CPY Document - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

CPY Document - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

MINUTES
GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
ONE HUNDRED A N D SECOND MEETING
TAMPA, FLORIDA
APRIL 27-28, 1989
The one hundred and second meeting of t h e Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
was called t o order by Chairman William Chauvin at 8:30 a.m., April 27, 1989. Council
members in attendance were:
VOTING MEMBERS
William Chauvin
Mary Kumpe
Joseph Angelovic
George Brumfield
J e r r y Clark (Designee for Virginia Van Sickle)
Julius Collins
Joe Gill (Designee for Vernon Bevill)
John Green
Armand DeKeyser
Walter Fondren
Alex Jernigan
Gary Matlock
Edward McCulla
Sherman Muths
Russell Nelson
Walter Tatum (Designee for Hugh Swingle)
Louisiana
Florida
NMFS
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Mississippi
Texas
Alabama
Texas
Florida
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Florida
Alabama
NONVOTING MEMBERS
Frank Richardson (Designee for James ~ u l l i a m )
Ron Lukens (Designee for Larry Simpson)
Lt. Ron Falkey (Designee for Admiral Merlin)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gulf S t a t e s Marine Fisheries
Commission
United S t a t e s Coast Guard
STAFF
Wayne Swingle
Terrance Leary
Tony Lamberte
Douglas Gregory
Cathy Readinger
Beverly Badillo
Stephanie Kelley
Executive Director
Biologist
Economist
Statistician/Biologist
Administrative Assistant
Secretary
NOAA General Counsel
OTHER PARTICIPANTS
Captain Ray Odor, Lutz, Florida
Les Smith, Atlantic Sport Fishing Association, Natick, Massachusetts
Stephen Meyers, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Bob Zales, Zodiak Charter Fleet, Panama City, Florida
Ron Schmied, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
J e r r y Schill, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Bayboro, North Carolina
Charlie Hardison, Golden Meadow, Louisiana
Bob Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
T. H. Crane, P o r t Salerno, Florida
William Niles, Summerland Key, Florida
George Niles, Summerland Key, Florida
Eddy Owl, Key West, Florida
Richard Waites, Key West, Florida
William Gibson, Jr., Key West, Florida
Raymond Berard, Key West Florida
William Gibson, Sr., Key West, Florida
William Carter, Key West, Florida
J e r r y Khirir, Osprey, Florida
Bobby Benldey, Osprey, Florida
Marla Taylor, Bradenton, Florida
Sistes Quesado, Jr., Key West, Florida
Robert Harmony, Key West, Florida
Sistes Quesado, Sr., Key West, Florida
Brad Brown, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida
John Roussel, Louisiana Department Wildlife & Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Howard Larsen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, Florida
George Thompson, Stuart, Florida
Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida
Ray Campbell, Kodiak, Alaska
John Porter, Savannah, Georgia
Lee Weddig, Washington, D.C.
Mario Esposito, Pompano, Florida
Larry and Joyce Meyer, Pompano, Florida
Terry Conner, Long Key, Florida
Gary Pf lueger, Miami, Florida
Robert Hickman, North Miami, Florida
Billy Sandefur, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Eric Keitel, Sarasota, Florida
George McKinney, Gulf Reef Fish Conservation Association, Destin, Florida
Terry Jones, Marathon, Florida
A1 Pflueger, North Miami, Florida
Robert Sierpiejko, Boynton Beach, Florida
Richard Nielson, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Brad Kenyan, Odessa, Florida
Randy Ruzicka, Largo, Florida
Mike Dunsizer, St. Petersburg, Florida
Ken Hinman, Savannah, Georgia
Eric Prince, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida
Robert Spaeth, Madeira Beach, Florida
OTHER PARTICIPANTS (continued)
-
-
Larry Goins, Key West, Florida
Wilson Hubbard, Madeira Beach, Florida
Jon Grant, Madeira Beach, Florida
Tom Murray, Tampa, Florida
Dick Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
Mark Taylor, Bradenton, Florida
Seth Macinko, St. Petersburg, Florida
Mr. and Mrs. James Carmy, Largo, Florida
Gary McMillin, Chokoloskee, Florida
Bill Henderson, Apollo Beach, Florida
Jeff Smith, Tampa, Florida
Reynolds Bryan, Riverview, Florida
Todd Reynolds, St. James, Florida
Michael Maccini, St. Petersburg, Florida
Mike Justen, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
John Warren, Tampa, Florida
J i m McCallum, Washington, D.C.
Bob Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
Buck Byrd, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida
Dah-wen Shieh, Council of Agriculture, Taipei, Taiwan
Basil Arend, St. Petersburg, Florida
Mike Kitchen, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida
J a c k Greenfield, St. Petersburg, Florida
Martin Fisher, Madeira Beach, Florida
Glenn Delaney, Alexandria, Virginia
Ray Hogarth
William McLeod
Roger Koske, Madeira Beach, Florida
C a r l Anderson, Bay County Charterboat Association, Panama City, Florida
Ed Maccini
Bill Moore, Big Pine Key, Florida
Mrs. W .A. Brunthoover, Lakeport, Florida
Robert Robinson, Everglades City, Florida
o
Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was adopted a s written.
o
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of t h e meeting held in Miami, Florida, March 15-16, 1989, were
approved with t h e following changes:
Page 27, fifth paragraph, should indicate Ms. Kumpe being t h e maker of t h e motion
and not Mr. Richardson.
Page 24, fourth paragraph, t h e word
should be replaced by t h e word
"fisheries1'. Also on page 24, tenth paragraph, Mr. Gordon's s t a t e m e n t should read
"felt t h e Council should not promote a fishery t h a t is determined being conditional
.I1
since
..
o
Reef Fish Amendment 1
Mr. Chauvin noted t h e r e were numerous members of t h e public who requested t o
speak and suggested testimony be limited t o five minutes per individual. H e invited
t h e public t o speak:
Mr. Bob Zales, charterboat owner, Panama City, Florida, supported t h e 20-inch size
limit on grouper and t h e five fish bag limit. He also supported t h e 13-inch size limit
on r e d snapper, and opposed t h e t e n fish bag limit. Red snapper should not b e
included with other snappers for bag limit purposes since someone could c a t c h t e n
vermilion snapper, and if they were able t o c a t c h t e n red snapper on t h e s a m e day he
would have gone over t h e bag limit resulting in waste of fish. H e favored t h e 12inch size limit for gray, mutton and yellowtail snapper and t h e eight-inch size limit
on lane and vermilion snapper. H e suggested another approach b e taken on t h e bag
limit for snappers. Vermilion snapper in the Panama City a r e a a r e not considered
stressed or overfished, and he f e l t a 20 fish bag limit for vermilion snapper would be
feasible. The t h r e e fish amberjack bag- limit a n d 28-inch size ,limit was acceptable,
however, he favored a t w o fish bag limit and 24-inch size limit. Amberjack a r e not
depleted, but he f e l t i t was much easier t o maintain a management strategy in
regulating a fishery t h a t is not yet in a n endangered state. H e supported t h e bag
limit for trawl vessels. The committee changed t h e bag limit from a daily limit t o a
trip limit; h e felt t h e daily limit should b e retained. He owns four boats and c a n
make multiple trips in one day and t a k e advantage of t h e multiple t r i p limit
resulting in circumvention of t h e intent of the measure. A daily limit for anglers
was much more reasonable than a trip limit. Multiple day t r i p limits should be
allowed; in his a r e a there a r e a number of boats t h a t depend on two-day trips.
Enforcement would not be a problem; if someone pays for a two-day trip, h e would
not t a k e them out for only one day. Also, h e would not allow someone t o c a t c h twodays worth of fish for only a one-day payment. Verification based on receipts would
be easy t o determine. The advantage of a two-day trip is t h a t t h e person g e t s t o
travel further in hopes of catching bigger fish. The change in t h e fishing year from
July t o June is reasonable. He f e l t t h e permits including t h e charterboat income
stipulation was reasonable and will eliminate what the fishermen t e r m as "weekend
warriors" and people who a r e part-time charter fishermen. He suggested t h e
Council should educate t h e public as t o the advantages of t h e plan and help them t o
understand t h a t t h e proposals will be beneficial long term.
Dr. Matlock asked if there was an incident where a reduction in t h e amount of t a k e
was imposed on a charter fish fishery resulting in charterboats going out of
business. Mr. Zales responded he did not have any documentation.
Mr. George McKinney, Gulf Reef Fish Conservation and Management Association,
submitted a written statement and stated t h e association was formed six weeks ago
t o give all users of t h e reef fish resources from Key West t o Brownsville a common
point of contact for working with t h e Gulf Council and other agencies in formulating
regulations and taking other appropriate measures t o ensure conservation and
optimum use of reef fish and other Gulf resources. Their current paid membership
numbers slightly over 200 and has been increasing exponentially since formation.
Due t o the limited t i m e available, his comments d o not fully reflect coordinated
association positions. They a r e based on the more significant concerns expressed by
members. Properly coordinated specifics, with minority reports as required, will be
provided a t later stages of the review process. The major problem which requires a
plan amendment is the inability of stocks t o replenish themselves in t h e f a c e of
existing conditions in t h e Gulf. Some of the items listed as "problems" such as
fishing pressure, pollution and habitat destruction a r e "root causes" of t h e problem.
Others, such as user conflicts and use of certain types of gear a r e merely
ramifications of t h e problem - if stocks were replenishing themselves we would not
b e concerned with who is harvesting them or t h e methods used. H e suggested
reworking this section into a problem-cause-effect format. The s a m e rationale
applied t o management objectives listed in t h e plan. Restoring stocks t o X percent
spawning stock biomass per recruit c a n be directly linked t o solving t h e problem of
inadequate replenishment. Other s t a t e d objectives a r e at best tangential t o t h e
basic problem. To b e meaningful, t h e restoration objective should be linked t o a
t i m e frame; a reasonable time such a s t h e year 2000 is preferable t o mitigate neart e r m impacts on users while still moving toward a concrete objective. Also, t h e plan
amendment should contain a s expanded tutorial on SSBR and how i t is measured t o
enhance understanding of approval authorities and especially those t o be effected.
