by this motion would be state. It wouldn’t be any finer than that. But, yes, at a state level, then, any fisherman who would be home ported, in your instance, in North Carolina could fish on North Carolina – well, wherever they fished, their landings would count towards North Carolina’s gag quota. Then when that quota was met, then, no fisherman home ported in North Carolina could fish for gag, fish for or possess gag, according to this motion.

85


Mr. Gould: In North Carolina there is a boat from, say, South Carolina has to have a North Carolina commercial fishing license with a commercial fishing certificate to sell their fish there, and it’s on a reciprocal basis state by state there; like, if South Carolina don’t let our boats land in there, we won’t let them land in us. Really, the only fair thing to do is if they fish off of our coast, they buy the permits and whatnot, it should go against the North Carolina state there, because our boats could go down to South Carolina and do the same thing to them. It’s a reciprocal thing. So, to make things simple, if they land it in North Carolina, they’re fully licensed and whatnot, it should go against North Carolina. If they do it in South Carolina or Georgia, it should go against that state. That would be the simplest way to handle it right there. Mr. Phillips: Okay, the AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state for gag grouper. Landings from the state trip tickets would be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted by a fisherman’s home port. Can I have a show of hands in favor; show of hands against. The motion fails. All right, do you have anymore discussion on something that might work that might be simpler? Mr. Cardin: Well, I keep hearing a lot of support for regional, and, of course, the Southeast Region is the whole region, and a lot of people want to regionalize it more. I don’t understand why state by state isn’t a good way to break it down into more regions. Mr. DeBrango: I vote for. Mr. Waugh: You know, we’re pressed for time. I would suggest let’s just get the intent of the motion. If Gregg was to vote yes, then it’s six-six and it still fails. Let’s not waste time going through all the steps for that. Mr. Kipnis: All right, I would like to move that we change it to the state that the fish are landed in. It’s basically the same motion, but instead of home port, the state that the fish are landed in. A new motion, then, the AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state for gag grouper. Landings from the state trip tickets would be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted in the state where the fish are landed in. Mr. Phillips: Do I have a second? Phil seconds. The AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state for gag grouper. Landings from the state trip tickets would be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted by the state where the fish are landed. Could I have a show of hands in favor; against. The motion carries. Mr. Kipnis: What is next? Mr. Waugh: The top of Page 12, closed season, you all have already approved a motion saying that during the spawning season closure there should be no harvest or possession. Do you want to look at expanding that closed season or just leave it with the action you’ve taken so far?

86


Mr. Kipnis: I have a question. What is the total reduction we’re trying to get; what’s the total reduction we’re trying to achieve here; total combined reduction? Mr. Waugh: Let’s say 31 percent right now, because – Mr. Kipnis: 31 percent, okay, so in that case, if we were to look at – where is the combined here? We don’t have a combined. This is just reduction in catch by headboat, by private, by charterboat – oh, by all modes. So, if we were to close three months, we’d get to 25.5 percent; is that correct, of the 31 percent we’re looking for? Mr. Waugh: That’s correct; that’s shown in Table 11, assuming 100 percent effective, so February, March, April for all the recreational sector, you would have a 26 percent reduction. Mr. Kipnis: All right, and then in the commercial you would have 11 percent; is that correct? Mr. Waugh: That’s correct. Mr. Kipnis: Okay, so 11 percent. How are we factoring – and a question for you – how are we factoring in that into Page 7, Table 6, and that’s the reductions back there. Starting in 2009, 694,000, that would be total. Are these closures factored into that? Mr. Waugh: The 694,000 pounds is the total mortality that we want to allow in ’09. Half of that would be allocated under you all’s motions to the recreational sector. Mr. Kipnis: 347,000 pounds each. Mr. Waugh: Right. Mr. Kipnis: What I’m asking is we have only a closure right now, is it March, on gags? Mr. Waugh: March and April. Mr. Kipnis: And April. All right, the March and April commercially only provided seven-tenths of a percent reduction? Mr. Waugh: Well, in March and April they’re not supposed to be harvesting any commercially. They’re limited to the bag limit, and they can’t be sold. That figure should be zero. Mr. Kipnis: Here’s the point I’m trying to make. If we were to come in stricter on the spawning closures, wouldn’t that have a significant effect of what would be going on on Table 6, because right now it’s not factored in for a three- or a four-month closure on these species. If you’re allowing full spawning and full recruitment, wouldn’t that have a major effect on what is going on on Table 6 in the long run? Mr. Waugh: Well, it would have an effect on limiting the recreational harvest to their portion of that figure from Table 6.

87


Mr. Kipnis: I’m talking about commercially, too, because if you look here, commercially, if we went for four months, they would be reduced by 21.4 percent. What I’m saying is, is that you have factored, on Table 6 – you only want 694,000 pounds landed, period, okay, killed. Mr. Waugh: Killed. Mr. Kipnis: All right, and we’re looking for a 31 percent reduction in catch, and you’re achieving, on a four-month closure, 21 percent of that 31 percent and you’re putting everybody under quota, wouldn’t that exceed that 31 percent by the time you got done? If you added a quota and a four-month closure together, commercially – we can do it recreationally, too – wouldn’t that exceed the 31 percent you’re looking for? Mr. Waugh: On the commercial side, we’re not as much concerned with them exceeding their quota because we’re going to prohibit any harvest and possession after that quota is met. Where we have an issue with limiting them to their harvest is on the recreational side. What the spawning closure does it gives you more protection when the fish are spawning. So, on average you would reduce the commercial – if you added in February, you would reduce their catches by 11 percent, but they could have the option of making some of that up in the remaining open period, up to their commercial quota. Mr. Kipnis: Well, that’s the fish we want to catch, fish that are not full of spawn. In the recreational sector, on a four-month closure, you would achieve a 34.6 percent reduction. Mr. Waugh: That’s correct. Mr. Kipnis: That would exceed the 31 percent. But, if you put that together now with a one-fish bag limit and a four-month closure, you might not make your 347,000 pounds. Mr. Waugh: You could certainly make that argument, but, remember, we don’t limit the number of participants on the recreational side. So, if you were to go with either the three-month or the four-month closure, based on what has happened in the past, that would be expected to have those percent reductions. And, again, that is assuming 100 percent effectives in Table 11. Table 12 is more realistic, using 90 percent effectiveness, so you’re looking at four-month closure of 31 percent reduction. And, you’re right, adding in the bag limit is giving further assurances that you will not exceed your recreational allocation. You could end up where you’re limiting the recreational sector below their allocation, and then you could relax the regulations down the line. Mr. Kipnis: Okay, numbers of fish, at 15 pounds apiece, in the quota of 347,000 pounds, recreational would be 23,133 fish averaging 15 pounds. I think the average is probably somewhere right in there recreationally, I would think, between South Florida and – maybe not in North Carolina, but I think it would average out to be that.

88


Do you have any statistics on the 17 million trips – do we run 17 million recreational trips in the southeast? Do you have any statistics on how many of those actually targeted bottom fish like gag grouper? Mr. Waugh: We can probably pull some of that out, but it’s difficult to get that targeting information because so many of the recreational trips are going out for – they’re targeting whatever they catch. Mr. Kipnis: Gregg, this is the reason I’m bring this up. We’ve got an issue where we are going to discuss closing the bag limit down. We’re going to discuss – we already know we need to reduce 31 percent. I think that the key to this and making this work to open it up is not fishing spawning fish. All right, we are not going to be able to figure out what the recreational angler is actually landing, and I know the commercial sector is very concerned that the recreational anglers are going to run over. I don’t see any way that we can track what recreational anglers are doing other than making it illegal to catch the fish when we know they need to be making babies; and after that, we just have to take shot that it worked and kept it below the 347,000 pounds that we’ve got. And the only way to do that is with a four-month closure. Mr. Waugh: No doubt, you get a lot more benefits of closing the spawning season. We do this in many, many – game management, you know, it’s not even questioned anymore. Coming back to the issue of tracking the recreational catch, MRFSS provides estimates of catch by wave. That’s by a two-month period, January/February, February/March, going on. Those are generally available 30 to 60 days after that wave ends. So, it’s not entirely correct to say that we can’t track the recreational catches. You can based on that wave information, so you can watch what’s going on. If the recreational sector is greatly exceeding their allocation, then the council can use its framework to change the management regulation. Mr. Kipnis: Wouldn’t you think that in the six-year time period here, 2009 to 2014, if we were not fishing on any spawning aggregations, neither commercially nor recreationally, that your number at the bottom, the number of fish that would be allowed to be caught in poundage, 976,000 pounds, would be too small because in five years on gag groupers we should have a much larger stock and it would get us out of the overfished much quicker, I would think. Mr. Waugh: I would agree that if you closed the spawning season totally to any harvest, you’re going to have a much quicker rebuilding. And when we do our assessment update for gag, then that should show more benefits, and then we probably could increase – if the assessment shows that, increase the catch limits more quickly. Mr. Kipnis: Now, one question for you about the whole legitimacy of this process. Five years from now, when you do your assessment, if we were to shut this fishery down to the extent that it

89


might put commercial guys out of business and severely restrict recreational anglers and give as much protection to the species as possible, especially during spawning, and you don’t find that there has been any increase according to your scientists and their best available knowledge; would you say that we’ve got a failure in the way we manage our fisheries if we go through this experiment and it doesn’t work? Mr. Waugh: Well, I think what that would show is what we have shown thus far with the regulations that we have been putting place – let’s just talk about gag. Gag is highly regulated. Why are we still having a problem? More and more people are coming to the conclusion that it’s discard mortality. So, if all we are doing is putting in regulations that are going to be effective in the paper products that we produce and don’t have real-world effects of getting the gear out of the water, then, you’re right, we’re going to be in the same boat come five years from now. That’s one of the problems with just going with quota management on a species-by-species basis in a multi-species fishery. Just preventing the harvest of gag and letting people go out there and fish for all other species and just throw back the gag, you’re inflicting a mortality. That mortality needs to be counted towards this total number. So, we have got to get to the point where we really limiting fishing mortality and not just limiting what is brought back to the dock. Mr. Kipnis: Most gag spawning aggregates are known; we know where they are. The commercial guys know where they are and the recreational guys know where they are. I think most gag spawning aggregates are not loaded with mutton snappers with the gags. Maybe red snappers would be there, and maybe scamps would be there, but generally you could avoid these spots and still be able to catch other types of groupers and snappers that are not spawning. Do you have any idea – just one more question – any idea what the mortality is estimated at right now, the release mortality on gags? Mr. Waugh: The assessment uses a 25 percent release mortality for recreational and 40 percent for commercial. Mr. Kipnis: Deeper water for the commercial; is that why? Mr. Waugh: That’s the reason, yes. Mr. DeBrango: 40 percent and all that, I mean, I know the deeper species and everything – the 25 percent, I just think those figures are arbitrary. I mean, I don’t know how we come up with these mortality rates. Mr. Adams: I do like the idea of a spawning season closure. If we’re going to do it for one side, we have got to do it for the other. It’s enforceable. One of the issues that Jeff and those guys are concerned about is that we know where they spawn and the aggregates are; and, you say you can’t go out there recreationally, you can’t go out there, because we know who you are, you know you’re fishing on the gags because you’re there. That’s where they are right then.

90


I think that makes a lot of sense. I don’t know how long it ought to be, and I don’t know exactly how we get to the number we need to. Obviously, we’d like to have a certain amount of fish take, but I think that it’s a good idea; that and getting rid of the 225s I think you’d be pretty darned close. Mr. Hooks: I agree with this. My only problem is enforcement. As a commercial fisherman, I’m not going to catch and kill it unless I can sell it. We’re pretty much governed by that, if we catch them, we’re going to sell them, and there’s going to be record of it. The enforcement is a big problem – I don’t know about the rest of the coast – in our area. Just six weeks ago, a friend of mine, who is sitting here, was boarded by the coast guard. We were both fishing, and he asked him, when they left, which way they were going. And they told him to let the other commercial boats know that they were in the area – it was a big cutter – and they would be boarding commercial boats. I asked him on the radio and he had asked them, and he said, “Well, what about the recreational boats out here fishing around us?” “We’re not here for them; we’re just here for the commercial boats.” Now, I agree with everything going on, but if I’m going to start saving fish, I want everybody else to save a few fish, too. We need some equality in the enforcement. Who is to say I can kill more fish than a recreational fisherman can and do more damage? I think we need a lot of help in the enforcement area of it. Mr. Amick: I’m just kind of – on the spawning closures I agree with that, but I’m curious to know that, you know, when it occurs if it’s the same across the board down in the Keys or South Florida as it is up in North Carolina and Georgia. I mean, I don’t think they spawn at the same time, or do they spawn across the board? I am not aware off the coast of Georgia and the shallow water that fish other spawning aggregations, and I think over the course of the last 29 seasons, I don’t think we’ve ever caught, you know, a male gag grouper in that shallow water. So, again, as far as closures, I don’t know if it’s possible to do, you know, a state closure, you know, if it affects the Keys differently than it does in North Carolina at certain times of the year. I mean, it opens up a whole ‘nother can of words, I guess. Mr. DeBrango: In the wreckfish we use a three-month closure, which anybody who has ever been out in the wreck grounds know why we start in January. You don’t want the weather out there; it’s ugly. But, I mean, it seemed to have helped. I mean, again, we went to a LAP Program, which everybody knows my position on that; it’s wrong; it’s bad. When the fish got eggs, they start showing up maybe four months – four months just seems kind of a long time, but I would generally think that three to four months with everybody, no bag limits, nothing like that, let the fish rebuild themselves, you know, let them do the work on this and just give them an extra month of relaxation from the fishermen. Mr. Phillips: Do you want to make that in the form of a motion?