He commented on proposed additions t o t h e management unit t h a t t h e
administrative and scientific proprietg,of.including what may be non-reef species in
a reef fish fishery management plan. Previous comments on t h e advisability of
expanded explanations of SSBR apply t o definitions of optimum yield and
overfishing. Procedures for determining allowable biological c a t c h e s and t o t a l
c a t c h e s a r e of immense concern, particularly if t h e products a r e t o be used in a
framework approach which would authorize future alteration of t h e provisions of t h e
plan by notice action. This is a n a r e a where the association desires exceptionally
close coordination with t h e Council a s specifics of such procedures a r e finalized.
The committee's recommendation on red snapper size and bag limits is vastly
superior t o proposals contained in t h e draft amendment and strikes a much b e t t e r
balance between concern for t h e resource and concern for those who currently
depend on t h e resource f o r their livelihoods. Their recommendations also t a k e a
positive s t e p in the a r e a of grouper size limits and quotas, however, they d o not go
f a r enough. First, a smaller size limit should be set for red grouper. These fish
m a t u r e sexually a t a smaller size than blacks and gags, and, therefore, c a n safely be
harvested at a length at least two inches shorter than blacks and gags. Secondly,
given a significant increase in minimum grouper size, quotas and bag limits a r e not
required and their use, particularly during t h e first year of plan implementation,
would consume resources (for monitoring) t h a t could b e b e t t e r used elsewhere.
Amberjack quotas and bag limits a r e totally inappropriate at this time. He
expressed appreciation for t h e Council's concern t h a t fishing e f f o r t may turn toward
this species as restrictions a r e placed on snapper and grouper, however, "may" is t h e
operable word and restrictions based on conjecture lessen credibility of t h e plan as a
whole and by inference t h e more urgently needed management tools contained
therein. Imposition of t h e proposed size limit will adequately protect stocks until
more information is available on what is admittedly a n emerging fishery. Regarding
t h e other snappers, t h e Council has failed t o consider t h e severe impacts on a
substantial head boat fishery, primarily located in t h e Florida Panhandle, of limiting
customers of this f l e e t t o ten pan fish (i.e., vermilion snappers and red porgies) per
day. New available d a t a indicates t h a t vermilion a r e sexually mature at six inches,
s o a n eight inch size limit will offer substantial protection. The eight t o ten inch
mingo is t h e primary fish taken by head boat customers, and a limit of t e n would
yield less than five pounds of edible meat. These fish a r e not stressed, particularly
in this area, and increased harvest may be necessary t o enhance comeback of red
snapper stocks which could be impeded if vermilions and porgies t a k e over red
snapper habitat.
He strongly urged inclusion of wording which would allow
recreational fishermen t o t a k e up t o at least 20 vermilion snapper and/or red porgies
per trip. In summary, he requested t h e Council clarify t h e problem s t a t e m e n t and t o
expand explanations of biological t e r m s t o enhance comprehension. H e suggested
establishment of commercial quotas and recreational bag limits for groupers and
amberjack is not required in conjunction with increased minimum size limits, and he
requested adequate recreational limits on reef "pan1' fish t o continue t o make head
boat fishing a t t r a c t i v e t o a sizeable portion of t h e populace. Finally, he offered t h e
auspices of t h e association t o t h e Council and others who undertake projects and
programs which ultimately benefit reef fish resources and those who depend on t h e m
for their livelihoods and leisurely pursuits.
Dr. Matlock asked if t h e Gulf Reef Fish Conservation and Management Association
had any information t o lead the Council t o a different conclusion concerning
amberjack and t h e emerging fishery t h a t is developing t h a t people will not a t t e m p t
t o c a t c h more of these fish. H e questioned if the Council's conclusion was wrong
t h a t this will not occur. Mr. McKinney responded i t would b e difficult t o provide
d a t a t h a t something w.ill not happen. ..Dr. Matlock added t h e r e was testimony from
previous s t a t e m e n t s indicating &his will occur. He asked if Mr. McKinney's
association would be more comfortable if language were included in t h e document
t h a t this llwilllt occur based on testimony instead of "may" occur. Mr. McKinney
responded he would be as uncomfortable with this contention based on conjecture as
he would b e on t h e contrary conjecture t h a t it will not occur. Dr. Matlock also
asked if Mr. McKinney1s association f e l t the Council should not t a k e any action t o
manage any species until i t was demonstrated t h e fishery was overfished. Mr.
McKinney responded this was not his association's position. He subsequently
submitted a written response t o Dr. Matlock's question which was no, however,
management tools should be in proportion t o scientific (biological) indications of
periential overfishing not t o conjecture i t may occur.
Mr. Terry Connor, commercial fish trapper in t h e Florida Keys, offered his t i m e t o
speak t o Ms. Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida.
Mr. Charlie Hardison, charterboat fisherman in Louisiana for 33 years, noted t h e
Council has a tremendous job t o accomplish but f e l t the wrong approach was being
used. The problems in Florida should be addressed in Florida, t h e problems occurring
in Mississippi must b e addressed in Mississippi, etc. The problem in Louisiana is not
with grouper, lane, or vermilion snapper; the problem in Louisiana is with red
snapper since t h e fishermen in t h e charterboat industry in this a r e a totally rely on
these fish for their livelihood. Eighteen years ago there were 19 charterboats on
Grand Isle, and there currently is not one boat charter fishing. The various f a c t o r s
such as insurance costs, fuel, and employee salaries has put them out of business. A
boat goes in June and July and October and November off the S t a t e of Louisiana and
pulls in 60 t o 110 feet of water. Sometimes, approximately 200 shrimp boats move
into t h e same a r e a pulling four 50-foot nets. There is no way a boat could c a t c h
anything following behind a shrimp boat. He suggested a 15 per day, per t r i p bag
limit. There is no way t h e Council could make t h e s a m e regulations apply t o t h e
entire Gulf. A limited entry system must be instituted in order for t h e fisheries t o
survive.
Mr. DeKeyser asked if t h e boats particpate in other commercial fishing during t h e
winter months when t h e boats a r e not under charter. Mr. Hardison responded he has
a commercial mackerel permit. One year in just two days t w o of his boats took
39,000 pounds out of t h e Gulf using rods and reels. He then informed his employees
not t o a t t e m p t t o c a t c h any more king mackerel since i t was damaging t o t h e
fishery.
- -
Mr. Ray Hogarth stated at the Madiera Beach public hearing closed seasons for reef
fish were discussed since some of t h e fishermen related they could fill t h e quota by
September. This would allow a four-month closure of all commercial fishing for reef
fish. Therefore, t h e fishermen f e l t a two-month closed season would b e a n
advantage t o everyone. The only way t o manage reef fish is t o close t h e fishery
during t h e spawning season. He opposed t h e 50 percent income requirement. There
is no difference whether t h e fishermen sell their fish or gave i t t o a neighbor, he
still took t h e fish. He quoted proposals submitted t o t h e S t a t e of Florida: "We, t h e
membership of the part-time commercial fishermen of Florida realizing t h e r e is a
move underway t o limit commercial fishing in t h e S t a t e of Florida t o special
interest groups by way of limited entry, t h e unconstitutional income percentage
basis; and recognizing t h a t our objectives on.a.part-time basis a r e .equally productive
in providing fresh Florida seafood t o t h e consumer, we do a s of this d a t e make t h e
following request: whereas t h e residents of t h e S t a t e of Florida a r e granted t h e
s a m e inalienable rights provided by t h e Constitution of t h e United S t a t e s of America
t o pursue part-time, half-time, or full-time engagement or employment in any
industry for f r e e enterprise and t h e taking for sale of any marine seafood resources
in t h e S t a t e of Florida is deemed t o be one of the major industries in t h e S t a t e o f
Florida, we recognize t h a t part-time fishermen of Florida must be governed by t h e
s a m e licensing structure as any individual in t h e S t a t e of Florida so w e do hereby
request t h a t any resident in t h e S t a t e of Florida wishing t o engage in t h e part-time,
half-time, or full-time pursuit of any legally accepted marine seafood resource o f
t h e S t a t e of Florida be given equal consideration with all residents t o t h e S t a t e of
Florida without regard t o any percentage of monetary basis of their income relating
t o issuance of t h e standard seafood products license on payment of s e t fees." He
added t h e big-time operators a r e being given a big shovel and told t a k e all you w a n t
as along a s you make over 50 percent of your livelihood. H e requested t h e 50
percent income requirement be removed from t h e proposals in t h e amendment.
Dr. Nelson asked if someone had t h e right in the S t a t e of Florida t o open a liquor
store anywhere they desired. H e expressed no one has t h e right t o any fish; they a r e
a common property resource and a r e t o be used t o t h e common good of all t h e
citizens of the United States. H e did not feel t h e "big-time'f operators a r e under t h e
impression t h a t they have been given a shovel and told t a k e all you want. Mr.
Hogarth responded any person who could afford a longline boat and t h e expense of
t h e gear could t a k e their harvest. The part-time fishermen were only requesting t h e
equal right t o pursue t h e fish.
Mr. Eric Keitel informed h e attended many of t h e public hearings and at t h e Madiera
Beach public hearing the room was overcrowded and there was insufficient t i m e for
everyone t o speak. H e s t a t e d t h e commercial fishermen as a group did not have a n
opportunity t o voice their opinions, five minutes is not sufficient t i m e t o address a l l
t h e issues in t h e amendment. He commented Amendment I a s written will result in
t h e d e a t h of t h e industry. There a r e many management options available t o t h e
Council which have not been discussed. One is limited entry into t h e commercial
fishery and gear limitations. Limited entry is now seriously being considered by t h e
New England Fishery Management Council, and he f e l t i t should b e carefully
examined by t h e Gulf Council prior t o making recommendations on t h e amendment.
The 50 percent income requirement is not considered a form of limited entry. Many
of t h e long-time fishermen in t h e Gulf feel t h e Council has committed a gross
oversight in i t s responsibilities t o t h e fishery and t h e fishermen in not considering
gear limitations and the e f f e c t s on t h e fishery. H e wrote t h e Council a detailed
letter in September, 1988, listing ideas and observations on how this type of program
could and would work and how i t may a f f e c t t h e fishery with regard in trying t o
achieve t h e s t a t e d management goals.
He detailed a series of enforcement
procedures t h a t could be handled by enforcement officers much more easily than t h e
measures proposed. None of these observations have been discussed before t h e
Council. He totally objected t o Amendment 1 as currently written. H e was a
recreational fisherman and a party boat captain for ten years, and intends t o be
a c t i v e in stopping implementation of t h e regulations.