91


Mr. DeBrango: I’m not sure which one, you know, the three or the four months. I mean, I’d like to get a better general consensus of everybody. I mean, four months just seems like a long time; and I think giving them an extra month with no fishing effort on them would greatly benefit the species. Mr. Marhefka: Well, I don’t know how to go and put this into a motion, but I would like to entertain the thought of leaving the current spawning aggregation months in place, but to – once again, I’m going to go and say that we pick two months out of the year where the commercial fishermen take their gear out of the water, and that’s it. You’re going to go and cover not just the gags, but you’re going to go and be covering all the species in the complex. I don’t know if it has been analyzed yet. But to me it’s the most common sense when you’re overfishing a stock, the only way to stop overfishing is quit fishing. And I think this can work. I think even John Carmichael stood up there and said an 8 percent reduction over the whole fleet of what we have out there, and you’re not interacting. But we have go, as fishermen, and choose which months they are, and I can almost guarantee all of them are going – I mean, with these spawning – the two-month spawning closures, leave them where they are, and let the fishermen go and decide what months that they go and they decide to go and quit fishing. They will be picking some of these months, also, so the other species won’t be interacted with at the same time. And, once again, remember, 10 percent of the people or the fishermen are catching 90 percent of the product, so you’re really going to go and get a big bang for your buck. If you let these guys go ahead and put this in place, I think it would work. Mr. Kipnis: I’m going to make a motion that we have a three-month closure, February, March and April, in the southeast for gag groupers. Mr. Phillips: Do I have a second. Mr. Gould: How about January, February and March? Mr. Phillips: All right, Steve seconds. Mr. Gould: How about January, February and March there, the worse parts of the winter? That’s your season down there and – Mr. Kipnis: Actually, in South Florida and Miami-Dade County, that would be much better for us, because our gags start to spawn and aggregate in January and by April they’re usually gone when the amberjacks are starting – hopefully, we’re going to get some amberjacks – start moving in. That would be better in South Florida. Mr. Gould: I think that would work better for us, too, January, February and March. In fact, I wouldn’t be opposed to adding April to it.

92


Mr. Kipnis: I’m not adverse to have – if you want to amend it to January, February and March, I’m not adverse to that. Mr. Gould: Let’s do that. Mr. Kipnis: Ask my second; are you adverse to that? Mr. Amick: I’m not adverse to it. Mr. Cardin: I believe that most of the spawning – some of it occurs in late February, but there is not much records of any January spawning in gags, is there, Gregg? Mr. Waugh: Attachment 3 in the materials that you all have has some spawning information. For gag, spawning occurs January through May. Also, in Attachment 1 you’ve got information on each species showing when they spawn and the peaks. Mr. Kipnis: If I might, Mr. Chairman, it says here on that – it’s almost at the very back if you wanted to look. It’s a pretty neat chart. It gives all kinds of fish and when they spawn. That was North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, January, February, March, April, May. Canaveral to Dry Tortugas, they have no information, so anecdotally I can tell you that we start to see our aggregations in January in Dade County, anecdotally, and that they start to trail off and they’re gone by April. So, in South Florida, extreme South Florida, if you wanted to have an effect, where they have no information at all, that would work. That also covers North Carolina to Cape Canaveral to some extent in all those areas. Mr. Cardin: Danny, I know that fish travel and start gathering, and they gather and travel and travel and gather, but do you really see any roe swelling as early as January that far south because south of Fort Pierce I never see it earlier than the third week of February. Mr. Kipnis: No, I’m just talking about when they gather. It doesn’t make any difference. If they’re gathering, in my mind, to spawn, even though they’re not ripe yet, they’re still susceptible to overfishing, and that’s what we’re trying to stop. We’re trying to reduce the catch. They might not be ready to go and they might be – you know, we’re doing it on January the 1st, and they might not be up to spawning until the 28th of January, but they’ve already grouped together to do it. I want to remove the overfishing on them when they’re grouped. Mr. Cardin: Yes, I just find they’re still traveling until their eggs swell. You know, we keep saying all these numbers, that there’s variables that for some reason the charts don’t never materialize and we keep having to do reductions. We can decide whatever months we want, but I’m going to tell you you’re going to get a big bang for your buck of zero retention alone in the two months that we’re talking about, because there’s a lot of people that run out just because the gags are thick and they’re biting hard.

93


You know, to say that we’re not getting our results because of regulatory discards, well, in March and April I basically sit at the dock. And when I do go kingfish or something, I’m not seeing gags floating, but I’m see gags all over the docks. So, maybe regulatory discard isn’t really the problem. Maybe it’s enforcement or enforceability. And with zero retention, once again, I think you’ll get a really big bang for your buck. Mr. Kelly: I agree in part with what Dan Kipnis has said here in South Florida and the Keys, and I would like to see that closure be January, February and March. As Bob mentioned, there is perhaps no roe in those fish at that time, but as Dan pointed out they are accumulating and gathering to spawn. We have an issue that’s endemic to our area, and that is our commercial guys are trap fishing for lobster and stone crabs in January, February and March; and then come April, they’ve got to get those traps out. They need a paycheck, so they get the tail end of that gag grouper spawn, and they can begin fishing for amberjack. That’s what put the food on their tables. So I would be inclined to support the January, February, March closure, and let’s keep April out of the picture. Mr. DeBrango: Well, the whole point about a spawning closure is to let the fish release eggs. If you leave it open in April, you’re going to be seeing a lot of fish with a lot of eggs still in them. That’s when the fish are really biting and a lot of mortality is going to happen then. I mean, it’s hard to say due to regionals – okay, maybe in your area the fish aren’t there, but if you don’t put something in there for it, you’re going to have everybody jumping out in April up here when you’ve got a bunch of fish sitting around with a lot of eggs in them. You might as well not even close then, because you’re going to be killing a lot of fish with eggs. The same as the wreckfish, I mean, if you start seeing in these fish at a certain time, and some years when the spawning runs a little bit later and you go out there at the opening of it and you’re seeing a lot of fish with eggs – some years you see them with a lot of eggs; some years you don’t; you catch the fish and there’s no eggs in them. So, that’s kind of what we’re trying to stop here is any kind of fish being caught with eggs in it. Mr. Kipnis: Couldn’t we have a split area? Florida is January, February, March, and north of Florida can include April, and it seems like your fish spawn more up here later than we down there, and that would make sense. Mr. Phillips: Well, I’m thinking that a three-month closure is going to catch most of it and still keep it simpler. We have a motion and we need to vote on it. Mr. Burgess: Isn’t now our spawning closure for gags March and April, and that has been determined through the best available data that those are the peak spawning times; and with this, what we’re doing would eliminate supposedly one of the prime months of spawning. And as Gregg pointed out, not everything happens in that rigid timeframe. Before and after, you know, there is a little leeway there. I am kind of in favor of continuing with the March and April closure and maybe consider two weeks on either side of that to expand the peak season and just continue with the three-month

94


closure, and we would have, in case there is that sway in water temperature and weather, and it would still include the peak season of spawning. Mr. Cardin: One thing that has always concerned me with gags – and I’ll put it on the record – in November and December I’ll see bunches of 40, 75, 100 blackbellies, and they’re on the highway waiting for these traveling females to come by. And, they might start pairing off and traveling and grouping up in January, and what have you, and in February some of them start mimicking each other, and you see patterns of here is an aggregate. Now, one thing I have always had a problem with is this whole sex change thing. So, let’s say February 15th you go fishing and you catch a couple of blackbellies out of a little to-be spawned. I don’t believe they have time to recruit more males or to do the sex change. So, you know, maybe closing it in the front and protecting the male groupers might do a whole lot for you by protecting the males. Thank you. Mr. Conklin: All right, we’re here to protect the fish, and I have to go along with what Tom said. If we do mid-February through mid-May, because this year on the 1st of May, there was a phenomenal amount of groupers landed. And, talking to the fishermen, the fish were roed up. Mr. Kipnis: If I might, one more thing. Guys, we have not talked about this at all. Some people don’t even believe this, but the ocean is getting hotter. Species are migrating farther to the north that haven’t been there. There are many factors moving fish around in ways that we don’t know. You just said, Phil, that you had a heavy spawn going in May, which is not normal. It’s the first time you’ve seen this. I think you’re going to see this more often now than we have in the past as the water gets warmer. Spawnings will get later and the fish will move to places that they usually haven’t gone, and that’s part of climate change that is going on. So, we have got both things. Bob is so smart about the males changing and having time to do it. Only 2 percent of gags are males; 98 percent are females. So, if you catch two out of a hundred, you could catch the whole male population. It doesn’t make any difference what protection you put on the females, you won’t get a spawn. And you have to realize that when you’re thinking about these fish. You’ve got to be more conservative than you might be on other species just because of this sex change. Mr. Phillips: Okay, anymore discussion before we vote, and then I think Mark wants to make another alternative motion, just as another alternative for the council. The AP endorses a three-month closure, January, February, March, for gag grouper for both sectors. All in favor, raise your hand; all opposed. The motion carries. Mr. Marhefka: I would just like to go and maybe make a motion here that we look – once again, trying to go and squeeze in these – keep the original spawning season closure of March and April. The fishermen go and choose two months out of the year; what two months choose, one of them has to go and include a – one of the months of March and April in the two months that they decide they would not go and fish for all snapper grouper species.

95


Mr. Phillips: Are you talking about commercial or recreational? Mr. Marhefka: This is on the commercial end. Maybe I’m not saying this right because I’m getting a lot of blank looks here. Mr. Phillips: I think what you’re saying is you want the two-month closures, and only one of which can be during the spawning closure, so that means they’re going – Mr. Marhefka: One of them would have to be within the spawning season closure of the gag. Mr. Phillips: But both could be? Mr. Marhefka: But both could be, true. Yes, they could go and choose both, whatever, but one of them would be during either March or April. So, in other words, they would sit at the docks during that timeframe. Mr. Phillips: All right, let’s get in order here. Mr. DeBrango: So that would be the boat sits at the dock for two months of a year? Mr. Marhefka: That is correct, they would sit at the dock for two months out of the year. Mr. Cardin: Can I make a motion like that one or – Mr. Phillips: We need a second on it first. Mr. Cardin: Well, could I ask Mark a question? Should we ask that the National Marine Fisheries – council pass a rule that National Marine Fisheries only issue grouper snapper permits in the South Atlantic for a ten-month period? You know, that way you wouldn’t have to worry about the boat being out fishing because if he was out during those two-month closures, he would be in violation of law. It would be much more enforceable. Mr. Oden: In my area, we have diverse fisheries. I mean, I do ten different things in the course of a year, and, I mean, six months out of the year is about all I’ve ever bottom fished, anyway. I mean, in our case, I’m going to be fishing in January and February, but I’m not going to be bottom fishing. Mr. Cardin: To Jeff’s point, if we’re worried about latent effort and fishermen starting on the fishery, then this would, of course, keep Jeff from changing that mind in traveling. So, even though it sounds like it wouldn’t apply to you, it would keep you from entering the fishery in another area. Mr. Phillips: Well, I think Mark is saying stay to the dock in snapper grouper. You could go king mackerel fishing or something.

96


Mr. Waugh: The council has considered this in the past. The AP had made this suggestion in the past, and the council is concerned about effort shifts and enforceability. You would improve the enforceability if you also included a requirement for VMS with this. Anything else you all could do to overcome the objections that the council has raised in the past with this would be to your benefit. And, if I could just mention one other thing; we have got to have at least an hour for Amendment 15; don’t you think, Rick? So, we’ve got to look to wrap 16 by 11:00 o’clock. Mr. Marhefka: I’ll just let this pass, let this pass. Mr. Phillips: So on the record, you’re going to withdraw it. Mr. Marhefka: Yes, I’m going to withdraw it. Mr. Phillips: Let’s take a five-minute, and then we will come back and see if we can wind this up real quick.


Mr. Phillips: Okay, let’s talk about vermilion. That should go real quick. Mr. Kipnis: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did we reduce the bag limit already? We haven’t done that yet, have we? Mr. Phillips: On gags? Mr. Kipnis: On gags. I make a motion and I’d like to reduce the recreational bag limit from two to one, and I’d like to reduce the aggregate limit to three. Mr. Phillips: Repeat it, and then Mark seconded it. Mr. Kipnis: Okay, reduce the bag limit from two gags to one and reduce the aggregate limit from five groupers to three groups, of which one now would be allowed to be a gag. The same multi-day possessions would still be in effect. That’s for the boats that go out three days on long-range trips or whatever. Just this is all I want to deal with. Mr. Marhefka: Before I second that, I want to go and bring up the point that Steve brought up the other day about the captain and crews not being able to include their bag limit – they are included in bag limit catch on the vessel. I want to make sure that’s in there. Mr. Kipnis: Do you want to amend it? Mr. Marhefka: If that needs to be amended or else – Mr. Kipnis: Amend it. Mr. Marhefka: I would like to go and add an amendment to that motion that the captain and crew are not included in the bag limit possession.

97


Mr. DeBrango: And also possibly take the tilefish out of the grouper bag limit, if we’re going to do this, because I know golden tilefish counts in the grouper bag limit. Mr. Kipnis: Why would you want to take the tilefish out of it? It’s in the three. I mean, you could have one gag, one tile and then one other grouper, one red grouper or something like that in your possession limit. Mr. DeBrango: It’s not a grouper. Mr. Kipnis: But it falls in the snapper grouper management plan. Mr. Waugh: True, it’s not a grouper, but that was done to provide added protection to tilefish; and removing that, then you’d have to put in a tilefish bag limit. Then you’d have to reduce the aggregate bag limit more to account for that. It puts you in the position of liberalizing regulations when we really need to be cranking them down. Mr. DeBrango: If I’m correct, tilefish is not overfished and overfishing has not occurred, and we’re including a tilefish into something that they’re saying overfish is occurring, and I think we need to look at it that way. Mr. Waugh: The last stock assessment showed we did have overfishing taking placing, and we have put regulations in place that should end that overfishing, but we need to have confirmation of that with a stock assessment update. Mr. Marhefka: Now, that’s gray tile – Mr. Waugh: Sorry, golden, it’s golden. Mr. Marhefka: Okay, I want to make sure that’s clear. Mr. Cardin: The council has always included black grouper because it was identification purposes for law enforcement or angler, what have you, so the one fish, should it be one gag and one black? Mr. Kipnis: And/or. Mr. Waugh: It is now. Mr. Kipnis: Well, it needs to read the same. That is what it is now, and it needs to read the same as the way that it is now. Mr. Cardin: Okay, one more thing. On the tilefish, on 13C it was said that overfishing was occurring, and one way was the commercial reduction and then the one tilefish was part of the recreational reduction.