Mr. Green asked if Mr. Keitel agreed or disagreed t h a t t h e fish in t h e ocean a r e a
common property resource. Mr. Keitel responded he agreed. Mr. Green commented
in this case, limited entr,y .would deny t h e right,of many people t o fish. He asked if
determined t h a t 100 reef fish fishermen can officially, profitably, and without
damage t o t h e resource achieve optimum yield of the resource, would he b e willing
t o bid into t h a t fishery. Mr. Keitel responded no, but this was a question which
needs careful consideration and perhaps has some merit.
Dr. Matlock expressed concern with t h e public's opinion t h a t they were not given
adequate opportunity t o comment. He asked if Mr. Keitel was denied access in any
way in providing input in written form or any other way. Mr. Keitel responded he
submitted written documents t o t h e Council and felt i t probably has not been read
by Council memberes since i t has not been discussed. H e f e l t this was a form o f
being denied access. He was told a t t h e Naples and Madiera Beach public hearing
t h a t h e could not speak longer than five minutes.
Dr. Nelson pointed out at t h e Madiera Beach public hearing, Mr. Williams began t h e
meeting by asking if t h e r e was anyone in the audience who f e l t t h a t they could not
state their views within five minutes. He asked why Mr. Keitel did not protest at
t h a t point. Mr. Keitel responded he was aware of this s t a t e m e n t being made. He
had spoken with Mr. Williams at t h e Naples public hearing and did not choose t o
speak at t h e Madiera Beach public hearing; h e only attended t o see how t h e meting
was run. Dr. Nelson noted the meeting adjourned before t h e t h r e e hours was over
and a f t e r all t h e speakers were finished, additional opportunity was given above t h e
five minutes for anyone t o again speak. Mr. Keitel concurred.
Mr. Carl Anderson represented t h e Bay County Charterboat Association and
expressed t h e r e was insufficient d a t a t o support a ten fish limit on vermilion snapper
and requested a 20 fish limit with it being lowered in subsequent years if t h e d a t a
indicates i t needs reduced. He expressed concern in disallowing t h e multiple day bag
limits. In t h e northern Gulf and t h e Florida Panhandle there a r e numerous two-day
trips. A large number of boats depend on two-day trips especially in t h e spring and
fall. The association supported separation of red snapper from t h e other species of
snapper and f e l t t h e five fish bag limit on red snapper was sufficient. H e personally
disfavored a limited entry system since t h e country was based on freedom and f r e e
enterprise.
Dr. Nelson asked how a party boat operator could document being out on a two-day
trip t o t h e satisfaction of a n enforcement officer. Mr. Anderson responded t h e r e
were a number of head boats t h a t take two-day trips. He f e l t i t could be
documented through t h e logbooks plus by peer pressure. Fishermen who obey t h e
law will not tolerate someone else breaking t h e law. He f e l t enforcement of this
would not b e a problem in t h e Florida Panhandle. Dr. Nelson pointed o u t C o a s t
Guard regulations require more than a single licensed captain on board if t h e boat
was out for more than a certain time period, Mr. Anderson commented on t h e
c e r t i f i c a t e of inspection i t s t a t e s t h a t t h e boat is not t o b e operated more than 12
hours in any one 24 hour period without a double crew.
Mr. Gary McMillin quoted from a letter written by David Horan who was retained t o
a t t e m p t t o move t h e stressed a r e a in t h e Everglades City area. Mr. Horan s t a t e d in
t h e l e t t e r t h a t his latest conversation with NOAA personnel convinced him t h a t
most of t h e commercial fishermen a r e now considered t o b e t h e enemy. With t h e
incredible amount of money NOAA has and its possible use of statistics and blind
studies t o validate a commercial fishing position in coming t o this conclusion, Mr.
Horan conducted extensive. research on the..Eishe~men's Protection A c t and i t s
legislative history and t h e National Standards under the Magnuson Act. As f a r as
t h e United S t a t e s is concerned, t h e recreational fishermen will in t h e next t e n years
have exclusive control of all fishing in t h e territorial waters of t h e United States.
Based on t h e past few years, t h e recreational fishermen will also dominate t h e
federal fisheries management council with the only possible exception being Alaska,
t h e Pacific Council. What comes very clear is t h a t today's younger commercial
fishermen better s t a r t learning t o be guides and all t h e children of commercial
fishermen give up any hopes of taking over their father's business. Mr. McMillin
s t a t e d t h e amendment indicates t h e r e a r e 377 fish trappers. O u t of this t h e r e a r e
supposedly 94 active fish trappers in t h e S t a t e of Florida. The statistics as t o t h e
location of grouper and information from Dr. Moe and Dr. Goodyear a r e invalid.
There a r e more recent reports developed by t h e University of Miami t h a t t h e
Council could review. He was cited for a violation and was never given a day in
court. His day in court consisted of a telephone conversation with NOAA General
Counsel who reduced his fine from $5,000 for a first offense t o $2,500 plus
confiscation of his gear. He expressed concern with t h e way enforcement is
handled. H e requested a 14 t o 15-inch size limit on grouper since t h e fish a r e
smaller in t h e northern part of Florida Bay. The recreational fishermen a r e catching
this size of fish, and t h e commercial fishermen should also be allowed t o c a t c h t h e
s a m e size. He favored the stressed a r e a line be brought in off Everglades City since
t h e r e a r e not t h a t many recreational fishermen who use t h e area. H e suggested
closing t h e season when t h e fish a r e spawning instead of instituting size limits.
Mr. Collins asked if Mr. McMillin was strictly a reef fishermen. Mr. McMillin
responded he fished for grouper May 15th through September Ist, and then he fishes
for stone crab.
Mr. Green asked if t h e r e were fewer or greater number of fishermen using fish t r a p s
than 94. Mr. McMillin responded this was probably an a c c u r a t e figure, however, he
was not positive.
Mr. Brumfield asked if Mr. McMillin fished during t h e spawning season.
McMillin responded no.
Mr.
Mr. Todd Reynolds related a larger size limit for amberjack would b e more
appropriate than having a quota since i t would be better management t o allow t h e
fish t o grow t o t h e size at which they spawn. A quota would place more burden on
NMFS and t h e Marine Patrol. A 32-inch size limit is adequate and would be easy to
manage. Jewfish should also be allowed a chance t o spawn.
Mr. Robert Hickman donated his speaking time t o Joan Butler, OFF.
Mr. Richard Nielson, commercial fish trapper in Ft. Lauderdale, asked t h e current
proposals on fish traps. Mr. Chauvin responded t h e committee has recommended
allowing up t o 100 fish traps with a larger mesh size t o allow escapement of
undersized red grouper. Mr. Jernigan pointed out the Council's present position is t o
prohibit fish traps; t h e committee only has recommended this t o be changed t o 100
fish t r a p s with a larger mesh size, however, this has not been adopted by t h e
Council. Mr. Nielson s t a t e d Public Law 94-265, April 13, 1976, finds t h a t t h e fish
off t h e coast of t h e United S t a t e s constitute a valuable and renewable natural
resource. The fishery resources contribute t o t h e food supply economy and health of
t h e nation a n d ,t o provide recreational opportunity. H e " i s a full-time commercial
fish t r a p fisherman since 1978. The proposed amendment banning fish traps in t h e
entire EEZ is deplorable. Over a two year period, fish trappers have attended public
hearings and Council meetings entirely at their own expense. This was t o give input
and information t o t h e Council s o t h a t they would have documented f a c t s hopefully
leading t o a fair and equitable regulation on fish traps. In 1983, fish t r a p regulations
became reality. Now, there is another fish t r a p ban proposal. H e referred t o t h e
Second National Standard and related it t o t h e fish t r a p ban in which t h e best
scientific information available must be used. There a r e two studies available t o t h e
Council, one of which was a wire fish t r a p study for Dade and Broward Counties,
12/79 - 9/80. Research publication number 40 of t h e Florida Department of Natural
Resources was performed by NMFS biologists aboard his vessel. He recommended no
limit on t h e number of traps and no change on existing mesh regulations already in
place.
Mr. Fondren asked t h e number of traps per boat fished by Mr. Nielson. Mr. Nielson
responded h e fished 200 traps and has one boat. Mr. Chauvin asked how many t r a p
fishermen have more than 200 traps. Mr. Nielson responded very f e w have more
than 200; most fishermen fish with traps t o supplement for other types of fishing.
There a r e probably five or less in t h e entire S t a t e of Florida t h a t have m o r e than
200 traps.
Mr. McCulla asked t h e type of fish being targeted with t h e traps. Mr. Nielson
responded primarily snapper and grouper (mutton snapper and gag and black
grouper). When t h e studies were conducted in 1980, t h e fishermen were not using
t h e underutilized species of fish - grunts, porgies, triggerfish, etc. However,
currently t h e r e is an established market for these fish. There a r e very f e w species
of fish caught in t h e traps which a r e discarded.
Mr. DeKeyser asked how many times per day the traps were run. Mr. Nielson
responded fish trapping is prohibited in s t a t e waters resulting in a lengthy trip.
Usually t h e r e a r e usually 40 fish traps hauled per day a f t e r a seven-day soak
period.
Mr. Brad Kenyan, Odessa, Florida, s t a t e d he has been a part-time commercial
fisherman for most of his life. The income he derives from fishing part t i m e is very
important t o him financially, however, does not equate t o 50 percent of his t o t a l
income. If t h e 50 percent income requirement is approved, he f e l t i t would only be
f a i r t o prevent any person from doing anything on a part-time basis. H e fished t h e
Middle Grounds this weekend and on Monday morning h e had t o wait t o sell his 300
pounds of reef fish until a long-line boat finished unloading 10,000 pounds of fish.
The proposed measures a r e supposed t o be designed t o protect and preserve t h e reef
fish. He f e l t actions need t o b e taken t o relieve t h e pressure on reef fish, however,
restrictions should b e shared equally by commercial, sport and part-time commercial
fishermen alike. H e favored closing t h e fishery two t o three months a year during
t h e spawning season, taxing imported fish, and subsidizing full-time commercial
fishermen during times he cannot fish. Closed seasons have worked for snook,
lobster, and red fish, and h e felt would work well for reef fish. All t h e fish he
catches a r e caught with a rod and reel, and he is highly successful at releasing
undersized and unwanted fish. He f e l t his fish a r e a fresher quality due t o t h e
shorter trips. H e submitted a petition of approximately 40 names opposing t h e 50
percent income requirement. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Kenyan's profession. Mr.
Kenyan responded h e was in t h e c a r business.