98


Mr. DeBrango: Which counted towards the grouper bag limit. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we have a first and a second. Anymore discussion before we vote? Mr. Amick: I just had a question on this motion here; what percentage of reduction are we getting with that motion? Mr. Waugh: If you look at Page 13, Table 13, that shows with non-compliance, that the reduction, in going from two to one for the recreational sector would be a 5 percent reduction. If you assume that there is full compliance, it would be a 9 percent reduction. Mr. Cardin: If the bag limit has been two and you reduce it to one, then it would have to be a 50 percent reduction. Mr. Kipnis: We’re not getting one fish per person. Bill said that he’s only getting 0.88 per trip per boat. Mr. Cardin: That’s in an average that we would have to assume that some boats or some trips are catching more. Mr. Waugh: And what this is showing you is that very few boats are catching two or more. Very few individuals are catching two or more, because going from two one only reduces the catches by 9 percent. Mr. Cardin: Well, I’ve been reading the Florida Sportsman and watching the articles in there, and according to that they’re catching a lot of – like there’s an article where two guys went out and got four baits and had their four fish that fast. So, if you’re telling me where, when and how, chances are there’s more people doing it. Mr. Kelly: Out of the 13 boats that we surveyed with the charterboat association just a week ago, even with a given that some are catching more than others, the average is still 0.88. So, even with what you’re saying that one boat may have had two or three or four, the average is still less than one fish per boat. Mr. Gray: Not to make fun, Robert, but I read Florida Sportsman, too, and guys don’t write in or call in or send pictures when they don’t have any fish to hold up. Those are the only guys that really hit the jackpot that are reporting it and sending the pictures in. Mr. Cardin: Yes, I understand that, but you’re reducing the guys that are hitting the jackpot, then it’s more substantial than a 5 percent change. Mr. Phillips: The AP recommends reducing the bag limit for gag grouper from two to one, and to reduce the aggregate grouper limit from five to three, of which one allowed to be a gag or black grouper. The captain and crew should not be included in the bag limit possession. I would like a raise of hands for yes; all opposed, same sign. The motion passes.

99


Okay, now let’s go to vermilion. We know we’ve got a TAC. I think we’re all hoping for a change in this 61 percent reduction that is on the table. The reasons for that are we’ve got logbook data that would be included in another benchmark assessment. We have observer data that would be included. We would know about what the recreational increase in size limit would change. I don’t know what else they might add in there, but just those three alone I think is going – and we’ve got a lot of otoliths, I forgot that. So, we’ve got a lot things that could change vermilion. That being said, I think it’s pretty much given around this table that we think we want minimum things done to vermilion. I think maybe we should spend our time on allocation, which is not going to change. Then in a worse-case scenario that we do have to live with 61 percent or something else that would come out, hopefully, by June, we will do some worse-case scenarios – we can make a motion on how we would handle it on worse-case scenario and go from that. Mr. Kipnis: All right, well, to get us rolling, I will move – well, I can’t go and half; they’re both basically the same – Alternative 2B. I am going to give the recreational guys 1 percent more. I think that’s like three pounds. I will move Alternative 2B as the allocation, because they’re both essentially equal. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we will take that as a motion. Do I have a second? Mr. Adams: I’ll second the motion. Mr. Phillips: Discussion? Mr. DeBrango: Also, that discussion about the red porgies, if we’re going to have 61 percent, if we can add more red porgies to this somehow. Just to make up for a 61 percent hit on all the vermilion snapper that depend upon this, if we can give them a little bit of poundage of red porgies, which those of us are offshore all the time know you’ve got to run away from them. I know there is not a stock assessment right now on them, and there is a stock assessment coming on the red porgies? Mr. Waugh: It’s already been assessed. We had an update and that’s why in 13C we relaxed the regulations. We can check the list and see when the next full assessment is done, but you might want to just deal with this allocation issue and then come back to the red porgy issue. Mr. Phillips: Okay, anymore discussion on allocation? Okay, the AP endorses Alternative 2B for the allocation of vermilion snapper. All in favor, raise your hand; same sign, opposed. The motion passes. Since we have allocations, do you want to talk about do you want to set hard TACs for everybody; do you want to talk about enforcement; or how do you want to take these – if we don’t get a change in the percentage of cuts, how do you want to do it?

100


Mr. Kipnis: It would be very hard without knowing what is coming to even consider that question, because of the ramifications on people’s livelihood. The fact that we’ve just said this is what the allocation is ought to hold us until we have told that by next June or so we’ve got a whole new thing coming out here. And it could, after our experience in the Gulf of Mexico when they looked at otoliths, find out that the fish are in much better shape than what a length management criteria would set on that stock. I would be hard pressed to start allocating poundage to people without knowing what the real end of it is going to be in June. Mr. Gould: We know that the scientists are not comfortable with the data that they’re dealing with right now. I think probably the best thing to do is to go with your allocation for Alternative 2B, leave it open until it’s caught and then just shut it down until something else comes up. Keep the recreational limit as it is, keep the commercial going as it is, and when it gets up, just shut it down whether it’s the middle of May, middle of June, middle of July or whatnot. That will help the recreational side there, charterboat, headboat, out a bit, and we’d just have to deal with it when it’s shut down there instead of cutting down on limits and whatnot there. We know about what is going to be allowed, 385 for the commercial and 181 for the recreational, and we just have to take it from there. That’s what I would do there, being a businessman. Mr. Phillips: Are you talking about closing it commercially and recreationally or just commercially, because you’ve got a soft TAC on recreational. Mr. Gould: When the commercial is met, shut it down, let them fellows make their money while they can. They can shut it down and they can shift to something else, put pressure on something else. The recreational, it should be the same way. A soft TAC on that is a hard pill to swallow there when you know that you’re going more than what you’re allowed to catch, and there is such problem with the thing. So, when that has been all reported there, that should be shut down. The recreational fishermen should be permitted outside of the professional fishermen, recreational fishermen. The ones that does it on the weekends or whatnot, they should – what is good for the goose is good for the gander there. If we’re going to be regulated to death, they should be followed in the same footsteps. Even though I suspect – unless they are really stomped down on, having to start reporting, VMS system, they will keep right on fishing there while I am sitting to the dock starving. Mr. Kipnis: I don’t even want to get into that. I mean, I wouldn’t say that the commercial quota should be anything other that what it has historically been, because we don’t know what the true stock assessment is when we go back and look at the otoliths and all the rest of the things. I wouldn’t want to impose upon the commercial sector nor the recreational sector the numbers up there on Page 17, Table 17, because we don’t know, Terrell. We can stay where we are until June.

101


Mr. Gould: Bear in mind, though, you’ve been given a mandate by Big Brother that this has got to be done. Mr. Kipnis: This one got a little reprieve, if I’m not mistaken, until June; is that correct? Mr. Waugh: Well, there has been a lot of statements about who said what to whom, and we will know when we get in our Snapper Grouper Committee discussions this afternoon. Mr. Gould: At this time, though, we have to go as if this is God’s law, and that is what I’m going by. So, if I had to do it, that’s the way I would do it. Mr. Phillips: Gregg, we could get a motion of no action, but given the pleasure of the council, are they going to want us to – even though we’re pretty sure we’re going to get a change, are they going to want something from us saying if it doesn’t change – because this AP is not going to meet again probably before June or at least before we get a benchmark and they’ve got to do something. Did I follow the dots correctly? Mr. Waugh: Yes, and I don’t want people to be surprised if they stick around for this afternoon or hear about what transpires. My recommendation to the committee and council will be that we continue forward until we get another letter that changes that June deadline; that we continue forward with the information we have here. The hope is that we’re going to get a revised assessment before June. If that pans out, then we can change our alternatives here. If we don’t get a revised letter, then we have still got to meet that June deadline. And if we going out to public hearings with gag alternatives, my recommendation will be that we take vermilion snapper alternatives out at the same time; so that if, indeed, we don’t get a reprieve, we’ve got our information available. If we get a reprieve and it says, well, your reduction can be much less or you don’t need a reduction, then we’ve got alternatives that have already gone out through the public hearing process. Mr. Gould: Also there, if we were to get a reprieve after passing this, I would not be above having an AP meeting by conference call. I think everybody would be able to do that, sit down and have one there. With modern technology, it would be a viable thing to do there, have a conference call and come to another decision on it. I wouldn’t be above doing that. Mr. DeBrango: I’m going to use a bad analogy here. I go to the store and I buy a lottery ticket in the hopes I’m going to win. It doesn’t happen, so I think maybe we should look at this thing here best-case scenario. We’re hoping to make a decision here that’s going to put a lot of people out of business on the hopes that maybe next June we’re going to get a reprieve on this. Do you know what I’m saying? The way things are going, I don’t see things like that happening. I mean, maybe I’m a pessimist, but it doesn’t seem like these guys over here that go out and catch the red eyes, they’re all going to be sitting around waiting until June until their lottery ticket comes in and helps them out with this. So, I think we need to look at it that way, too.

102


Mr. Kipnis: Just for the record, Allocation Alternative 2B that we selected will create a 59 percent reduction in commercial landings and a 70 percent reduction in recreational landings. That is huge. I can’t fathom in my mind that vermilion snapper are in such grave danger. I mean, it’s just hard for me, knowing how many vermilions – you know, I drop a kabekee rig off of Cape Canaveral, and that’s what I use for bait to catch gag groupers and red snappers, but – no, they’re all legal size. They’re all legal size, you know, but I would never use an undersized fish for bait. But, the point that I’m making – Mr. Hooks: Was this while you were commercial or recreational fishing? Mr. Kipnis: While I was a commercial fisherman. I would never do that as a recreational fisherman. Thanks for that, Danny. The point that I’m making is that, you know, we’re talking about huge reductions here that are going to affect a lot of people across the board. I don’t know; I know the law says we’ve got to use the best science available, and the scientists are sure enough that they’re correct. But, I can’t see it. I’m not hearing it from any of my constituents. I’m not hearing it from my commercial friends. I’m not hearing it from recreational guys, not from the headboat people. I mean, I’m not hearing it anywhere but from the scientists. Normally I go along saying the scientists are somewhere between 30 and 70 percent reliable. They said it themselves. But, you look at this and I’m going to give you – here is why I brought it up. The whole recreational allocation under 2B is 181,000 pounds. The headboats alone in 2006 landed 362,000 pounds. So what is that going to do to your business? Mr. Amick: That’s a reduction, the 61 percent; it’s over. Mr. Kipnis: It’s over. When you catch B-liners, if you lose 59 percent of your B-liners, Danny, what is that going to do to you? Mr. Hooks: I’m going to throw away my B-liners. Mr. Kipnis: Yes, you’ll stop fishing for them. So, let’s take Table 17 here on Page 17, and we’re going to have a total catch of 566,000 pounds; 390,000 commercial; 175,000 recreational; and we need to put that in right now because we’re looking to win a lotto in June – I think the lotto in June is going to come back and go we’ve been doing this all wrong. When we look at otoliths, we’re going to find out these fish are spawning prolifically at seven inches long; and that the way we’ve looked at this species is not correct. Now, I could be wrong and then we have to bite a bigger bullet, but if we’re going to go out of business now or we’re going to go out of business a year from now, what difference does it make, you’re still out of business. There can’t be a bigger bullet. Now, Gregg is about to say that the law says that we’ve got to do something because the council is going to go in there and do it regardless. Isn’t that right, Gregg?

103


Mr. Waugh: No, I was coming back to the statement that the scientists are comfortable or confident in these results, and I think you have to go back to the first benchmark assessment for vermilion. The scientists aren’t at all comfortable with this. They have, in fact, recommended that you not use any of the biomass-based parameters that come out of this assessment. So, the scientists are very uncomfortable about this, but what they are saying is, is if we are charged with using the available science and data and doing an assessment, here is what you get. But, they are very uncomfortable with it; they’ve said so. They’ve said so from the get-go. They’ve said we need an age-based assessment from the first length-based model that was done. The problem has been we don’t have the resources in the Southeast Region in terms of money and people to analyze the age products. Mr. Kipnis: If I might, we don’t have the money to analyze the otoliths, that’s why it hasn’t been done. We’re now forced with a decision, but let me ask you a question. How many crew do you have, total, working for you, two, you, two, there’s four, there’s six people who work on a party boat in Miami. There’s another one back there. When they’re collecting unemployment or being retrained because this is such, you know, an important fishery, what costs more, checking out 9,800 otoliths or retraining and paying for all these people that are going to be severely impacted by this, because it’s not only vermilions – and we hear this all the time – it’s every species, amberjack, gag groupers, this and that, it just compounds and compounds. It’s not fair to ask the council nor the AP to do this when we know we’ve got the questions that need to be answered. Now, you come back to me in June and we do a conference call and you say it’s beyond a doubt now, we are confident in what we’re giving you, and we need to reduce it like this, and because you kept fishing, we need to go even more, I’ll buy that. I’ll say, okay, that’s for real. But right now, I can’t do it, I can’t do it. Mr. Adams: You know, we have already told the council to do the least restrictive thing they can to meet the obligation of the law. And, by gosh, I can’t sit here and do this and say that what we ought to do is to take these kind of reductions and spread it out there and watch his ten guys go without work and all these other folks. I can’t personally do it. I just say that we’ve already said – the council is obligated by law to do something. We’ve already said do the least restrictive thing you can and still meet the letter of the law. Charlie can’t do it, so I can’t vote for that kind of a cut right now. There you have it from me. Mr. Phillips: More discussion? Mr. Kipnis: I would like to make a motion. I would like to move that the AP recommends to the council that until we have updated statistics relating to vermilion snapper biomass that the council takes as little action as possible, other than the allocation that we recommended, in their future meetings regarding this fishery. : Now, I could put a caveat on that saying that

104


the adverse effects of possibly – well, I’ll make it easy – possible wrong decisions of fisheries rules regarding vermilion snappers far outweigh – Mr. DeVictor: I didn’t know it was part of the motion. Mr. Waugh: This is discussion, right, to support the motion? I mean, that’s the motion – Mr. Kipnis: Okay, let’s just stick with the motion; that’s nice and simple. Then I’ll just say that, you know, I already said what I said, you guys heard it, and that’s the motion I’m making. If I can get a second, I would appreciate it. Mr. Gray: I’ll second it. Mr. Phillips: Jim Gray seconds. Mr. DeBrango: The minimal action is still what, 61 percent, right? Minimal action is basically no action. Mr. Phillips: I think we can choose a no action, which is what the motion is. We can choose a no action. I am guessing that the council, if they decide that they don’t like no action, they can decide how to cut a 61 percent. Mr. Kipnis: All right, I think it would read better, if you’ll allow me to amend – that the council take no action regarding vermilion snappers until the new stock assessment comes in. Mr. DeBrango: Do you need a second on that amendment? Mr. Kipnis: The allocation should be there. Right, that’s supposed to be in it, because we did take action on that. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Marhefka: I would like to amend this. I think what we need to do is the AP recommends to the council – what I’m trying to do is get in the funding that’s needed to get where we need to go, because the SSC has to have this funding to get these otoliths. Go ahead, Gregg. Mr. Waugh: I think that’s being taken care of. The political fire has reached sufficient heights that that is going to be taken care of. Mr. Marhefka: I retract my amendment. Mr. Phillips: Anymore discussion? Okay, the AP recommends to the council that they have updated statistics related to vermilion snapper biomass and that the council take no action other than the allocation decision. All in favor, raise your hand; against. It passes unanimously.