Mr. Randy Ruzicka also submitted a petition opposing t h e 50 percent income
requirement. He felt t h e 50 percent income requirement was unconstitutional and
would not hold up in court. H e has approximately $60,000 t o $70,000 invested in his
boat, and his costs a r e approximately $1,200 t o $1,500 per month f o r boat payment,
insurance, gas and oil. If t h e 50 percent requirement were instituted i t would result
in him losing or having t o sell his boat. This would also place a hardship on t h e
boating industry a s no one would be able t o afford t o buy a boat. Allowing t h e
people who a r e doing t h e most damage t o t h e resource t o t a k e t h e fish, and
disallowing t h e fishermen who a r e only taking less than five percent is not
conservation. He favored closed seasons during t h e spawning season, and related i t
takes five years for a black grouper t o reach spawning size at which t i m e they a r e
approximately 8; t o 10 pounds. The 18 t o 20-inch size limits on t h e fish will not
protect t h e spawners, which is one of t h e proposals listed in t h e amendment. He did
not feel t h a t most of t h e proposals were in t h e best interest of everyone.
Dr. Nelson asked how long Mr. Ruzicka has been fishing. Mr. Ruzicka responded
since 1980. Dr. Nelson asked how many pounds of fish h e landed. Mr. Ruzicka
responded approximately 12,000 t o 15,000 pounds.
Dr. Matlock asked how many people were in the Gulf who were similar fishermen t o
Mr. Ruzicka. Mr. Ruzicka responded probably several thousand.
Mr. Mike Dunsizer, commercial fishing equipment salesperson and owner of
Fisherman's Ideal Supply House, stated h e started his business over 12 years ago
which has increasingly grown in t h a t time. He described t h e vessels who have
purchased items through his business over t h e last 12 years was 1,026. Of this
number, 5 5 percent a r e documented vessels (570), 263 o r 26 percent a r e businesses
t h a t possibly have set up boats, and the remaining a r e Florida registered boats, 19
percent o r 193 boats. This was a s of this past week. As longlining, bandit fishing,
and commercial fishing has continued t o develop and increase, his business
consequently has increased. As of 1988 (fiscal year) the average per month of
receipts were from 383 boats, businesses or Florida registered vessels. Of t h e t o t a l
100 percent, 40 percent of t h e boats (157) were longliners on a n average monthly
basis; six percent of 23 boats on a n average were rod and reel and/or bandit
fishermen; t h e remaining percentile which is 54 percent which constituted indirect
sales t o vessels which were out-of-state vessels, out of t h e country sales t o vessels,
and businesses themselves, tackle shops and fish houses. He could not earmark these
as t o the particular vessel.
For t h a t year, 46 percent (178 vessels) of t h e
commercial people who c a m e through his business were longliners and bandit
fishermen. If his business constitutes 50 percent of t h e longliners in t h e Gulf, which
he seriously doubted, then his competitors within t h e geographical a r e a such as
Peninsula Marine, Florida Fisherman Supply, Hooker's Supply, Tampa Marine, C a r r
Enterprises, and Sigma Marine t a k e up the other 50 percent in t h e Gulf. He
seriously doubted those names plus his constituted 100 percent. Within t h e state
t h e r e a r e Atlantic and Gulf, Howard Tackle, Mirror's Marine, McCleanls Seafood,
S&L, Longline Fisherman Supplies who also have a percentile of t h e market. He
summarized t h a t whatever number was indicated for t h e longline industry, bandit
industry or commercial fishermen as a business is understated. H e f e l t t h e r e were
more. He reiterated h e was unsure a s t o the percentage his business represented in
t h e industry. Even if it were 40 percent, t h e other business were doing a lot of
business a s well.
Dr. Nelson asked what type of equipment Mr. Dunsizer's business sold t h e most a n d
t h e type of fishery being targeted. Mr. Dunsizer responded h e would have t o d o a
run-down on a boat-by-boat basis, and t h e boats change fisheries.
Mr. Green asked if according t o t h e sales there was a n indication of shift from
swordfish t o reef fish t o shark. Mr. Dunsizer responded this occurs, but they d o shift
back and forth.
Mr. Gary Pflueger relinquished his speaking time t o Joan Butler, OFF.
Mr. A1 Pflueger, commercial fish trapper in Miami, related he presently owns 264
fish traps and lost 36 fish traps within six years. He c a t c h e s grouper, snapper,
triggerfish, porgies and grunts. He felt h e produces a good quality fish for t h e
market using fish traps.
Mr. Collins asked how much of t h e fish caught in traps was wasted. Mr. Pflueger
responded h e currently utilizes everything even t h e cowfish from which he receives
$7 per pound.
Mr. Robert Sierpiejko, commercial fish trapper in Boynton Beach, noted fish t r a p
fishermen produce a quality product for t h e market and also produce a g r e a t deal of
t h e underutilized species such as t h e cowfish and grunts, which relieves some of t h e
pressure off snapper. If fish trapping were discontinued, t h e price of snapper and
grouper would probably increase tremendously. In providing a n escape gap large
enough t o allow a 20-inch grouper t o escape, i t would also allow t h e underutilized
species t o escape t h e traps. Most of t h e fish released a r e tropical fish and porcupine
fish, all t h e others a r e usually sold.
Mr. Jernigan asked t h e depth of water Mr. Sierpiejko fished. Mr. Sierpiejko
responded he currently fished approximately 160 feet. He does not fish t h e Gulf but
does have tags for t h e Gulf. H e hoped t h e Gulf would remain open as a n opportunity
for him t o fish in t h e future.
Mr. Brumfield asked how many tags Mr. Sierpiejko held for t h e Gulf. H e responded
he currently has 200 tags for each side but only has 80 traps in t h e water.
Mr. Green noted t h e fish trap fishermen who have made s t a t e m e n t s s e e m t o be
concentrated in t h e Atlantic. H e asked if t h e r e was fish t r a p effort in t h e Gulf. Mr.
Sierpiejko responded he heard of effort in t h e Gulf and was fishing in t h e Atlantic
due t o t h e regulations placed in the Gulf, and he was more familiar with t h e Atlantic
waters.
I
Mr. Robert Spaeth, President of the Southern Offshore Fishing Association,
represented a significant number of t h e longline and bandit fishermen in Florida. He
s t a t e d t h e fishermen understand t h a t the red snapper fishery is in danger. The d a t a
supposedly indicate red grouper a r e also in danger. He referred t o t h e model on
page 218, and questioned t h e analysis of the Z of 5.81. Other d a t a indicates t h a t 35
percent of red grouper a r e caught outside 50 fathoms. Most fishermen know t h a t
red grouper a r e not caught outside 50 fathoms. He quoted from t h e SSC comments
which s t a t e d t h e r e .is a .ser,ious deficiency..in ,the,,data especially for grouper. The
research efforts for estimating age- mortality of t h e Gulf stocks should strongly be
encouraged. Without b e t t e r data, i t becomes probable t h a t overfishing cannot be
detected until i t becomes t o o severe t o reverse without restrictive measures. His
association does not oppose measures t h a t will benefit everyone. By t h e Council's
estimates, t h e proposed measures will reduce c a t c h e s 33 t o 50 percent in t h e shortrun. The Council is only targeting a 20 percent reduction, however, t h e fishermen
a r e going t o lose 3 3 percent of their income. According t o t h e Council's statistics
t h e r e a r e 242 bottom longliners in t h e Gulf of Mexico. H e f e l t about half t h e
commercial landings have been slipping through t h e s t a t e s in t h e reporting process.
He a t t e m p t e d t o prove mathematically o r disprove this theory. If t h e r e a r e 242
longliners and they each make 12 trips per year (2-week trips) and average 5,000
pounds, t h e n e t result would be with four crew members, t h e c r e w member would
make $6,910, t h e boat itself a f t e r repairs, maintenance, and debt service, etc.,
would end up with approximately $6,000 profit per year. If this were true, t h e r e
would probably not be any longliners. If there were 350 boats and each caught 5,000
pounds and made 12 trips i t would result in roughly 20 million pounds. He opposed
t h e quota and felt t h e size limits would be more appropriate t o regulate t h e fishery
until more d a t a were obtained.
Dr. Matlock noted t h e other portion of t h e SSC report reads t h a t Moe estimated
mortality at .32 in t h e 1960s so the estimate of .58 t h a t the Council staff has been
using was not out of line. Generally, t h e Council needed t o b e as conservative a s t h e
d a t a supported, and t h e r e were no alternative analyses proposed. H e asked based on
this information, if Mr. Spaeth still f e l t t h e analyses presented by staff was
inappropriate. Mr. Spaeth responded h e still felt i t was inappropriate because t h e Z
t h a t high was for grouper. H e asked why i t was not done for red snapper. Dr.
Matlock asked if Mr. Spaeth felt t h a t t h e state reporting systems were inadequate o r
whether people a r e violating t h e law from his statement t h a t half t h e landings were
slipping through t h e states' reporting process. Mr. Spaeth responded i t probably was
a combination of both. There a r e landings t h a t slip through t h e system when trucks
haul t h e fish t o other states. He reiterated t h e r e was a very serious reporting
system problem. He emphasized t h a t if t h e Council institutes a quota, a number of
longline fishermen would b e placed out of business.
Dr. Nelson pointed out if Mr. Dunsizer's business represents one-third of a l l
longliners and each t a k e 12 trips per year, this figure divided into t h e 1 2 million
pounds results in approximately a 3,000 pound average trip for all t h e longline
vessels in t h e Gulf. This calculation deducted 25 percent off for t h e assumption t h a t
not all were targeting reef fish. Mr. Spaeth emphasized this proved t h e Council's
figures were in error. The expense t o t a k e a vessel out (approximately $3,000 solely
for bait, fuel, ice and groceries) f a r exceeds t h e amount a 3,000 pound c a t c h would
bring. The average trip results in approximately 5,000 pounds; t h e r e would not be
350 longliners in t h e business if they were only catching 3,000 pounds per trip. Dr.
Nelson noted this also assumed t h a t no one was going out of business and t h a t no one
was making less money than it takes t o stay in business. Mr. Spaeth commented
t h e r e have been no new longline entries, and he was unaware of any new boats being
built.
Dr. Nelson expressed he strongly supported t h e 50 percent income requirement. An
e s t i m a t e of 1,000 part-time fishermen taking 12,000 pounds a year would result in 12
million pounds of all fish being harvested by people who would be prevented from
harvesting fish commercially by the, 50 percent income requirement. This would
leave this same figure available t o t h e commercial longline industry. Assuming onet e n t h of t h e 12 million pounds was grouper would give 1.2 million pounds t o
longliners.