105


Mr. Hooks: Charlie needs to bring up something. I heard him mention it, and I think it’s very important. Mr. Adams: The 225s, we didn’t talk about that on the gags. We know that the 225 allocations that we had have not had the effect that the council intended, and I would like to go on record with the AP saying that the 225s go away. I will make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Kipnis: I’ll second that. Mr. Phillips: Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Gray: If you would just explain that, I would appreciate it, what the 225 does and how it works. Mr. Waugh: When the council was considering its limited entry program in Snapper Grouper Amendment 8, there were a lot of outcries, particularly from southern Florida, that there were fishermen who would not meet the entrant’s requirements to get a permit, but that they had planned on earnings from small-scale commercial fishing for their retirement. So, what the council included in Amendment 8 was a provision for individuals to get a trip limited permit that limited them to 225 pounds per trip, with the idea that as individuals died, those permits would disappear. It appears that those permits are being leased. We’re still looking into that, but those numbers are not declining like we expected. Mr. Phillips: Charlie, is that kind of what you wanted. You want them out, but I suppose you’re going to put a date in there for when they’re going to expire? Mr. Adams: I would recommend no sale or lease on the permits and that are phased out by June of ’08. Mr. Phillips: Okay, anymore discussion? Mr. DeBrango: Wow! I mean, the National Marine Fisheries Service has taken care of killing people’s permits. I’m one right now that I’ve got a lawyer involved because they’re screwing me right now. These people have these permits. I mean, maybe it’s not fitting into all the plans and everything, but, damn, that’s all I’ve got to say. Mr. Zimmerman: I am going to have to speak up on behalf of my constituency here; because, if we lose those 225 permits completely – I mean, I understand about leasing them and trading them, but a lot of people in the Florida Keys depend on those permits to make ends meet. It’s a multi-species fishery, and we consider those permits gold. I’ve had a lot struggles trying to get permits back in the fishery when somebody loses them. There is a serious clamp-down on snapper grouper permits. I can’t agree with completely eliminating those permits.

106


Mr. Conklin: Gregg, isn’t there a stipulation where those 225 permits cannot be transferred or sold? Mr. Waugh: Right, in a subsequent amendment we clarified that they could be transferred – an individual could transfer that permit from one vessel to another vessel, but those are not supposed to be sold. They’re not supposed to be leased. That does not meet the council’s intent. Now, that doesn’t mean that what is going on is illegal according to the regulation. I’m just saying the council’s intent, when they set that up, was for a small group of elderly gentlemen who wanted to continue to participate and have their earnings from small-scale commercial fishing to supplement their retirement. So, to me, if you’ve got young folks with this permit, that’s not what the council was thinking about. Mr. Adams: Is that gags only for this 225? Mr. Waugh: No, that’s for the entire snapper grouper fishery. Mr. Kipnis: Scott, if the permits are as important as you say, who has got the permit? Is there a bunch of elderly guys that have them and they’re commercial fishermen? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, we did a survey not too long ago of a couple fish houses, and the average age is around 61. The majority of those fishermen that hold those 225 permits are spiny lobster fishermen. Mr. Kipnis: So, they’re spiny lobster fishermen; and then when the season is closed, they augment their catch by going bottom fishing? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, for the most part. You know, for the last couple of seasons in spiny lobster – except for last year, the last couple of seasons have been pretty poor, so they have been supplementing their income with grays, yellowtail, mutton. Mr. Kipnis: To Gregg, how many permits are actually out there? Mr. Waugh: I don’t have that number before me. We have that; I can get that for you. We have got it in our material that the LAPP Committee is looking at. Mr. DeBrango: I think that’s wrong and that’s illegal. Like I said, what is going on with the permits – I mean, a 61-year-old man, you can’t just sit around here and say, “Hey, man, your permit is gone.” Like I said, the National Marine Fisheries Service is doing fine with that right now. That should be illegal, a lot of the dealings on it that are going on with all this. Mr. Kelly: Scott, let me clarify this. The average age of these permit holders is 61, and these are individuals that have been involved in commercial fisheries throughout their livelihood; is that correct?

107


Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. I mean, that was an independent survey done at a fish house. I would imagine that average age could actually be brought down to about 50, but no lower. And, yes, for the most part they’re stone crabbers or spiny lobster fishermen. Mr. Gray: How many of these permits were issued initially and how fast are they declining over the years? I mean, that should tell us – because, the idea was – and, by the way, I don’t think 61 is that old. But, anyway, these numbers should be coming down as people either die or become disabled and are no able to fish. Mr. Phillips: Yes, just as a person like myself, I would be curious to know what they’re targeting mostly. Are they targeting something like yellowtails that’s not overfished or are they targeting something like gag that is overfished? I personally would like to know that. Mr. Waugh: Again, this is from material that is going to be provided or has already been provided to the LPPA Workgroup and Committee. Limited snapper grouper permits, the most recent number we have is 145; and, we don’t have an analysis of that trend over time. We could certainly look at that. But of those 145, 124 are in Florida; 1, Georgia; 11, North Carolina; 3, South Carolina; and 6 other. So 86 percent of them are in Florida. Mr. Adams: With this information, I’ll withdraw the motion in favor of somebody making a better motion. Mr. Kipnis: I don’t have a problem with that. Mr. Iarocci: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tony Iarocci, South Atlantic Council. I wanted to address a lot of the concerns and issues on this 225 permit. I was involved in this at the time. I did get a 225 permit, and I just this year let it lapse because I didn’t want to be in a confrontation issue when it came up for discussion. I can speak frankly on this issue right now because I do not have one anymore. The guys that do have the 225 permit, as Scott stated earlier, use that permit off season or in a bad season to target mostly yellowtail, mangrove, mutton and some grouper. They do not target the gags and vermilions. So, it’s not an issue we’re talking about here. I do appreciate your pulling that motion, because I do think we should address these permits with the phase out, how many are there – and they shouldn’t be leased, because everybody is taking cuts on that thing. Gregg, you said it right there, I hate taking any viable option for the industry to make a living or to keep sustaining their fishery, taking it away from anybody. Thanks for pulling that. Mr. Hooks: I want to know how many were issued originally; to get to where we’re right at now, the 145? Mr. Waugh: Roughly, in 1999 there were about 260. And, again, we’ll have to go back and look at these, because what I’m doing is pulling a table from – and it may be in Amendment 15. It’s looking at the number of permitted vessels total over time, and then the number of vessels with unlimited permits.

108


In 2000 you had 340; 2001, about 300; 2002, 270; 2003, 140; 2004, 220. So, remember, some of those permits, you have to renew them, what, every two years, so there is some of that involved, but that’s roughly the numbers over time. Mr. Oden: I have a question maybe you can answer. How many of those are active; do you know? I know in our area there are a bunch that have been dormant for five or six or maybe even ten years. I mean, I’m not looking to lose anymore infrastructure, but I’m just throwing that out there as a possible measure to look at. Mr. Waugh: And the LAPP Workgroup is going to be looking at that information. The LAPP Workgroup will have those analyses, and that discussion will start this afternoon. And with that, I would suggest we get on Amendment 15. Mr. Phillips: That was my suggestion. Mr. DeVictor: Okay, we have 45 minutes here so I’ll be kind of brief right here. You all looked at Amendment 15 in December when you last met. Since then the council has added three new actions. They have added allocations for black sea bass, snowy grouper and black sea bass pot alternatives, alternatives that would limit how many tags get handed out to fishermen each year. So, I certainly want comment on those three new actions, but you have gone through this document, I think, two meetings or one meeting, at least. But, our primary focus or one of the focuses of 15 are these rebuilding plans for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy. Why do we have these? To help to achieve the conservation goal, these plans are required by law. So, these are not – the actions you can tell us in this particular document are a bunch of alternatives and actions in Amendment 15, so there are 23 additional actions in this amendment besides the plans themselves. Rebuilding plans are plans to recover stocks to a sustainable level, which we call BMSY, within a specific period of time. There’s two components to a plan; the schedule and the strategy. So, what you’ll see for these three species is a schedule portion and a strategy portion, and I’ll go through those in a second. Snowy grouper, there are three alternatives for rebuilding the stock, 13, 23.5 and 34 years. The preferred alternative is 34 years right now by the council. That’s the maximum amount of time that they can take to rebuild the snowy grouper stock. So, that’s the schedule portion. The next portion that goes along with this is a strategy. The strategy is how fast you can rebuild the stock within those 34 years. So, the council has two alternatives for the strategy. I am not sure if you can see those. Those are the TACs allowed for the strategy of each year. So, the preferred alternative right now is Alternative 3 for snowy grouper, so the 2009 TAC would 109,309 pounds TAC that the commercial and recreational guys have to split up.

109


So, the next thing – and, again, it’s a new action. You all haven’t seen these alternatives – is how do you split up this piece of pie, and here we get to allocations. Alternative 2 would be 95 percent commercial, 5 percent recreational. That’s based on past harvest, which is 1986 to 2005. Alternative 3 is 1992 to 2005; Alternative 4 is just based on 2005, which gives 12 percent to the recreational sector, so it increases the recreational sector a bit from Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. So, I’ll jump back here and get more comments. I don’t want to stop here, but if anyone wants to comment on these alternatives, the council does not have a preferred alternative at this time for this action. Black sea bass has a ten-year plan to rebuild. That’s the schedule portion you can see on the left. The preferred rebuilding strategy is Alternative 4, so that would have a TAC in 2009 of 871,231 pounds. There will be allocation alternatives in Amendment 15, because 13C specified those, 43 percent commercial, 57 percent recreational. Again, that was specified in Amendment 13C. Red porgy, it’s an 18-year schedule. It’s the preferred by the council. 2009, the TAC, total catch, just over 395,000 pounds. There will be allocation alternatives in here, and there are two alternatives right now that the council has with no preferred again. Alternative 2 would give 68 percent commercial, 32 recreational. That’s based upon 1986 to 2005. Alternative 3 would give 44 percent commercial, 56 percent recreational. That’s based upon the historical landings from 1999 to 2005. It’s a new action. You all haven’t seen these alternatives yet, and, again, we want your comments on those. This is something we already talked about, what happens if you exceed these catches? The council does have preferred alternatives for these actions. On the commercial side, if you go over, the plan, the current plan now, the current preferred alternative is you take off the following year. Let’s say that you go over 30,000 pounds for some reason, you take off 30,000 of the commercial quota the following year. Recreationally, three years’ average in a row exceeds that same time period, the three years, then you take off the fourth year by the average. I’ll show you an example on this. Let’s say the allocation is 200,000 pounds for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Landings are 400,000 pounds in Year 1 – now, I’ll stop here and say if this was the commercial, you would take off 300,000 pounds, just in comparison between these two. What would happen here is, say, landings went down to 100,000 pounds; in Year 3 it went back up to 400,000 pounds, so a total of 900,000 pounds; the average there is 300,000 pounds. Now, the average allocation during that same time period was 200,000 pounds. So what you would take off the fourth year would be 33 percent, so their portion would be 167,000 pounds. So, that’s an example of the preferred alternative that the council currently has. Mr. DeBrango: That’s only out of the recreational portion, right, or does that hurt the commercial, too? Mr. DeVictor: No, this is just on the recreational portion.

110


Mr. Gray: But didn’t you say it had to be three years in a row, so that’s only – that one year below average kills the three years in a row, on the example? Mr. DeVictor: It’s not three years in a row. It’s just the average during those three years is above. You see the average is above. Okay, again, that’s one of the focuses of Amendment 15. Before I go into the rest, I don’t know you all want to have discussion on the plans or the allocation alternatives. They’re in the document. The alternatives are on Page 69. I can put them on the screen up here. But, maybe the best use of our time is to get you all to talk about especially the new actions in the amendment. Mr. Phillips: Any discussion? Does anybody want to start with anything? For snowy grouper allocation, that’s on Page 41 in your document. There are three alternatives, no action alternative. Alternative 2, that would set it at 95 percent commercial, 5 percent recreational. Alternative 3, that would set it at 93 percent commercial, 7 percent recreational; and Alternative 4, that would be 88 percent commercial and 12 percent recreational. They are all based upon historical harvest. The council does not have a preferred alternative at this time. Mr. Oden: I’ve got an awful lot to say about snowy grouper. I have been waiting a long time to say it. I mean, this fishery, it’s got a miniscule quota. There has been a historical fishery now that is starting to dry up in my hometown, and perhaps it’s going to end up finishing off the last fish house in my village. There’s only one fair and equitable way to manage this fishery. An allocation with a long-lived species that is going to take 35 years to rebuild, and that is to allocate it as it historically – you know, 96 to 4 is what I remember from 13C, which was the best available science a year or two ago. Anyway, the fishery right now, what has happened in my hometown, the target next year will be 4,011 pounds. One boy has started a business now on one a day. He had a NAVNET and he zeroed in on my spots. He’s going out there and catching 30- or 40-pound fish and land those on the dock. And he carries six people a day, plus him. The target has been blown away in my village alone, I guarantee it. I mean, if somebody would just go there and check the fish-cleaning benches, they would see it. I am not here against the recreational fishermen, but this is a historical commercial fishery. And right now at a hundred pounds next year, we won’t be going and they will be. In my county alone, they’ve escalated by 30 charter/headboats in the last five years. That right there, if they caught one pound a day, you know, and averaged a hundred trips a day, would exceed it. Forget the guy I just told you who started his business and doing real well at it. Forget Florida, forget the rest of the fisheries in the other states – I mean, this was a historical fishery. I’m out of business as it is now. If we don’t get regional management, I am done. I mean, I am completely going to be out of the snapper grouper fishery with the LAPPs coming down, because I don’t have a history in other fisheries. I just had to say that. Anyway, thanks.

111


Mr. Phillips: Anybody else? Would you like to make a motion on allocation, then, Jeff? Allocation 2 is 95 and 5, would you want to do that? Do you want to go 96/4; would you want to make a motion? Mr. Oden: I would like to make a motion to maintain Alternative 2 there, I guess it was. You know, that seems a fair historical perspective of the fishery. The truth is it isn’t even close to being accurate, and even the recreational community should daggone be lamenting the science that got you there. The truth is it was a lot greater than that when they allocated it, but it’s their numbers, their science; and if they’re going to bury me with it, I am going to try to get what I can out of it. That needs to be said. That fishery was – it blows me away that they’re taking our quota and taking the recreation allocation out of what we have historically thought was our quota. I don’t understand that; I really don’t. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do I have a second. Mr. Gould: I’ll second. Mr. Phillips: Any other discussion? Mr. Kipnis: Briefly, there has been a charterboat snowy grouper fishery for many, many years both in South Florida, and I know the guys that used to come from South Florida up here to Little River and run out of here. They did it, they loved it, they said, “Man, we’ve got the best snowies, 30-40 pounds.” And they have been doing it, that I know of, since the late sixties on charterboats. I know about this because my father built the first electric reel, the Kip Electric, in 1956 that was commonly used on charterboats, and all these guys bought his reels. So, at least from then we have been deep water fishing, so you can’t say that there is no historic recreational fishery. There has been, just for the record. Mr. Phillips: Any other discussion before we vote? Okay, we have a motion, the AP supports Alternative 2, 95 percent commercial, 5 percent recreational, as the allocation for snowy grouper. All in favor, raise their hand; all opposed, same sign. The motion carries. Mr. Oden: To assuage the recreational community on this particular aspect, the two for one will reallocate it. I am 55 years old. It will be yours soon. But, in the meantime, at least let us survive until – give us that pleasure, anyway. Mr. DeVictor: A new action that you haven’t seen before is the red porgy allocation alternatives. These are on Page 53. There are three alternatives; one which is the no action alternative, do not set an allocation for red porgy. Alternative 2 is set at 68 percent commercial and 32 percent recreationally; and Alternative 3 which is set at 44 percent commercial and 56 percent

112


recreationally. Again, there is no current preferred from the council on this. They’re going to talk about it later today. Mr. DeBrango: I’d go along with Alternative 2, but I’d like to put some kind of measure in place here. When he showed the chart on the data collection of overages and all that – maybe Jeff can help me out with this on the shark fishing – the data collection where all of a sudden you’ve got a bunch of overages, and now you can’t go out and catch fish for year. There needs to be some kind of quality control or quality assurance measures on data collection, as far as that goes, to where you are in the same boat as the shark fish industry is. Mr. Kipnis: I have question and maybe you guys can answer it. On Alternative 2 it’s from 1986 to 2005; it’s 68 commercial, 32 recreational. Alternative 3 is from 1999 to 2005; that’s 44 percent commercial and 56 recreational. That’s a big flip flop there. Is that because of laws the commercial decline and the recreational increase because of laws passed by the South Atlantic Council regulating the commercial industry, or is that because so many more recreational anglers on charterboats and headboats and recreationally got into the fishery? So, was it done by regulation or was it done because there are more recreational users? Has anybody got an answer for that? Mr. Phillips: Jeff, did you want to say something? Well, we know that had an emergency closure on pinkies, and we’ve had these 50-pound trip limits forever, so I would say that regulations had a lot to do with that. Mr. Hooks: Plus they’re closed for four months, January, February, March, April. Mr. Kipnis: Closed commercially, right? Mr. Hooks: Yes, closed commercially, and I think the recreationals were at one during that time. But, during the four-month closure, it’s only one; am I right. Mr. Kipnis: The reason I’m asking is this is there is such a disparity between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. I need an answer on that because maybe the number is more like 50/50 and not 68/32 because there has been a major shift in the fishery there, but I realize there was some regulation involved in it. I would move a 50/50 if anyone will second that. Mr. Phillips: I would like to ask a question. As headboats or charterboats, do you all target pinkies? What goes on? Mr. Gould: To be honest with you, I avoid them like the plague, okay. One, you go there, there are certain places that we fish, and it’s more than one, it’s more in the dozens; that if you go there, you’ve caught your limit in 30 minutes. You’re throwing a lot of fish back. From what they’re saying and what I’m seeing don’t jive with me, but I’m just a fisherman. I’m in the field everyday.

113


To me, an equitable distribution would be 50/50. I have got to agree with Dan about that. The commercial fishermen don’t target them as much because they don’t have the monetary value to them. If the current gets them offshore or something, they’ll come in there and catch a few there until the current dies down, and then they go on off and get the more money fish. The silvers are caught in the deeper water. They’re bigger silvers, what we call rusties there, in the two to four pound range, three and a half to four pound range, like that. But, if I was going to do anything, I would split down the middle just because the commercial side does not target them as much as we do recreationally. And, with the limits coming on the gag grouper, possibly the vermilion, it would help my side out quite bit there and not hurt the – it would help increase the commercial side also. Mr. Hooks: Well, I would have to think a little bit different on this, because as a commercial fisherman, with all I see coming down the road and the closures in the grouper complex and everything else that we’re dealing with, we’re just now starting to get a market back. We lost our market during the years it was closed. I have said it before, I was getting pretty good money for them up until ’99, and then we had the emergency closure and then we had 50 pounds, and we got a little bit of money, trash fish money for them. Now that we have 120 fish, I think there are more getting out there and we’re starting to get a little more money for them. I think with everything coming down, that this fish is going to play a bigger role. It’s going to allow us to pay for that $2.70 a gallon fuel and pay the other expenses, the high price of bait. The bait definitely costs more than what you’re getting for these fish. But even with the 120 head, it’s helping, but I think we need more, and I would have to recommend Alternative 2. Mr. Marhefka: Yes, I want to sort of agree with Danny there a little bit about it. I mean, you know, with everything else that’s coming down the pike here, as red porgies continue to go and we get more and more allocated to the commercial industry, like we have the 125 fish, you know, this is something that we need to go and try to hold on to as much as possible. I have always been frustrated with what has happened with red porgy. I was producing 9 percent of them in the whole South Atlantic when they did the very first 14-inch size limit on them, and they called it a bycatch fishery. There is never a bycatch fishery in this fishery. We’re a multi-species fishery. And, I listened to this fellow next to me here, one of the reasons why the recreational catch has gone up in the years just recently is, like he said, they’re so prolific and they’re everywhere and anybody can catch them. They’re easy to catch, and that’s why they have more landings. And they’re inshore, they’re inshore, they’re offshore, they’re everywhere. I would also prefer Alternative 2 on this, also, and also with saying that we need to do something about this three-year overage. Come on, some way they’ve got to go and be able to go and

114


monitor this after the first year and be able to go and do some kind of datasets, and say by the first quarter of the year we know where we are from the prior year. And we have to go and say, “Whoa, we’ve got to slow things down a little bit. Either we need to drop your bag limit down to one; or whatever may be the case, we’re going to have to slow things down on it, because you’re going over.” And because there are so many of them out there, it will happen, and it’s going to be hard on the fishery. Mr. Phillips: Mark, did you want to make a motion for Alternative 2? Oh, you’ve got a motion. Mr. Kipnis: On 50/50; I had already moved 50/50. Mr. Phillips: Sorry, Dan. Okay, so now we’re looking for a second. Mr. Kipnis: It was seconded; Steve seconded. Mr. Phillips: Anymore discussion on a 50/50 split? Let me read it: The AP supports an allocation for red porgy that sets 50 percent commercial, 50 percent recreational. All in favor, raise their hand; all against, same sign. The motion carries. Mr. DeBrango: I’m not upset about that because, really, you know, I mean I see it for the commercial side, and I see it for the recreational side. I mean, I was swayed either way with that one because we’ve got to use something for everybody and maybe giving back a few of the porgies – now, is that going to effect the 120 head; how is all that allocation going to be? Are they going to be allowed to catch a certain trip limit with that? Is the 120 fish going to change or what’s going to happen with that? Mr. Marhefka: No, what I envision happening is you’re going to stick with your 125 head, but when your allocation is caught up, you’re shut down. I mean, that would be my choice on how to do things right, but that’s, you know, that’s not always the way we do things around the table. Mr. Oden: Are we talking allocation-wise or ITQ-wise? I didn’t quite understand that. Mr. Phillips: This is allocation. The ITQ is coming up next. Mr. DeVictor: Yes, again, just to respond to your comment, this is just setting it 50/50. Now, the 120 head will change when you get a new assessment, and then you will apply that 50 percent to the recreational allocation and commercial quota portion of it. So, this shouldn’t change the 120 head until you get the new assessment. I don’t know when the next update is. They just had an update a few years back. Mr. Phillips: Mark, did you want to make a motion about the three years? Mr. Marhefka: Yes, I would just like to go and make a motion to the council to – how do we word this – quality control towards the overages of the recreational fishery in the red porgy fishery to minimize the amount of overages.

115


Mr. Hooks: Maybe I missed this, but what is the problem with – because I know when we reach our quota, we will be shut down. Has anybody thought about the recreationals shutting down when they reach their allocation? Mr. Kipnis: Obviously, because of the problems getting data on recreational catches, we don’t know until we get there. This has been an issue for years and years, Danny. You know we’ve discussed it. That is why I think the council has come up with or staff has come up with a three-year running average and adjusting it at the end of three years. It really doesn’t make any difference how you get the number as long as you make sure there is an adjustment. And, if you look to what was happening here on a 200,000 pound a year catch, at the end of the third year, because of the recreational run-over, when they got a handle on it, they were only allowed to catch 32,000 pounds. So, essentially, that fishery would be closed for a year, essentially, but it happens three years down the line. There is no way, unless we change the way we collect data and allocate more money and resources to it, that we’re going to be able to keep a recreational handle. You guys report every single trip, every single pound, every single head. That’s a disparity, and that’s why they have come up with this three-year thing. Mr. Hooks: My problem with this is I remember with red porgy to start with, we were fine one year. Next year, well, we might better go to 14 inches. A month later it’s an emergency closure. Now what if we had waited three years? We wouldn’t have red porgy back for another ten years. I mean, three years of overfishing can terribly damage a stock when you have 17 million people doing it. I still will never understand how it’s allowed to happen, but it is, but it shouldn’t be. There are problems with it, and it will devastate a fishery in three years. Mr. Kipnis: If you can come up with an idea of how to close the recreational fishery with realistic numbers and in a timely fashion, God bless you, because no one has been able to come up with it, Danny, and this is the closest thing to be able to shut the fishery down. You might want to go with the two-year option instead of a three-year option, but it takes that long to get the statistics the way we are working the system now. Mr. Amick: Just a comment for Danny, my commercial colleague, as far as recreationally on the red porgy, you know, that we were allowed at the beginning one porgy per angler and then it went up to three porgies per angler. Well, I can tell you off the coast of Georgia, recreationally or charterboat/headboat, we can’t catch the one red porgy per angler on the boat. They’re just not in that general area. They’re more of a deep water fish. I am not sure what it is in North Carolina and South Carolina, but that 17 million recreational, some of them are in Georgia, and they’re not touching the red porgies. Mr. Hooks: Another very good reason for regional management.

116


Mr. Adams: You know, I understand what Danny is saying. I wish there was a better way to get a number on what the recreational guys do, too. They have their responsibilities, and I think that they’re willing to accept, but you’ve got to have some way to tag it, some way to do it. And if it’s a two-year thing or a three-year thing, we’ve got to figure out a way to do it until we can get those numbers, because you’re managing behavior instead of quota. The behavior has to be modified in terms of making sure that they keep the fish that they say they’re going to keep. I wish there was a better way; and if somebody has got an idea, I could sure sell it in the recreational community to a lot of folks. Mr. Marhefka: Yes, how about a lottery for the recreational industry, just like they do on the moose and many other – you know, hunting and everything else, set a lottery up, and then that way then they would be bound to go and have to go and send in their information. We know who is in there and who is not in there. I mean, you can’t keep on going and cutting down the commercial industry. And the participants that are going to be in here, we’re going to get down, too, and the recreational sector keeps on blooming and blooming and blooming. It’s like pfiesteria, it’s going to keep on going, and sooner or later it’s going to go and choke everything out. It’s got to end somewhere. Somebody on the SSC I hope will go and grab this. Mr. Gray: The three-year average gives you a smoothing effect, but I could certainly go for if the quota is exceeded by some exceptional percentage in a year, then you use that instead of the three-year average. You know, if it really jumps out of whack, then you take action. Mr. Phillips: Let’s read these alternatives real quick, and then we will finish our discussion. Mr. DeVictor: Yes, I think it will if I just point out the alternatives. Again, that three-year average is just the preferred by the council, but there are four alternatives here that I would just like to run through. This is on Page 59. The alternative says that if a recreational overage does occur, you don’t take it off the following year; you just do not allow any increases in the TAC – I’m sorry, in the allocation. So, again, as the stock rebuilds, there are increases each year; you just would not allow the increase the following year, so that’s Alternative 2. Alternative 3 is the same, but if you go over on the recreational side, you don’t allow a TAC increase, so that would not allow a commercial increase or a recreational increase. Then Alternative 4 is where you have – where you come to Alternative 4A, you have the three-year, which is the current preferred that we went over. Then Alternative 4B is the two-year. Then Alternative 5 is you do not take any off the following year, except that both sides, the commercial and recreational side both have to go over their allocation and commercial quota in order to take action. So, again, those are five alternatives that are under consideration by the council.