Mr. Spaeth s t a t e d if you divided the 242 boats into t h e current quota, i t would result
in only 3,800 pounds per boat. Longliners cannot survive on t h e proposed quota. He
estimated t h e quota would be reached within four t o six months.
Mr. Green asked what t h e longliners' position would b e t o a provision t h a t those
people who historically have reported their landings would b e eligible for permits.
Mr. Spaeth responded t h e income tax forms would be required t o determine t h e 50
percent income requirement; if someone does not report his fish he probably has not
reported them on his income t a x form. Mr. Green reiterated through t h e t r i p t i c k e t
system where bottom longliners a r e landing their fish in t h e S t a t e of Florida t h a t
those people who have historically reported their landings should b e given t h e
permits. Mr. Spaeth responded his was not totally opposed t o this idea. Mr. Green
asked if Mr. Spaeth f e l t t h a t a man who violates t h e law and bootlegs his fish and
does not report his landings would indicate this on his income tax. Mr. Spaeth
responded no.
Mr. DeKeyser s t a t e d one of the proposals in t h e amendment is a July 1 - June 30
fishing year. H e asked if Mr. Spaeth's organization approved of this fishing year if
quotas a r e developed. Mr. Spaeth responded one of t h e reasons for t h e advisory
panel suggesting a July 1 fishing year was t o fill t h e quota prior t o spawning. The
high market t i m e is January through March during t h e Lenten season. It is suspected
t h a t this also coincides with t h e roe season. If you t a k e 30 t o 40 percent, it would
result in getting $2 per pound instead of $1.50 resulting in one-third of income being
taken away.
Mr. Mario Esposito, fish trapper, stated he initially fished t h e Gulf a r e a and then
moved t o t h e Atlantic due t o the problems of t h e longliners interfering with t h e t r a p
fishermen. He also owns a fish market. The Gulf Council is proposing t o increase
t h e opening in traps t o allow a 20-inch size grouper t o escape. Fish trapping is a
lucrative business, but must be done right in order t o b e successful. Traps a r e t h e
best method t o c a t c h fish on a regular basis. He felt if t h e Gulf was closed t o t r a p
fishing and longlining, t h e fishermen will then move t o t h e Atlantic causing
tremendous congestion in t h a t area. He related law enforcement officers sometimes
mistreat the fishermen.
Mr. Jernigan asked how many traps Mr. Esposito fished. Mr. Esposito responded he
fished 160 traps and was ready t o place 20 more traps in the water. The traps a r e
pulled every five days. Mr. Jernigan asked if t h e r e currently was a g r e a t deal of
traps in t h e Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Esposito responded yes, t h e Gulf provides more fish
than t h e Atlantic especially reef fish; however, t h e method of fishing is different.
The traps a r e placed on t h e bottom of the ocean, and a longline pulls t h e traps up
when t h e line comes up resultin in damage t o t h e trap, and he then g e t s t h e c a t c h
from t h a t trap. The traps cost 45 t o $50 each. Mr. Jernigan asked how many traps
were in t h e Gulf, Mr. Esposito responded he was unsure, however, if everyone fills
out t h e report, then NMFS would have t h e exact figure.
f
Mr. Larry Meyer, fish-trapper in-.the,Elorida Keys and .member of OFF, advised he
fished in t h e Atlantic a few years ago and moved t o t h e Gulf and holds 200 Gulf
tags; however, he does not currently fish in t h e Gulf. H e s t a t e d t h e r e a r e quite a
few other fish trappers who hold Gulf tags t h a t a r e not fishing t h e traps for these
tags. He supported and used biodegradable panels. He is a commercial diver and
dives for his gear if t h e line was c u t or damaged. This past year he lost almost 90
traps t o Hurricane Gilbert. He also has a problem with shrimpers dragging in t h e
a r e a where h e places his traps. Traps cost from $45 t o $100 t o build depending on
t h e type of fish being targeted. He utilizes almost every type of fish caught in t h e
traps except for t h e tropical fish. The few fish t h a t a r e not wanted and a r e thrown
back in t h e water do survive. As a diver h e has observed fish swimming in and o u t of
t h e traps. He opposed t h e Gulf being closed t o fish trapping and did not f e e l t h e
situation was a s drastic as presented.
Mr. Collins asked t h e f e e for t h e tags. Mr. Myer responded these were issued by
NMFS. Mr. Collins also asked if Mr. Myer would still apply for t h e tags if they c o s t
$10 each. Mr. Myer responded yes because they a r e valuable.
Mr. Green asked t h e comparison between t h e Atlantic and Gulf in t h e amount of fish
t h a t c a n be taken and t h e soak period for the traps. Mr. Myer responded his soak
t i m e averages seven days, and all t h e traps a r e rotated in t h r e e days. H e usually
pulls 100 t o 200 traps per day depending on t h e weather. H e has been very
successful in catching grouper and mutton snapper during certain times of t h e year
in t h e Gulf. There is not much difference in catch between t h e Atlantic and Gulf
depending on t h e species being targeted. The average poundage per pull per t r a p in
t h e Atlantic is approximately five pounds, however, t h e r e a r e exceptions.
Dr. Matlock asked why Mr. Myer moved from t h e Gulf t o t h e Atlantic. Mr. Myer
responded h e fishes very close t o t h e Gulf, from Marquesas down t o t h e Dry
Tortugas. He has a regular route t h a t he takes and is familiar with t h e t i m e i t t a k e s
t o g o this route. Dr. Matlock asked if h e could conclude t h a t t h e reason Mr. Myer
moved from t h e Gulf t o t h e Atlantic was t h a t this was where t h e fish are. Mr. Myer
responded yes.
Mr. Jernigan asked t h e number of traps Mr. Myer fished. Mr. Myer responded he
currently fished 250 traps.
Mr. Robert Robertson donated his time t o Bill Moore.
Mr. Martin Fisher stated he has been fishing for grouper since 1979. He expressed
concern with bottom habitat destruction either due t o bottom longlines, trawl, hand,
or anchors. The longline industry uses stainless steel cable because i t does not break
in t h e coral. When t h e longliners first s t a r t e d in the inshore fishery for red and
black grouper they used a cotton line which was very successful in t h e offshore
fishery because i t was mostly mud bottom or shell. When they moved inshore t o t h e
hard corals they had t o switch from t h e cotton line t o galvanized cable and then t o
stainless steel cable which is 118 inch in diameter and weighs approximately 150
pounds per 5,000 feet. Longline clips a r e spaced at intervals along t h e cable which
falls t o t h e bottom; some fishermen use weights depending on t h e bottom. The
interval of t h e clip depends on t h e type of bottom and t h e type of fish being
targeted. A typical longline vessel, by his estimation, averages setting g e a r
approximately six miles; some s e t t w o miles of gear and some set 18 miles of g e a r
per boat. The clips average approximately 1,800 t o 2$000 clips per six miles at 30 or
15-foot intervals; however, they a r e placed where t h e fish a r e and a r e sometimes set
every five feet. He expressed concern with t h e longline fishery in utilizing this t y p e
of cable since a great deal of coral is being destroyed. If t h e r e a r e 200 boats
longlining in t h e Gulf and if they set their gear t h r e e and one-half times per day a n d
i t averages six miles, this calculates t o 21 miles per day per boat; they usually
average 20 fishing days per month which would result in 440 miles per boat per
month, multiplied by 200 boats which equates t o 88,000 miles of line laid across t h e
Gulf of Mexico. He suggested some type of research b e conducted t o determine t h e
e f f e c t of bottom longliners, anchor fishing and the e f f e c t of trawling. He concurred
with Mr. Spaeth t h a t based on t h e amount of current effort, t h e quota probably will
be filled within the first four t o six months of t h e year. There must be some e f f o r t
made t o provide a n equitable formulation for everyone t o b e able t o continue t o
make a living fishing. He was not opposed t o recreational fishermen selling their
fish if they c a n prove they have done so for t h e past t h r e e years. H e suggested
every commercial fishing vessel pay a user fee, and t h a t every recreational
fisherman pay a user fee. The funds generated from these fees could b e used as a n
endowment t h a t could either buy out commercial fishing vessels and/or research in
t h e fishery or a hatchery program. H e supported closed seasons and limited entry.
Longlining has been claimed as being t h e most efficient fishery; Mr. Spaeth made
t h e comment t h a t 3,000 pounds of fish would result in t h e boat hardly breaking
even. If someone caught 3,000 pounds for a bandit boat using a $2 per pound figure
equates t o $6,000; t h e boat's share of 40 percent would be $2,400; an average of
$800 for expenses (fuel, bait, ice and groceries) leaves $2,800; 3 5 percent is a good
c r e w share which would be $980; s o t h e captain would make approximately $1,700.
In his best year he landed 52,000 pounds, and t h e total gross revenues at t h a t
particular t i m e was $77,000. In t h e first six weeks of this year he landed 12,000
pounds of fish in t h r e e separate trips, one trip was 9 days, one was 12, and one was 5
days. Approximately 6,800 pounds of t h e total landings was not reported due t o t h e
person t o whom he sold t h e fish not reporting t h e fish. They were all bought in one
lump sum, and this situation is a normal occurrence in t h e fishery. Recreational
fishermen also sell their fish t o neighbors which is also not reported.
Mr. Larry Goins, Key West, s t a t e d he fishes both the Atlantic and Gulf,
approximately 60 percent140 percent, respectively. H e and his son derive 100
percent of their income from t r a p fishing. H e expressed grave concern in t h e
Council prohibiting fish trapping in t h e Gulf. The Council indicates t h a t t h e t r a p
fishery is small, and ghost trapping is a problem. He has been fish trapping for t h r e e
years and uses biodegradable hinges preferably of jute and a degradable latch. He
has not seen any evidence of ghost fishing. He has found traps t h a t have been lost
f o r two t o t h r e e months and t h e r e have been no fish bones inside t h e trap. A NMFS
study of South Florida fish trap fishing grounds using a submersible c r a f t resulted in
locating 2 3 wire traps, 18 were found derelict traps with no signs of ghost fishing.
The five remaining traps located were active fishing traps, but four were in a
trotline and were being fished without a buoy. All t h e fish were alive in those
traps. H e contended t h a t these were active traps. H e a t t e m p t e d t o acquire
information from NMFS t o determine t h e permit holders so he could call t h e m and
find out if they were active. NMFS refused t o give him t h e information. H e wrote
t w o l e t t e r s t o t h e Council expressing his concern.