117


Mr. Hooks: What you just said, you said in the third year, but in order for the council to take action, if the recreational had been going over for two years, on the third year the recreational and commercial would both have to have overages in order for it to take effect? Mr. DeVictor: That’s an alternative there. Again, we need a range of alternatives, and that’s not the council’s preferred alternative, but that’s an alternative that will be in the document to go out to public hearing. Mr. Hooks: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you said. Mr. DeBrango: Those of us, like I said again, in the shark industry, I saw the shark industry, saw the way data was collected for the recreational guys. I don’t want to see – this overage, it’s going to happen. I’m going to tell you what, the data collection is terrible. That’s why I’m going to second Mark’s motion for a quality control on the data, some form. I mean, I don’t know what it is; I don’t have an answer, but this is something that needs to be talked about. Mr. Gould: Really, fellows, the only way that you’re going be able to keep track of the recreational is to permit each and every one of them, charge them a fee just like you do the commercial side and the charter/headboat and charterboats. It will create a lot more paperwork for you and probably overwhelm you, but if you’re going to be fair to the commercial people, like I said a while ago, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You have got to permit these people. They have got to do reports whether it’s a random sampling like they do on the charterboats or either an individual trip report like we have to do on the headboats. It could be set up to be done electronically, they do it by computer, whatever, find whichever way is best to reduce the paperwork on it. But if you’re going to be fair to the commercial people there and the headboats and charterboats, the recreational side, the weekend warriors, is going to have to be permitted. They’re not going to like it. I see down the line there where I’m going to have to have a vessel monitoring device on my boat. The way I feel about it there is that anybody that goes on the ocean who is going to take and partake in this resource, if they’ve got the money to buy a $150,000 Bonzai or Contender with four engines on it, they can afford a VMS system. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, once again, so that’s the way I feel about it. Mr. DeBrango: I’ll agree. I think that for both you guy’s benefit, you know, or for everybody’s benefit in this is to monitor it, like you’re saying. And I don’t want to see you guys, you know, being able to go there and catch three porgies, and then all of a sudden in three years, hey, you know, it’s your livelihood, especially what’s happened with vermilion to say, oops, don’t go catch anymore porgies, and you’ve got to throw your hands up in the air before you leave. Mr. Gould: And also by what I was saying, it will cut on a lot of the cheating. Ninety percent of the cheating is done by the small, fast boats. I have seen them plenty of times sitting out there on a place going out. Their sitting on a place pounding it, and then on the way in I see them on the same place again. Do you think they’ve moved a lot? No. They ain’t sitting there playing

118


poker. They’re doing some hard fishing on them places, and most of the time it’s grouper fishing. So, you know, it would be good way to monitor things. Mr. Phillips: Mark, do you want to clarify this motion, so we can vote on it. Mr. Marhefka: Maybe we can go and add, like we’re saying, adding some sort of licensing for all recreational anglers who fish in the EEZ, with mandatory reporting. Mr. Phillips: And, Greg, you agree with that? Mr. DeBrango: Yes. Mr. Gray: We’re talking about an additional license in addition to the state license that already exists? Mr. Phillips: Yes. Mr. Gray: And is it a species license like a snapper grouper permit? Mr. Phillips: I think it would apply to fishing in the EEZ for snapper grouper complex species, if I read it right. Mr. Marhefka: We’ve got to start somewhere. I mean, some sort of start needs to go with this control. I mean, we have to get grasp on what we’re doing here, and I am sure the committee can go and jump all over it Mr. Kelly: I’d like to take exception to the entire motion. I don’t understand where we’re going here other than from a commercial viewpoint of an assessment recreational angling. You know, most of the states already require state licensing for traversing their waters to get out to the federal zone. We’re gathering data in that regard. I don’t like where we’re going this mandatory reporting. The implication and the statement that 90 percent of the infractions that are taking place in this fishery are because of recreational anglers; I guess I could go the instant retort that no, no, no, it’s the commercial fishermen, but you all have known me long enough to know that’s not the case. I have to take exception to this motion in its entirety and think that we need to pursue it in a different vein that is less accusatory and less condemnation of the recreational angling sector. I mean, there are so many people that just go out for the enjoyment of being on the water and catching and releasing fish, and now we want them to follow the same guidelines as commercial fishermen who earn their living doing this. That’s really the wrong direction is the way I see it. Mr. Gould: Okay, in response there, you’ve got to look at all the user groups. Whether you’re going out there, you’re keeping your catch, whether you’re releasing, what is the mortality on catch and release? Who knows? Do they tag them when they release them? We can’t tell. All user groups should be treated equally.

119


Just because they’re using the same resource, it needs to be distributed equally across the board, the burden. That’s what I’m talking about. I do 30 minutes’ worth of paperwork everyday coming in to satisfy the federal government. Is it going to take somebody’s fun away for a few minutes to do out a little report to see what they’ve caught, so that we can have better fisheries management? Yes, but I think it’s worth it in the long run. And we’re not targeting any certain individual or a conservation group or anything like that. I think this is the best for the fisheries. Mr. Adams: I think the difference – you know, I could see maybe a permit or something like that, but you’re managing behavior instead of managing quotas. I think it gets mixed up together because you’ve got to have a way to modify behavior to make sure that we end up with a quota and a way to measure that. So, the problem is what can we put in place that would allow us to manage those behaviors to ensure that we meet the numbers that we have. Maybe it’s a permit. You know, I’m willing to look at those kinds of things, but I can’t see filling out paperwork everyday because somebody else has to. I can’t see it happening. Mr. Kelly: You know, we have MRFSS statistics that we can apply to this. Maybe we need better data collection and so forth, but to put this burden on a recreational angler that wants to go out and enjoy their day on the water. I mean, just think if you applied the same rules to freshwater and bass fishermen that want to go out and enjoy a day of fishing. I mean, this is an enormous burden. What on earth do our taxes pay for? You know, the MRFSS statistics, there are data collection systems throughout. We need to develop a system that would gather that information rather than making my day on the water as a recreational angler consist of a mandatory reporting period to the federal government on what I may or not have caught and released. Mr. Marhefka: I would like to wrap this up, because we can go around and around with that. But, you know, I’m sorry, it’s a public resource, and I have to go and fill out a logbook and I’m supplying a product for the 97 percent or more people who want to enjoy that resource on their table. And, if you going to go out there and go and have a part of it and want to go and fish in it, well, then, you better go and you damned well need to go and fill out the book and tell us what you’re catching. Mr. Phillips: Okay, I’m going to get this and then we’re going to vote. Mr. Kelly: All right, then if I’m going to all that, then just the same as you do, you damned well need to give me a license or allow me to have the opportunity to have a license so that I can catch fish and sell them, too. We’re not comparing apples to apples here. Mr. Phillips: Okay, let’s read this and see where we go. The council shall apply quality control to all snapper grouper species to minimize the amount of recreational overages. All recreational anglers should be federally licensed in the South Atlantic EEZ with mandatory reporting. All in favor, raise your hand; all opposed, same sign. The motion carries.

120


Mr. Kipnis: On the record, if I could. Gentlemen, you just want to stick it to somebody because you’re angry, and I don’t blame you for being angry, but this is not the way to stick it and to the wrong people. You said it, 17 million recreational trips a year – the paperwork is coming to somebody. It’s coming to somebody so you better figure out who it’s coming to and how much they’re going to pay to have that done. I would much rather be spending my money getting otoliths to make sure that we got the right information on our fish and doing better fisheries studies than spending millions of dollars a year recording 17 million trips that you have said, Mark, are going to be growing. It will be 20 million ten years from now, so you better figure out where you want to spend your money, collecting this data or getting true fisheries data, because this one is going to cost a lot of money. Mr. Oden: Well, I think what this is about, still – I mean, we’re forgetting why we’re talking about accountability here. I mean, until we get that, those fisheries aren’t going to sustain the people we’ve got now much less the people that are coming in the future. Anyway, in the snowy grouper fishery, I mean, what is coming there is – what they should have done with that particular fishery – right now, the way it’s set up, you know, reallocation is in the making right now. It should have been a one-per-boat bag limit on it to maintain the historical perspective of the fishery. But, as it is now, it’s one per person and that’s going to blow that whole quota out of – the MRFSS data, when it gets on line, is going to be so skewed that fishery is going to be history for us. Mr. Hooks: Just real quick, I just want to remind everybody that what we’re dealing with is the definition of recreation is somebody to have fun. And, when we have to compare that with somebody trying to make a living and earn a living, there has got to be some black and white in that. Mr. Phillips: Let’s talk about black sea bass pots. Mr. DeVictor: This is on Page 57 of your document. Again, this is an action that you haven’t seen the alternatives because it has been added by the council since you all met in December. The purpose behind this, the council is concerned with the black sea bass quota that’s been put in place through Amendment 13C, that people could be fishing more pots out there. Right now you can get as many tags for black sea bass pots as you request. So, the council is considering, at this time, putting a limit on how many tags get handed out each year to fishermen. They do not have a preferred alternative at this time. There are actually eight alternatives. Alternative 2 would limit the tags each year to 100 per holder of a federal snapper grouper vessel permit. Alternative 3 would be 50 per year. Alternative 4 would be 25 per year. Alternative 5 would phase it out or step it down, so to speak, so it would 100 in Year 1, 50 in Year 2, and 25 in Year

121


3, and it would hold at 25 in Year 3 until modified. Alternative 6 would a step down also, which would be 100 per year in Year 1 and then 50 in Year 2, and it stay at 50 until modified. Alternative 7 actually looks at the historical amount of pots fished per person, so it would be 50 per year for someone that has 55 or more pots. Then for someone who has used an average of 55 or more pots – I’m sorry, someone who has used 55 or less pots would get 50 per year. Someone who has used an average – and there are the years – and they would be using the logbook data, if they have used 55 or more pots per year on average, they would get what they used on average plus 10 percent. So, essentially, it’s giving those that have used more pots just a tiny bit more than the rest of them. Then Alternative 8 is actually an alternative that the council added in March that requires that all pots must be returned to shore at the conclusion of each trip. Mr. Hooks: Well, I’m a black sea bass fisherman, and I’m going to have to go with Alternative 7. This addresses part of the problem that I saw before in some of the things that – where people that normally fish a low number of pots, if you set it higher, they would jump in, and you would reverse the good it would do. But, I think with Number 7 it pretty much takes care of that. Personally, where I fish and the way I fish, if to go down under 50, I’d just get out of the fishery. It’s not feasible for me to go and make it like that. So, I’m going with Alternative 7. Mr. Phillips: Anybody else. Mr. Adams: Does the council have a preferred alternative yet? Mr. Hooks: No. Mr. DeVictor: No. Mr. Adams: Well, I like what you’re thinking there, Danny. It seems to make sense in terms of how many pots a guy is fishing. It seems at least an effort to be as fair as possible. Mr. Gould: I don’t know how it is from down there where Danny was at there, but when we used to trap fish, it was basically November, December, January. We had a three-month season there where we soaked the pots. I would fish 20, 25 and 40 pots. We’d bring them in at the conclusion of each trip. In the 35 years that I have been fishing there that I can remember there, our black sea bass has gone down by about 70 percent at a catch. The size is down, the catch is down. The charterboats that fish for them on occasion have a hard time catching their limit. I don’t want to put anybody out of business, but there needs to be some seasons put on this and give them a chance to spawn.

122


Soaking pots 24/7 365 days a year is just like encircling a school of bluefin tunas, it has no mercy. It doesn’t give them a chance to reproduce there. I have to agree with Danny to a degree on Alternative 7, but it also needs to have a provision there where you can’t leave your pots out. You leave a pot out overboard, you’ve got vessels transiting the area at night, they run over the line, you have got an instant ghost pot, that it sits there and fishes and fishes and fishes and fishes. So, there has got to be more alternatives to this that would help the pot fishermen out, but also look out for the resource. Mr. Hooks: Well, thank you for agreeing with me on part of it, but a few things about a few things that you said. I fish 50 or 60 miles down the street from you. As far as the traffic, we fish sinking line on the top of our lines. We use floating rope on the bottom from the trap up and then fish 60 feet of sinking line. You have to pretty much get right on top of that buoy and spin around and around to get it in your wheel. If we had to bring these pots home every night – and here again, I fish a lot of pots, okay. You get out there and you have a major mechanical breakdown, you can’t get them home. The next day you’re in violation. And, believe me, in this fishery, somebody is going to drop a dime on you. It don’t matter if you blow a motor, if it blows up, yes, you get your pots out fishing and the weather changes, well, I don’t if any of you has ever tried to pick up pots of eight-foot seas. There’s not a lot of fun to it. There are so many things – and, as far as ghost fishing, we have biodegradable panels in these traps. Within two weeks, these panels fall out. All it is is a hole down there, another crevice for them to get in and get back out. They are not ghost fishing. I have divers in my area that tell me, whenever they go – right now they’re all out there looking for big sharks teeth – and they’ll come back and, well, I saw one of your traps. Well, I broke one off or had a line break or something. I said, “What is it doing?” I wanted to know. I wasn’t trying to turn around and get away from them. They said it’s just sitting there, fish swim in, they swim out, and they’re gone, and it’s rusted down now. There is a rubber-coated trap and eventually all the wire in them rust out and they just fall down, and there is nothing there. They just add to the bottom. But, within two weeks, this panel falls out. We have a mandated gauge of wire that we’re allowed to use, nothing any bigger, so that it will biodegrade, and all we have is a hole down there then. I just wanted to clarify that for you. Thank you. Mr. Oden: I used to bass pot up home, and I kind of did it the way they do up towards Sneads Ferry. The reason I’m mentioned that was because I’d fish 15 pots, some over, and a string of three, keep going around and around and around. And I had a lot of discards. And these guys tell me that the longer they leave their pots down, the fewer the discards they have. I mean, there is some positive to the way they fish. I am not saying anything more, but I’m just throwing that out there.

123


Mr. Hooks: Just one more thing to add to that; when we went to the two-inch back panel, the complete back panel of the trap is two inch now. In our area we fished inch and a half pots. Then when we were required, we put a complete two-inch back panel in. My mates have more time now on their hands than they ever did. There is hardly any grading to do. When my trap sets for 24 hours, it’s 70 to 90 percent all very good fish, big fish. I’ve seen some 10.5 inch fish that would still get out of that two-inch back panel. They’re like all of us, there are different sizes and lengths. Mr. Gould: I didn’t mean to ruffle your feathers there, Danny, but the people from down near, I would say, Sneads Ferry, this side use floater lines completely. I have run over them at night with a big boat. It’s a big mess. I’m glad to see you all use the other. I have pulled pots there that had the escape panels in them that had barnacles, you know, and all sorts of marine growth on them, where it had failed. So, it’s not a hundred percent, but I will defer to you on this, and let’s go with the one that you’re after. Mr. Phillips: Tom, let’s get your comment and see if we can get a motion. Mr. Burgess: Just briefly, as far as the way we fish, you know, we fish about 50 and we would be allowed 50, and we sure are happy with that because that’s the way we do things in my community. Now, as far as the people that are allowed 125, or a maximum of 125, I think there were about nine people; is that correct? Well, you probably don’t know the statistics, right? But, you have dates here of in the year of ’05 as a qualifying year for fishing that many traps. Now, would Danny be able to sell his – when he got rid of his permit, would he be able to sell his allocation of tags with that as far as his permit and the value of it as far as now anybody could – it would be limited to several individuals who could fish 125 traps or 120. And, as far as them being, let’s say, grandfathered into – because of their historical participation and fair and equitable for everyone to be able to fish that many traps, I sure would support that. But, I am not sure about to qualify an individual as far as now – any of the other people that are allowed that many pots, if they would be allowed to get out of the business, sell their permit and trap allocation, and then come down by me and fish 125 pots, so I am not sure – I support it as it stands, and I hope there no loopholes in here that would come back to bite me. Mr. DeVictor: As part of that, we have in there require that new tags be handed out each fishing year, so you would apply – say, you were allowed 50 tags, you would apply each year and you could ask for 50 or less tags. If Danny or someone sold their permit, I think you’d basically start off as zero, and that person who bought it, when the new year started January 1st, would apply for their tags. Mr. Burgess: So, if he sold his permit, would they apply for 50 because they’re new entrants or would they apply for the 125?

124


Mr. Hooks: That’s a good point. I mean, I don’t anybody has really thought of that, and, yes, it would be a good selling point on a permit. I wish I would have thought of it, but I don’t see where I think – because of the two-for-one program, it will completely eliminate that because a new snapper grouper permit would be issued in a new name, from what I think, and then you would be starting at under 50 again. Mr. Phillips: I think catch history goes with boat, so your catch history – and I’m thinking possibly whatever your trap history would be would go with the boat. My guess is it’s going with the boat. Mr. Hooks: Well, that would be good. I mean, yes, it would be a little advantage for me as far as selling it, but I never had really thought about that point of it. Mr. Phillips: Can we get a motion? Mr. Hooks: I make a motion that we accept Alternative 7. Mr. Phillips: Do I have a second? Mr. Gould: Second. Mr. Phillips: Any further discussion? Can I have a show of hands in the affirmative; hands for the negatives. The motion passes. Mr. DeVictor: That gets us through all of the new actions that you haven’t seen with Amendment 15. Like I said, there is a handful of more actions. We are time-limited here. We have one more agenda item. I don’t know how you want to do this. Does anyone want to discuss anymore actions? So, why don’t move to the last agenda item on the agenda, which is talk about the control date. This is on your agenda, Page 4. It’s on the screen up here, but it’s pretty quick. The council has set a control date of March 8, 2007, for for-hire permits in the snapper grouper fishery. Basically, a control date tells the public that in the future they might or might not consider limited entry in this fishery. Now, again, this is for for-hire permits. And, actually they have talked about this more, and they are considering it not just for the snapper grouper side of things but also the dolphin and wahoo and such. But, I just wanted to bring this to your attention that this has been set by the council, and the public has been noticed of this date. Mr. DeBrango: So, a basic moratorium on the issuance of any new ones; is that what we’re saying? Mr. Phillips: No, it’s not a moratorium. If they decide at some later date that we’ve got enough snapper headboat permits as of 2006, you may not be able to keep that permit. It’s kind of like

125


rock shrimp; you can still rock shrimp, but if you didn’t have that history before the control date, you may lose that ability. Mr. Oden: Well, I was going to amend it to – I don’t know that I could amend that action, but I’m going to comment on the fact that it looks like I’m pretty going to get put out of my own fishery up our way as there is a recreational fishery developing there. It sure would hurt my feelings if, after I lost my fishery, I couldn’t get in that one. I was just going to comment. Mr. Phillips: Anymore discussion? Mr. Marhefka: I just wanted to clarify on the record that everything that we’ve just discussed here and with these TACs, as low-level TACs as they are in the snapper grouper and the vermilion and gag, the council needs to understand that we’re going to go and promote a derby fishery is what we’re doing by putting these low-level TACs in place. They need to clearly understand that the amount of discards that we’re going to go and have is going to be huge; and, if they’re really doing all this for the resource, they really need to go and step back and take a real good look at what they’re getting ready to go and put in place here. I don’t think the environmental community is going to go and jump on this with the amount of discards that we have. If they don’t jump on it, they’re not going to be doing their job. Anyway, that’s all I have to say. Mr. DeVictor: I just wanted to make one last statement in terms of Amendment 15. This document is set to go to public hearing in November, so this was your last chance to comment on the document and alternatives before it goes to public hearing. I just wanted to clarify the schedule for you. Mr. DeBrango: Are we going to look at this sale of recreationally caught fish, too? Are we going to vote on that one? This is on Page 60. I am for the sale of recreationally caught fish. You may say why you even think about that? Well, I’ll tell you what, there is a lot of it going on right now. Again, this deals with – it’s not against the recreational fishermen; it deals with data collection. Anything brought in and sold by the recreational angler, which people say, “Oh, it doesn’t happen” – well, yes, it does. It happens quite a bit to the restaurants and to the others. Well, if they allow a recreational with the permit that was talked about earlier, we’re going to get some form of a trip ticket, you know, they can go – instead of having to hide in the woodwork, they’re going to be able to go to a fish house. Again, we’re going to get more data out of this, and we’re going to get rid of some of these variables. Mr. Hooks: Greg, I appreciate your stand on it, but I’m going to have to disagree with you, because I feel like the sale of recreationally caught fish goes against any amount of fisheries management at all. Here, again, I must say somebody’s pleasure over somebody’s livelihood – if there is not enough fish for 400 commercial fishermen, if there is not a fish for us and we have to keep taking cuts yearly, I do not think there is enough for recreational fishermen to sell fish.

126


Mr. Gray: As a recreational fisherman, I have to say I’m against the sale. If a recreational fisherman wants to sell fish, then there are ways in most states for him to buy a commercial license to do that, and he should not be able to sell fish under a recreational license. Mr. Adams: I agree. It’s not recreational fishing anymore, and he needs to have a commercial license. Mr. DeBrango: Can I respond to that? Mr. Gould: The state of North Carolina does not allow the sale of recreational caught fish. They require a commercial fishing license. And if you look in any of the fishing lengths and whatnot there and everything, it plainly states that recreational fish are not to be sold, and I think it’s something that should be regulated state by state. Mr. DeBrango: Okay, in response to that, the state of Florida has laws with the FWC that any recreational fisherman just can’t sell this. It has to be somebody with a commercial history to get the restricted species endorsement to sell this. So, when we put people out of business with the vermilion snapper and with the other things, and people like me who’ve got a National Marine Fisheries Grouper and Snapper Permit that is being taken away by the National Marine Fisheries Service, well, that helps people like us. I do have a restricted species endorsement, and that will allow me at least for them not to put me out of business. Because I’m struggling right now, that allows me to sell my – which I know where they’re at. I can go catch them. I know the rules. I can go sell my recreational bag limit and hold on and keep them from putting me out of business, because they want to keep me – they want to take my permit away, and it ain’t going to happen. I will hold on to it as long as I can. If it takes a recreational sale of fish to do it, I’ll do it; or, if takes two jobs on land to do it, I am going to do it, because I’m not going to let them take my permit. Sorry, it’s kind of a personal thing. I would like to make a motion for the sale of recreationally caught fish. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do I have a second? Mr. DeVictor: So that for Preferred Alternative 1, which is the no action alternative, the current regulations to remain in place, which you can sell to your bag limit? Mr. DeBrango: That is correct, yes, with, of course, the restricted species endorsement. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do I have a second? Mr. Cardin: I’m getting a little confused. Are we talking about the sale of recreational fish or are we talking about the sale of the recreational limit with people that land and sell fish don’t have the snapper grouper permit? Mr. DeBrango: Yes, it’s the recreational limit, correct.

127


Mr. Phillips: So, this is the take no action for the sale of recreationally caught fish; is that what the motion is? Mr. DeVictor: Yes. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do we have a second for this? Mr. Gould: I’ll second it. Mr. Phillips: Any further discussion? Mr. Cardin: It still says recreationally caught fish. Where is the preferred alternative; what page are we on, Rick? I see it, Alternative 1, okay, thank you. Mr. DeVictor: Under the no action, you can sell up to your bag limit. Mr. Cardin: So we’re not rewording Alternative 1; we’re stick with Alternative 1. Thank you. Mr. DeVictor: It’s on Page 60. Mr. DeBrango: Yes, see, with Alternative 1, like I said, you’re going to have a – in order for you to even sell it, you’re going to have to have that restricted species with your boat. Like mine is registered commercial, everything. I have got a history and made a living off of it, but I have no landings right now on my salt water products license because of the National Marine Fisheries Service. So, the only way a recreational angler is going to be able to sell these fish is if he has had a commercial history; and if he’s not going out commercial fishing anymore, he’s still able to get his restricted species endorsement, which means he’s made money in the last three years, I think they go back in the state of Florida, to allow him to get – it has to be a certain amount each year he’s made in the last three years, and that would allow him to go out and still be active in the fishery and still make some kind of extra money doing it, and be monitored. Mr. Cardin: A North Carolina person might answer this for me. The North Carolina landings to sell, is there an income requirement for getting that license or is that just something you go buy? Mr. Gould: No, you have to buy it there. And I always believed there that it’s also a limited entry thing now, isn’t it, Danny, there, the commercial fishing license, their license to sell? Mr. Hooks: Yes, it is. Mr. High: Andy High from North Carolina. There is a pool of eligibility. They have limited the number of permits to about 6,000, but there is – I think there are 38 or 4,200 out. If my son participated with me, and when he gets to 18 and he wants to get it, he can apply and get one out

128


of the eligibility pool, so it’s not really a limited entry deal. Whether it should be, you could discuss it, but in North Carolina it is not a limited entry deal. Now, what the problem is here, and you’re missing the point, it’s not so much the sale of recreationally caught fish. It’s those fish being counted against the quota, against the commercial. That’s the problem. Mr. DeBrango: That’s something that would have to be defined because it’s a recreational. It’s a recreational. If you’re selling a recreation fish, it would have to come out of the recreational quota or allocation. Mr. High: That’s the way it should work, but that isn’t how it works. If you sell a king mackerel in North Carolina under your bag limit, you don’t have a federal king mackerel permit, those fish get counted on the king mackerel quota. So, there is a way the council can get around this and let people still sell is to make them count the fish from permitted vessels to go against our quota, but Roy is hesitant to do this. He says, “If it’s sold, it’s commercial”. You could force them to do it and you could leave the sale still placed there and our fish would be counted against us. So, there is a way of doing this and manage it this way, if you want to do it that way. That’s the thing that you all have to answer. Mr. DeBrango: Basically an amendment to it. Mr. Gray: In my experience, the guys that sell their fish recreationally are just trying to offset the cost of their trip. If it’s sold under a commercial license, in my opinion it ought to be counted commercially. If it’s caught recreationally on a recreational license, then you shouldn’t be able to sell it. To me, that’s the dividing line. Mr. Kelly: I think by definition the instant that they sell that fish, you have now turned them into a commercial fisherman. North Carolina, I believe, is the only state that allows the sale of recreationally caught fish, and I think that should be discontinued. Mr. Cardin: First off, I’d like to ask Danny or Andy, do you have to have a commercial vessel to have the landing-to-sell license? Ms. Merritt: Thank you. I’m no expert on it, but more than North Carolina will allow the sale of recreational bag limit. In North Carolina, that was correct, as Andy said, we don’t have any specific criteria to give that permit out. While that is a state permit, nobody is asking where the fish is caught, so they could be caught in federal waters without a federal permit. I guess the other thing you asked – there was a third part to that. Oh, yes, you were asking about the boat – no, you don’t have any criteria regarding the boat or anything. The other point I wanted to make – this went way, way, way back when I was on the King Mackerel AP years ago. When I saw where all of the numbers of recreational caught fish – they were caught recreational,

129


but they were sold under a commercial permit, such as in the tournaments, all that fish was counted against the commercial quotas. For years and years it’s been done that way. Frankly, what I was looking for is what I always called my third column of how the fish are counted, if you count this as a third category. However, the barrier I think that we have had with our advice as the council has been that the Commerce Department considers anything that goes into commerce as commercial, no matter where it comes from. So, there’s probably ways – as Andy mentioned, there are ways in which to count properly and to put it in the right allocation, but to date that hasn’t happened. Mr. Gray: One last, quick comment. I know in Florida the assumption is that the commercial guys properly care for their fish, they ice them, they really treat them right. If it’s a recreational guy, they don’t know how long ago that fish was caught and how it was cared for in the process, so they do not want it getting into the commercial stream unless the guy has a commercial license and cares for it properly. Mr. Phillips: Is there anything else that hasn’t been covered? Okay, the preferred alternative should be Alternative should be Alternative 1, which is no action, for the sale of recreationally caught fish. All in favor, raise their hand; all against, same sign. The motion fails. Mr. DeVictor: The last action I just wanted to mention with Amendment 15 has to do with golden tilefish on Page 43. The council’s preferred alternative for this action is to change the golden tilefish fishing year. Currently, it’s January 1st; this would change it to September 1st. Again, this came up during public testimony of Amendment 13C when certain fishermen down in Florida said that their important time to fish for golden tilefish is during September, October, November. And they were concerned with the quota that goes in place, that the fishery would be shut down due to that quota by their prime fishing season. So, the preferred alternative, again, would change that fishing year to September 1st, so that’s when the clock would start for counting the quota. This alternative would also drop that 13C regulation, that 300-pound trip limit when 75 percent of the quota was captured. That would drop that provision that was set in 13C. I just want to see if there are any comments on this action. Mr. Oden: It sounds like this is another example of regional management measures necessary because that runs directly counter to what we might be able to offset some of the coming reductions of snowies. Our fishing season ends September. It usually starts around April and runs through the middle of September, maybe. But, you know, that runs directly counter to what we want up our way. And, of course, if we go to historical management, it won’t really matter because we don’t have but about 3,000 pounds on a good year of golden tilefish. But, still, if I went out there and caught three or four hundred pounds a day or two, I mean, it’s just another nail in the coffin.