Dr. Nelson asked where -Mr,. Goins fished. Mr,+.Goins.responded h e currently has 34
traps in t h e Gulf south/southwest of t h e Big Light Loggerhead, and also fishes in t h e
Atlantic. He t a r g e t s different fish. The fish migrate so h e tries t o reach t h e
migrating fish rather than t h e fish on a rock bottom. Dr. Nelson related t h e
c o m m i t t e e recommendation was t o allow fish trapping provided t h e r e was a mesh
size t h a t would b e adequate t o allow undersize grouper t o escape. H e asked what
size mesh would be necessary t o allow a grouper less than 20 inches t o escape. Mr.
Goins responded he fishes deeper water t o catch larger size fish.
H e has
experienced frequent c a t c h of vermilion snapper from 130 f e e t out t o 260 feet.
Currently, h e has exploratory traps set in 550 feet water depth targeting gray o r
mutton snapper. Dr. Nelson asked what size grouper Mr. Goins catches when he
fishes in t h e Gulf. Mr. Goins responded very few a r e 20-inch grouper. In trapping
along t h e bottom of t h e reef in 100 f e e t of water you will c a t c h small grouper. The
minimum depth he fishes and catches grouper is approximately 150 t o 170 f e e t and
o u t t o 240 feet. The average grouper he catches probably weighs 12 t o 15 pounds.
Smaller fish such as black grouper a r e caught inshore. Dr. Nelson asked how long
t h e escape panel would last. Mr. Goins responded he has some traps t h a t a r e wire
which were used in a special use project. A wire, .030, was used on t h e escape latch
and did not have zinc. The wire lasted on some of these traps for four months. The
.030 wire depending on t h e salinity and temperature of t h e water lasts t o o long.
Wire is easier t o work with. The S t a t e of California did research on cotton, which
was determined also t o last too long, up t o six months.
Mr. Tatum asked over t h e last three years if there have been any trends in c a t c h
such as decreases or increases. Mr. Goins responded he preferred catching a more
even c a t c h and does not desire t o t a r g e t one particular species such as black
grouper. H e preferred a variety such as black grouper, mutton snapper, and now
fishes for yelloweye snapper and gray tilefish. There is very little red grouper being
targeted. Gag grouper is a migratory fish and is present in his a r e a a t this t i m e of
t h e year, moving both e a s t and west depending on t h e current and w a t e r
temperature. His c a t c h has not decreased in t h e last three years probably primarily
because he targets different fish, He s t a r t s at Key West and runs 56 miles before
t h e first t r a p is placed in t h e water. His average soak t i m e is five t o seven days and
t h e r e a r e very few dead fish in the traps. H e felt research studies have indicated
t h a t survival r a t e has been a s high as 85 percent. He felt t h e reporting system
should be similar t o the state's system. H e suggested sending NMFS a duplicate copy
of t h e state's reporting report.
Mr. Green asked what a r e a of reef in t h e Gulf Mr. Goins fished. Mr. Goins
responded south of t h e Big Light, 10.2 miles, which is t h e s t a r t of t h e Gulf of
Mexico; any a r e a t o t h e east of t h a t point is considered t h e Atlantic. Most of t h e
bottom south/southwest of t h a t a r e a really s t a r t s at about 135 f e e t , and at Riley's
Hump i t is 84 f e e t and drops off t o 170 feet. He fishes in t h e a r e a from 170 f e e t
outward. Mr. Green asked if Mr. Goins files a report with NMFS on t h e 35 t r a p s he
fished. Mr. Goins responded h e filed for six months with NMFS, and then became
disillusioned about t h e report. H e planned t o continue t o file a report with NMFS.
Mr. Green noted the regulations c i t e t h a t certain information must be submitted
within seven days of completion of each trip. He asked if Mr. Goins complies with
this regulation. Mr. Goins responded he was advised by a staff member t h a t t h e r e
appeared t o b e some problem with this reporting form. Mr. Gregory commented he
received information from NMFS t h a t t h e logbook program was not enforceable, and
they were not enforcing i t o r following up because of this. This was t h e reason for
one of t h e measures in-the reporting requirement. t o require negative reporting. Mr.
Green commented t h a t any apparent violation of the regulation was not t h e f a u l t of
t h e fishermen but was with NMFS. Mr. Gregory responded h e was unsure but any
comments made t o Mr. Goins or any other fisherman was not t o discourage reporting
or lead anyone not t o report.
I
Dr. Nelson asked if fish traps were t o be included with longlines in prohibiting t h e
use of t h e gear inside t h e 20 fathom line, what e f f e c t would this have on t h e amount
undersized grouper t h a t could be caught. Mr. Goins responded t h e a r e a he fished
does not have many small grouper; most a r e larger migrating grouper. H e f e l t i t
would have a significant e f f e c t on fishing northward.
Mr. DeKeyser related t h e Council was proposing a 100 t r a p limit on traps in t h e
Gulf; h e asked t h e economic e f f e c t this would have on Mr. Goins. Also, if conditions
were ideal, how many traps could be worked. Mr. Goins responded in t h e Gulf t h e r e
a r e two systems of fishing; one is t o t a k e t h e t r a p out, eight or t e n units, and fish
t h e m for a longer period. The other system is t o have t h e 50 o r 7 0 traps on t h e boat
t o place them in areas usually where t h e r e is a higher concentration of fish, which i s
primarily done with red grouper. These a r e pulled two, t h r e e t o four times per day.
H e did not f e e l t h a t reducing t h e number of traps would be a problem. Most boats
cannot haul more than 100 traps at one time.
Mr. Wilson Hubbard, owner of party boats and a marina, s t a t e d h e is t h e host of a
television show on saltwater fishing. For t h e past month he has mentioned t h e Gulf
Council on his show, and has received numerous phone calls protesting t h e 50
percent income requirement. He has read a great deal of material on fish traps;
Jamaica is a typical example in t h a t t h e r e a r e no fish left a s a result of t h e fish
traps. The only fresh fish available in Jamaica a r e pelagic fish. He f e l t i t was a
mistake t o allow fish traps t o be introduced in Florida, however, now t h a t they have
entered into this fishery, they should be able t o make a living. Due t o t h e life cycle
of a grouper, as long as fish traps a r e kept f a r enough offshore, t h e r e is little
possibility they will c a t c h small grouper. All grouper migrate into shore in t h e
spring and summer in t h e pelagic stream, and s e t t l e in the grassy estuarine a r e a s
during t h e nursery period. As they g e t older they migrate off t h e grass and go
offshore, and change sex a t around five years old and become male. From t h a t point
on they continue t o migrate offshore, which is why most of t h e larger grouper a r e
caught offshore. Often some of t h e best product relative t o reef fish available in
restaurants and retail markets a r e from part-time fishermen and recreational
fishermen. H e owns a restaurant and receives tremendous compliments on t h e
quality of fish served, probably because he buys most of t h e fish from his own party
boat. He averages buying approximately $1,000 worth of fish per t r i p from t h e
people who fish on t h e boat. The boat averages 80 trips per year, resulting in
$80,000 worth of fish per year from t h e one party boat, Many of t h e people who fish
on his boats a r e retirees on limited income. If they were not allowed t o sell p a r t of
their catch, they could not afford t o go fishing. He felt t h e 50 percent income
requirement was a form of limited entry.
Mr. Bill Moore, Reef Fish Advisory Panel member and member of OFF, presented a
fish t r a p for t h e Council t o view. He has fished traps previously, however, he
currently was not fishing with traps as he was waiting for t h e grouper season.
Prohibiting fish traps in the Gulf would severely impact a tremendous number of
fishermen. H e used t o pull 100 traps every day in t h e Tortugas in both t h e Gulf and
the- Atlantic. Jhe-Atlantic fishery* is-totallyA.-differentfrom t h e Gulf; traps a r e
.pulled in t h e Gulf t w o t o three times-per day for about five days, whereas in t h e
Atlantic they pull their traps every five t o seven days. Limited entry is necessary
due t o all t h e restrictions placed in t h e fishery. Some of t h e Texas fishermen and
fishermen who fish in t h e Tortugas a r e a will be put out of business if t h e multi-day
bag limit is disallowed. The advisory panel recommended documentation of multiday trips through t h e vessel's log. He currently has 100 Gulf tags and 100 Atlantic
tags. A number of fishermen have tags, however, not all a r e using them. When t h e
rumor was spread t h a t limited entry was going t o b e instituted into t h e t r a p fishery,
every fishermen made application for trap tags. He owns 200 tags, but t h e most he
will fish is 25 t o 30 traps in t h e Gulf. He explained t h e t r a p was a standard t r a p
used by t h e Gulf red grouper fishermen. H e pointed t o the funnel noting a fish c a n
swim in and out of t h e funnel. The door is held on with jute and will fall off
probably within t w o t o t h r e e weeks. There is iron in t h e bottom so t h a t i t will sink
t o t h e ocean bottom. The zinc prevents t h e trap from eroding. The one-half by onehalf inch mesh size did not c a t c h very many fish; t h e one by one-inch mesh also did
not c a t c h very well; t h e one by two-inch mesh caught very well and s o did t h e one
and one-half inch by one and one-half inch hexagonal. The one and one-half inch
square caught fairly well. The two-inch square caught very little. A larger mesh
size would destroy t h e t r a p fishery. H e explained the stab net was approximately
100 yards long and sinks t o the bottom and catches gray snapper. H e requested t h e
Council allow t h e fishermen t o remove t h e heads and tails off amberjack in order t o
relieve some of t h e bulk and weight, and i t would also bleed t h e fish resulting in a
b e t t e r product.
The t w o by two-inch square mesh with t h e funnel is very
appropriate in protecting the smaller fish and is suitable for t h e fishermen. The
fishermen need t h e 16-inch red grouper, which only g e t s t o be 25 pounds; black
grouper a r e a different animal and g e t t o be approximately 100 pounds.
Mr. Jernigan asked t h e portion of grouper t h a t a r e under t h e 20-inch size limit. Mr.
Moore responded i t is approximately 30 t o 35 percent. Mr. Jernigan also asked why
a fish would not enter a t r a p t h a t had a larger mesh size. Mr. Moore responded a f t e r
a t r a p s i t s in t h e water a f t e r t h r e e weeks t o a month silt covers t h e t r a p and once
this occurs i t stops catching, This is why t h e term "ghost" traps is used. The small
fine mesh collects t h e silt quicker and disallows t h e traps from catching.