130


Mr. DeBrango: I think this was brought in for the South Florida fishermen, the bandit golden tile fishermen. I mean, I don’t know which way to go on this one, because regardless of the 300,000 pound quota – I mean, look at it this year, it was met in May. You know, they’ve got their 300-pound bandits right now. I don’t see any change next year. I would say, yes, we could switch it to September 1st and get rid of the 300-pound quota, but will they open shark next January, January 1st? No, you know, so I’m kind of torn on this one because it doesn’t really do any good to change it. Like I said, next year, at least if the quota is met again in May or April, I mean, everybody is not going to be able to fish and at least there is still going to be that 300 pounds, which all the tilefish up my way and north – like you said, it’s 60 miles to the tile grounds off South Carolina. They’re out of business. We have already done the damage on it. So, my vote would be no action and just leave it the way it is, because it’s working for the South Florida fishermen, who are bandit fishing them, and maybe anybody else who wants to go bandit fishing up to the north on them. I make a motion for Alternative 1. Mr. Phillips: Do I have a second? Mr. Zimmerman: I’ll second that. Mr. Phillips: Any further discussion? Mr. Cardin: I’ve talked with a few of the big-boat tile fishermen, and it’s pretty relevant, because to my knowledge there are probably only 12 tilefish boats that routinely longline. They all kind of feel it’s unfair to them that by losing that 72,000 pound part of the quota by the 300 pound limit, the September thing; that they would like to see the season open September 1st and then everyone has a full shot at it, and then that also accommodates the bandit fishermen in South Florida who routinely bandit fish in September and October and sometimes into November. I myself, however it goes, okay, but I’m just trying to say that I have spoken with some of the high hookers, and it was some of the tile fishermen who would like to see the September 1st season. Mr. DeBrango: I can see that going either way, but I believe the golden tilefish spawn in those summer months, I believe from the tables. Well, I mean, either way, the way it’s looking now at least they’re able to fish the spawn, so, I mean, I just don’t – I don’t know how this is going to help anybody. I mean, at least now, if it resets January 1st and they don’t open shark, it gives them something to do in January, which they’re catching good in January. The fish have already spawned this summer, in the summertime, so they’re not commercially harvested really other than the 300-pound trip limit.

131


But, January, when it’s rough, you know, only the bigger boats can go out there and fish for them, anyway, so you’re looking at, like I said, May again a closure and September – you know, I mean, then you’ve got to look at what are we going to fish for towards the end of the year – sharks – yes, right, okay. So, I mean, that’s why I said this whole thing, it’s everybody’s opinion on it. You know, everybody has got a different opinion on it, but the damage is already done in this industry, so I think it’s kind of a senseless thing to just change it to September. Mr. Phillips: Well, let me read it: The preferred alternative should be Alternative 1, no action, for the golden tilefish, and the trip limit action. All in favor, raise your hand; all opposed, same sign. The motion carries. Is there any other business? Mr. Cardin: I’m sorry, but can we back to the recreational sale? Alternative 1 in the document says to allow it, and I think we said that we want to disallow it, but the way we voted and put Alternative 1 up there, we’re asking to allow it. Rick, can you tell me the difference between Alternative 1 in our briefing materials and how Alternative 1 is written up here. Mr. DeVictor: Alternative 1 would not take action and would still allow a sale up to the bag limit, and you voted against that. Mr. Cardin: But, I’m not sure if everyone – did you vote for that? Mr. Phillips: It was kind of a double negative, I think. Mr. Cardin: Can I call for a revote? Can I make a motion that we go for Alternative 1 as is in our book and revote. I make a motion we reconsider the wording of this? Mr. Phillips: All right, we’ve got a motion to reconsider recreational sale. Seconded by Jim. Okay, can I get a raise of hands on should we reconsider the sale of recreational fish; same sign for those against reconsidering. Okay, so we’re going to reconsider the sale of recreational fish. Mr. Cardin: I make a motion that we write this up the same way it is in the book on Page 60, Alternative 1, and vote on that. Mr. DeBrango: Quick question. Would a snapper grouper charter/headboat permit be considered a commercial permit? Maybe Terrell can help me on this. Mr. Gould: You’re talking about a federal snapper grouper permit? You have several categories. You have commercial, you have charter/headboat, and I believe that’s it. I don’t believe there is a recreational side on it, so you’ve got your commercial side, which is your bandit fishermen and pot fishermen and whatnot, like that. Then you’ve got your charter/headboat, which does not entitle you to sell the fish on the thing there. In North Carolina, in order to sell your recreationally caught fish, you have to have a

132


standard commercial fishing license. If you don’t have that there, you can’t sell your fish legally. Mr. DeBrango: That would be in state waters? Mr. Gould: No, that’s in the state of North Carolina. It doesn’t matter if you caught your fish a hundred miles offshore, if you don’t have a standard commercial fishing license in the state of North Carolina, you cannot sell your fish no matter where you caught it. That’s one of the ways there when they came up with the salt water fishing license there, that they got around it. They called it a landing license. Instead of an individual license there that licensed you to catch salt water fish, they call it a salt water fishing license and a landing license, because if you were fishing outside of North Carolina state waters, they have no authority, so they call it a landing license. If you’re going to fish, you’ve got to have a license to land fish in North Carolina; end of story. Mr. Phillips: Okay, do I have a second on Bobby’s motion? Mr. DeBrango: I’ll second that. Mr. Phillips: Okay, are you all clear on what this is? Are you ready to vote? Mr. Kelly: I just want to make sure that under this wording here, that we’re endorsing and allowing recreationally caught fish in North Carolina, as long as they have that state license; is that correct? Well, in Florida there is no recreational sale. Mr. DeBrango: Unless you have that state license. Mr. Cardin: What we’re talking here is this deals with the federal snapper grouper permit. Now, in Florida you can buy an SPL for 50 bucks. A lot of people buy them because it covers hunting, fishing, freshwater, saltwater, and everything. So, you know, you’re crazy if you don’t buy one. Now, when you buy that, and you get an RS, now you can go say you’re in state waters and land the recreational limit and sell that recreational limit. What this is trying to do is say if you don’t have a federal permit, you’re recreational and you can’t sell fish or can you? Mr. Kelly: I don’t know how North Carolina law works, but I know in Florida you might get that SPL, but you’re not going to get the RS for it unless you’ve got a long history of selling fish. In North Carolina, do you have the same requirements or is it that much easier to get that license to sell? Mr. Gould: I think the standard commercial fishing license is a limited thing now. I know that the standard commercial fishing license, in other words, your individual license to sell, people in the state are selling them for as much as fifteen hundred and two thousand dollars to other people.

133


So, in order to sell a fish in my state, you’ve got to be state licensed. It wouldn’t make any difference. If the federal government said it was all right to sell it or not, you’ve got to have state permission to. Mr. Adams: That state permission is a commercial license. In other words, you’re permitted as a commercial fisherman when you have that license. Mr. Kelly: My point being, you know, that it’s difficult in Florida to get that RS endorsement, and I am against the sale of recreationally caught fish, because, again, by definition, what Rita said they point out in North Carolina, once you sell that fish, you’ve crossed the line. You are no longer a recreational fisherman; you’ve become a commercial fisherman. I know what my position is, I’m against it and I think the advisory panel should be against the sale of recreationally caught fish because you instantly make them a commercial fisherman in competition against most of the people in this room. Mr. Cardin: Tomorrow morning I could take my son fishing with me, and I could pay him a dollar for fishing, and we could send a thing into the state that says 100 percent of his income is from commercial fishing. With that one dollar, he will have an RS. Right now in the state of Florida we have 8,500 people on the east coast that can go catch, land and sell the recreational limit. Carolina is talking about there is 8,000; Georgia has however many. So we’re talking upwards of possibly 20 or twenty-five thousand people being able to, on a recreational limit, go harvest fish that the commercial guys are being cut down so much on. I mean, it could be a really relevant number as far as how many days Mark can fish, I can fish, or anyone in this room can fish. So, you know, what we’re trying to say here is either you’re a licensed commercial fisherman and you commercial fish; or if you catch a recreational bag limit, now you’re a recreational fisherman. Thank you. Mr. Phillips: Okay, the motion, the AP supports allowing species in the snapper grouper management unit taken from the South Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag limit, to be sold to a licensed dealer if the seller possesses a state-issued license to sell fish. All in favor, raise your hand; all against, same sign. The motion fails. Is there any other business. Then we will adjourn and thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 o’clock p.m., September 18, 2007.)

134


Certified By: ____________________________________ Date: ________________

Transcribed By: Graham Transcriptions, Inc.

135


SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

SNAPPER GROUPER ADVISORY PANEL MEETING

Avista Resort North Myrtle Beach, SC

September 17-18, 2007

TABLE OF MOTIONS Page 14: The motion is request that NMFS perform a socio-economic assessment parallel with the SEDAR process in terms of the reductions required for gag grouper and vermilion snapper. The motion carried on Page 22. Page 22: Motion to assess adding the golden tile 35 percent we took too much reduction on the fishery; and looking at the red porgy, that if given some of these fisheries to the fishermen, if that will end overfishing as it is occurring. The motion carried on Page 25. Page 38: The motion is recommend to the council to take the least restrictive action possible in terms of management regulations that ends overfishing of vermilion. Use all available information in a new benchmark assessment. The motion carried on Page 49. Page 64: The motion is the AP requests that the SSC apply a confidence level to the input data and assessments results for all assessed species. The motion carried on Page 67. Page 69: Motion is the AP requests that the SAFMC work with the state of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to develop regional management rules for gag grouper south of the Miami-Dade-Monroe County and northward along the Atlantic coast. The motion passed on Page 76. Page 80: The AP endorses a 50 percent commercial quota, 50 percent recreational allocation for gag grouper. Any spawning aggregation closures should be applied equally to both sectors. The motion carried on Page 81. Page 84: The AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state for gag grouper. Landings from the state trip tickets would be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted by a fisherman’s home port. The motion failed on Page 86. Page 86: The AP endorses allocating the commercial quota by state for gag grouper. Landings from the state trip tickets would be used to determine the state allocations. Landings would be counted by the state where the fish are landed. The motion carried on Page 86.

136


Page 92: The AP endorses a three-month closure, January, February, March, for gag grouper for both sectors. The motion carried on Page 95. Page 97: The AP recommends reducing the bag limit for gag grouper from two to one, and to reduce the aggregate grouper limit from five to three, of which one allowed to be a gag or black grouper. The captain and crew should not be included in the bag limit possession. The motion carried on Page 99. Page 100: The AP endorses Alternative 2B for the allocation of vermilion snapper. The motion carried on Page 100. Page 104: The AP recommends to the council that they have updated statistics related to vermilion snapper biomass and that the council take no action other than the allocation decision. The motion passed unanimously on Page 105. Page 112: The AP supports Alternative 2, 95 percent commercial, 5 percent recreational, as the allocation for snowy grouper. The motion carried on Page 112. Page 113: The AP supports an allocation for red porgy that sets 50 percent commercial, 50 percent recreational. The motion carried on Page 115. Page 115: The council shall apply quality control to all snapper grouper species to minimize the amount of recreational overages. All recreational anglers should be federally licensed in the South Atlantic EEZ with mandatory reporting. The motion carried on Page 120. Page 125: Motion to accept Alternative 7. The motion carried on Page 125. Page 127: The preferred alternative should be Alternative 1, which is no action, for the sale of recreationally caught fish. The motion failed on Page 130. Page 131: The preferred alternative should be Alternative 1, no action, for the golden tilefish, and the trip limit action. The motion carried on Page 132. Page 132: Motion to reconsider recreational sale of fish. The motion carried on Page 132. Page 132: The AP supports allowing species in the snapper grouper management unit taken from the South Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag limit, to be sold to a licensed dealer if the seller possesses a state-issued license to sell fish. The motion failed on Page 134.

137

Documents

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILcdn1.safmc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/28103812/... · William Conklin LeRoyal Gould, Jr. Jim Gray Danny Hooks William Kelly Dan Kipnis