Mr. Brumfield noted the opening in t h e trap appeared t o b e small. He asked t h e size
of fish t h a t would go into the trap. Mr. Moore responded a 40 pound grouper c a n
e n t e r t h e trap.
Mr. Swingle asked if t h e effectiveness of t h e t r a p would be changed drastically if
t h e two by two-inch window was increased t o t w o by four inches. Mr. .Moore
responded i t probably would not make a great deal of difference except t h a t i t would
allow t h e lane snappers t o escape.
Mr. Tatum asked how much t h e t r a p cost t o make. Mr. Moore responded i t c o s t
approximately $10 in materials plus t h r e e hours in labor. He recently built 30 traps
and i t took two people one week t o complete the job.
Mr. Green asked if Mr. Moore disagreed with the statement in t h e summary t h a t five
percent was caught by traps and one percent of this figure were grouper. Mr. Moore
responded he was unsure; however, t h e unreported catch is tremendous. He f e l t t h e
percentage was probably accurate.
Dr. Matlock asked if t h e regulations t h a t a r e currently in place for traps have been
consistently supported by OFF. Mr. Moore responded yes. Dr. Matlock asked if t h e
fishing e f f o r t has increased in t h e past few years. Mr. Moore responded e f f o r t
probably has decreased.
Ms. Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida, commented on Problem 2 in t h e
summary, alarming growth in fish t r a p effort has occurred since FMP
implementation. She related this statement should be removed since i t was in
error. The growth was based on t h e number of tags issued, which a r e issued on a
cumulative basis since t h e process was started. A g r e a t deal of fishermen have 200
tags and a r e not utilizing them. There is ample documentation in t h e amendment
t h a t t h e number of persons participating in the t r a p fishery is much lower than t h e
number of permits. Table 7.1A shows fish t r a p effort decreasing over t i m e through
1986. NMFS information provided t o t h e Council in June, 1988, describes further
reduction in effort with only 94 fishermen identifying themselves as a c t i v e
fishermen or intending t o fish with traps in t h e 1987-1988 fishing year. A port a g e n t
did a canvas of ports t h a t reported t r a p catches and identified only 45 boats as
having actively fished during t h e past several months. She suggested t h e Council
replace t h e referenced problem statement with a sentence structured t h a t t h e
current permit and t a g system does not provide a n a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e of t r a p
effort. She referenced Problem Statement 3, longline gear introduced into t h e
fishery, this also should b e removed or reworded since i t does not refer t o a problem
and only concludes t h a t longline gear has been introduced into the fishery. Problem
Statement 10, which states t h a t fishing pressure has increased dramatically in t h e
past decade, seems t o cover all aspects concisely. I t entails longline gear, increase
in recreational fishermen, etc. The Council needs t o control e f f o r t in t h e fishery,
and she suggested seeking and supporting projects t o lay the groundwork for limiting
e f f o r t on t h e commercial sector. The Council also needs t o develop methods t o
control t h e total aggregate sport fishing effort. Bag limits a r e not going t o control
this. The red snapper fishery is in serious trouble, much more so than t h e red drum
fishery o r any fishery managed by t h e Council. The Council has been advised t h a t if
drastic actions a r e not taken, there will be a serious decline in abundance in this
fishery. Organized Fishermen of Florida recommend a t h r e e red snapper bag limit
f o r sport fishermen with no size limit. This may reduce t h e mortality of trading
smaller fish for larger fish.
They recommend a 14-inch size limit for t h e
commercial fishery. The committee adopted a motion t o increase t h e bag limit t o
10 fish and have a 25 percent reduction in effort in t h e red snapper fishery. The
other fisheries in t h e plan such a s grouper, amberjack, etc., a r e not in t h e depleted
condition as t h e red snapper stocks; however, t h e Council is approaching these o t h e r
species with stringent restrictions. She suggested t h e s a m e approach and regulations
taken with t h e red snapper fishery b e taken for t h e other fisheries as well. She
recommended with t h e grouper fishery beginning with reasonable size limits which
will reduce t h e fishing mortality. For black, gag, yellowfin and Nassau grouper, O F F
recommends a n 18-inch size limit; for red grouper, a 16-inch size limit is
recommended. The amendment s t a t e s t h a t the maximum yield of red grouper at 33
percent release mortality would occur at a size of about 17 inches, which indicates
t h a t if a larger size were chosen for red grouper, t h e maximum yield would be
reduced. A 50-inch size limit is recommended for jewfish. For black sea bass, a n 8inch t o t a l length size limit is recommended. For mutton and yellowtail snapper, a
12-inch t o t a l length size limit is recommended; an &inch total length size limit i s
recommended for lane, vermilion, and gray snappers. The Council proposes a 28inch size limit and a quota,for.greater, amber-jack;.OFF suggests a 32-inch size limit
which is t h e size indicated-at which maximum yield occurs, and a quota would not b e
necessary as t h e 32-inch size limit would yield a 30 percent reduction. She f e l t
quotas should not be implemented on grouper at this point o r t h e prohibition on
longlining inside 20 fathoms. The Council proposes prohibiting fish traps and
entanglement nets. The committee's recommendation is t o allow fish traps but
require a larger mesh size t o allow a legal size red grouper t o escape. The Council
appears t o b e holding fish trap fishermen t o a standard but not other gear. No o t h e r
gear is required t o only c a t c h a legal size fish. An undersize fish c a n be released; of
a l l t h e gears used, traps release fish with less damage and less mortality and injury.
The traps in t h e Gulf a r e pulled on a n hourly basis. There a r e ample studies t o show
t h a t t h e release mortality of fish released from traps is extremely low, less than 20
percent. Fish traps, according t o data, only harvest less than five percent of t h e
reef fish landings, which is probably less than 2.5 percent of t h e commercial
landings. She suggested t h e Council implement an annual trap permit and annual t a g
permit, which would give the Council a n accurate idea of t h e e f f o r t in t h e fishery.
Fish traps a r e the most highly regulated than any gear managed by t h e Gulf o r t h e
South Atlantic Councils. In t h e Reef Fish FMP, 12 out of t h e 17 management
measures apply t o fish traps. There a r e excellent regulations in place pertaining t o
design, construction, and use of traps. Some fishermen suggested t h e Council
require jute t o be used on t h e doors. Organized Fishermen of Florida have numerous
fishermen in their organization and would entertain Council and staff members
conferring with them t o a t t e m p t t o develop optimum regulations t o manage t h e
fishery. The Council proposes t o prohibit entanglement nets. There a r e numerous
fishermen who traditionally fish sink nets in the a r e a s of t h e Florida Keys. They
harvest generally mangrove snapper and other species. The Reef Fish Amendment 1
contains little d a t a o r rationale t o prohibit these nets. They harvest less than one
percent of t h e commercial landings, and effort is extremely low. If t h e Council is
serious in managing reef fish, t h e major gear such as bandit rigs, hook and line, t h e
longline, etc., should be closely reviewed. Organized Fishermen of Florida strongly
oppose t h e Council's proposals for t h e t r a p and entanglement n e t fisheries. D a t a
indicate annual harvest by trawls has only been 220,000 pounds. She f e l t i t may be
appropriate t o limit the bag limit t o red snapper harvested from trawl vessels, but
t h e o t h e r species should not be restricted. The crew on shrimp vessels handline
during t h e day, and their c a t c h is an important part of their income. The longline
prohibition inside 20 fathoms seems t o be an unnecessary measure. The Council is
proposing t o implement size limits on grouper. She felt size limits were more
appropriate. The 20-fathom prohibition is unnecessary t o keep longlines off
immature fish; inside 20 fathoms t h e r e is a great deal of legal size fish. The Council
s t a r t e d with t h e 50-fathom longline ban t o prohibit longlining on mature r e d snapper;
somehow this was applied t o t h e entire Gulf and then t h e Council realized this was
unnecessary off Florida since they were targeting grouper. Organized Fishermen of
Florida strongly support t h e 50 percent income provision with t h e qualifying
condition t h a t more than 50 percent of t h e earned income must be derived from t h e
sale of seafood products. This is a first step toward limiting e f f o r t in t h e fishery,
and Council should maintain this posture. OFF also recommends t h e annual c h a r t e r
and head boat permit f o r d a t a collection purposes. She f e l t t h e r e was no rationale
for extending t h e stressed a r e a boundaries off Texas 30 fathoms and off Louisiana 10
fathoms. She suggested these measures b e deleted. She requested t h e Council
review their request on moving t h e stressed line in off Florida particular southwest
Florida since the t r a p fishermen in t h a t a r e a must g o over 45 miles t o fish resulting
in s a f e t y problems. There a r e appropriate size limits so moving t h e line inward
should not b e a problem. Relative t o - t h e stressed-area. .line off t h e west coast of
.Florida, t h e t r a p fishermen a r e allowed t o fish s e a bass traps in state w a t e r s but
cannot fish in t h e large a r e a of federal waters in t h e stressed area. She requested
this line also be moved inward. The fishermen prefer a January 1 fishing year as i t
would be economically beneficial t o fishermen if t h e r e were closures.
Dr. Nelson stated according t o t h e d a t a available, if t h e Council desired a 16 inch
minimum size limit on red grouper instead of quotas t h a t will reduce current levels
of harvest against fishing mortality by 20 percent, you would then need a reduction
of 40 percent. Ms. Butler commented t h e Council is being advised t o seek a n
appropriate reduction in red snapper t o achieve a 75 percent mortality reduction.
The Council is proposing a graduated approach for red snapper, and she suggested
t h e same approach b e used for grouper since it is not as distressed. A c e r t a i n size
limit could be chosen initially and gradually move t h e size limit up resulting in less
economic damages, but ensuring t h e rebuilding of t h e fishery. If t h e fishermen a r e
all at once banned, t h e imports will t a k e over t h e market making i t difficult t o
regain. She f e l t t h e fishermen would b e more supportive in t h e Council easing into
restrictions.
Mr. Green asked if a stipulation relative t o revocation of a permit for nonreporters
would be appropriate.
Ms. Butler commented at this point i t would not be
appropriate because t h a t situation has been confused. Mr. Green clarified i t would
s t a r t with a new permit and require annual fish tags. Ms. Butler f e l t this should be
applied t o all gears, not just fish traps because they a r e only a minor portion of t h e
fishery. She f e l t the fishermen would support this if i t applied t o other gear. Mr.
Green asked t h e reasons for t h e fishermen requesting t h e stressed a r e a line b e
moved inward because they had t o go 45 miles offshore t o fish. Ms. Butler
responded t h e reasons were economic reasons and safety; t h e boats a r e not large
boats, approximately 3 5 t o 40 feet. The stressed a r e a application t o t h e a r e a off
southwest Florida does not actually m e e t t h e Council's criteria. I t is a low
population area, and t h e r e is little fishing effort. Mr. Green asked if this should also
be applied t o vessels who have t o go 60 t o 100 miles offshore. Ms. Butler responded
yes.
Dr. Clark noted one of t h e most important issues was t h e fishing year. Testimony
has indicated t h a t January and February was t h e best market t i m e for these fish.
Also, t h e spawning t i m e for most of t h e reef fish is March through August. During
t h e c o m m i t t e e meeting, t h e notion was t o s t a r t t h e fishing year July 1 with t h e idea
t h a t it would remain open through January and February, and close in March or April
which was t h e spawning time. An alternative would be t o open t h e fishing year in
December and close it in March and April and reopen later in t h e summer. Ms.
Butler commented this probably would be more preferable than a July 1 fishing
year. In addition, t h e Council should not institute quotas on grouper at t h e present
time. Quotas will result in a concentration of fishing and more gear added t o t h e
boats s o t h a t each fisherman can g e t his fair share of fish. Dr. Clark asked if March
also was part of t h e highest value period. Ms. Butler responded yes, i t is still p a r t of
t h e Lenten season.
Dr. Matlock asked if t h e suggestion was t o allow no vessel t o g o fishing during t h e
closed periods, or t o prohibit t h e retention of fish or just t o close certain areas. Ms.
Butler suggested having size limits on grouper at this point. She f e l t closing during
t h e spawning season would be a closure of fishing targeting those species. This
wou1.d be difficult since i t i~wo.uld-antail the, s t a t e s .having -no-sale provisions and
imports filling t h e markets.
Mr. Roger Koske s t a t e d according t o the Council's statistics t h e r e a r e 852 bandit
and longline boats in t h e industry. A 9.209 million pound quota would result in
10,808 pounds per boat per year. This figure divided by 17 trips taken by t h e bandit
boats would b e 635 pounds per boat per trip. If t h e longline boats each took 15 trips
per year, i t would result in 720 pounds per boat per trip.
This would be
approximately a 316 percent reduction in t h e current catch. The average on some of
t h e smaller boats is from 3,500 t o 8,000 pounds per boat with about 69 percent of
t h e c a t c h under 18 inches of red grouper. A lot of the boats southward t a k e smaller
fish. H e did not feel a quota would be workable. If t h e bandit or longline boats w e r e
t o stay in business, they could not be under a quota. He reviewed his trip t i c k e t s for
t h e past 12 years and t h e average poundage of snapper was 8 0 pounds per trip only
He opposed t h e
because h e had two trips which were over 1,000 pounds.
implementation of quotas on grouper and amberjack until t h e impact of size limits
a r e assessed. H e felt size limits would be the appropriate method for initial
action. Fishermen cannot afford another expense such as a f e e for a permit. H e has
a video t a p e showing a longline on a reef which does not damage coral and o t h e r
habitat bottom as s t a t e d by Mr. Fisher. H e opposed t h e 50 percent income
requirement. Almost all of his income taken from fishing is invested back into his
boats for repairs, remodeling, or t o buy new boats. H e f e l t t h e t r a p fishermen w e r e
catching more fish than was being reported.
Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Koske agreed with t h e figures for t h e number of pounds
caught per trip with handline and longline gear in Table 7.2, which indicates t h a t in
1984 t h e average c a t c h per longline vessel was 4,617 pounds; in 1985 i t was 4,172
pounds; and 2,628 pounds in 1986. Mr. Koske responded t h e 1985 level was probably
t h e most accurate. He felt t h e 1986 figure was not indicative of c a t c h e s from his
boats; c a t c h has basically remained t h e same from 1985 t o 1986.
Mr. Tatum s t a t e d t h e Council must have accurate statistics t o make appropriate
regulations, which requires cooperation of t h e fishermen. Mr. Koske commented a
great deal of t h e information could b e obtained through t r i p tickets from t h e fish
houses. The current structure of t h e reporting system does not accurately r e f l e c t
t h e actual t o t a l landings because a number of wholesalers can buy fish and do not
have t o sign tickets.
Mr. Ed Maccini, longliner, stated he has been longlining for seven years and has
never been asked t h e amount of fish he has caught. He favored t h e 20-inch size
limit, but opposed t h e 20-fathom curve and quota. All t h e large fish he caught
during t h e summer were inside 20 fathoms. If this a r e a were closed, he would have
almost been put out of business. The largest fish he ever caught was in 18 fathoms
of water, which was a 3 2 pound red grouper. On his last trip, in eight days he caught
5,300 pounds of fish in 18 fathoms of water, and 300 pounds were undersize and 150
were under 20 inches. If t h e 20-inch limit were imposed, t h e 150 pounds of fish
would have been released. If a quota would have been instituted this January, i t
probably already would have been filled. Each year with the exception of last year
his c a t c h e s progressively increased. From October t o April, probably more red
grouper were landed than in any other year since he has been fishing. When a
fisherman fills out t h e trip ticket and has a good catch, more than likely he will n o t
specify where he caught t h e fish because if t h e fish buyer owns boats, h e will g o o u t
and c a t c h in t h a t area. Gonsequer;ltly, ithis,is-why t h e ~ f i s h e r m e nwere s t a t i n g they
caught t h e red groupers outside 50 fathoms. He has not filled out a trip ticket in
four years.
Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Maccini received a copy of t h e trip ticket. Mr. Maccini
responded no, t h e fish buyer fills out t h e ticket and gives him a receipt and a check
for t h e fish. Dr. Nelson asked if he had a blue card. Mr. Maccini responded yes. Dr.
Nelson proceeded when t h e fish were sold at t h e market was a copy of t h e fisheries
information system ticket given t o t h e fishermen. Mr. Maccini responded no.
Mr. Esposito commented he regularly fills out t h e trip ticket, and Mr. Maccini's
comments were not typical of other fishermen.
Mr. William McLeod, fish buyer, s t a t e d trip tickets a r e filled out a f t e r t h e trip was
made and then were sent t o DNR weekly. If the fishermen want a copy of t h e
ticket, they c a n pick i t up. He did not think t h e DNR form had a particular copy for
t h e fisherman. H e commented h e did a recount over one year on t h e e f f e c t s of a 20inch size limit. The results would b e a 24 percent reduction in red grouper. H e f e l t
this would b e appropriate and sufficient for reductions. He expressed concern in
implementing a quota because i t probably would b e met in five o r six months. If t h e
Council f e l t constrained t o institute a quota, he requested a proviso be included t h a t
states t h a t t h e numbers may not be completely accurate, and if t h e quota was m e t
quickly then close for perhaps two and one-half months at t h e end of t h e season.
There is a g r e a t deal of t i m e spent on t h e fish tickets, and t h e various species a r e
not lumped together. He reiterated t h e size limit would be a more appropriate
regulation.
Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. McLeod felt landings have been reported more accurately
during t h e years t h e trip ticket system has been in place excluding t h e first year.
Mr. McLeod responded yes if they have been stable. Dr. Nelson asked for a
suggestion for spreading t h e quota out t o keep t h e continuity of supply t o t h e
markets.
proviso.
Mr. McLeod responded he was unsure, except for his previous s t a t e d
Mr. Terry Jones, net fisherman, opposed banning entangling net devices. H e added
most of t h e fish caught in t h e s t a t e a r e caught in these types of nets. He f e l t if t h e
Council prohibits t h e use of entangling nets, then t h e Florida Marine Fisheries
Commission would also ban them. There a r e a g r e a t deal of n e t fishermen in
Florida, and they do sometimes fish in federal waters. He read in a n a r t i c l e t h a t
approximately 80 percent of edible finfish were caught by recreational fishermen,
and yet only 30 percent in t h e state utilize t h e sport fishing privilege. H e fished in
t h e winter in t h e Florida Keys in Florida Bay, and in t h e summer he fished in
Mississippi.
Mr. Richard Waites f e l t if t h e gear were regulated, t h e quota would not be
necessary. Gear regulations would be simple t o enforce. H e has longlined since
1981, and h e does not run any more gear at t h e present t i m e than h e did in 1981. He
suggested t h e Council limit the gear so t h a t longliners could only run t w o miles of
gear and 400 hooks and a n 18-inch size limit; a quota then would not b e necessary.
When eight miles of gear a r e laid over eight miles of bottom, i t t a k e s every
individual fish in t h e area. He landed 8,000 pounds of fish using t h r e e miles of g e a r
and 600 hooks. In 1981 h e unloaded 10,000 pounds of fish using t h r e e miles of g e a r
and 600 hooks. The people who are-:damgging t h e industry a r e those who use nine
miles of gear.
o
Committee Recommendations
Mr. Collins advised t h e committee reviewed t h e comments from t h e public hearings,
advisory panel and scientific committee meeting. He referred t o t h e document
entitled "Reef Fish Management Committee Recommendations on Amendment 1"
dated April 24, 1989. He then referred t o Section 4.2.2, page 20 under "Problems
Requiring Plan Amendment". H e moved t o adopt problem I through I4 without
modification with t h e addition of another problem which would be number 15 and
would read: "Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stock in the Gulf of
Mexico." The problems a r e listed a s follows:
I.
The adult population of red snapper has declined. The current snapper fishery is
supported primarily by younger fish ages one t o three and t h e spawning season is
severely depleted.
2.
An alarming growth in fish trap effort has occurred since FMP implementation.
3.
Longline gear has been introduced in the fishery since t h e FMP was written; this
gear needs t o be recognized as a segment of the fishery. If longlines a r e used in
areas where other gear have been traditionally used, an increase in t h e level of
fishing mortality and conflicts among user groups may result.
4.
The geographic extent and limitation on fishing effort within t h e stressed area
require modification t o address fishing mortality and user conflicts.
5.
Some reef fish species are growth and recruitment overfished.
6,
Management measures specified in the FMP t o establish a data base for
management have not bee successfully implemented. Statistical data for many
species have been aggregated which has made i t difficult t o assess t h e condition
of specific stocks adequately.
7.
A significant portion of the catch in the reef fish fishery consists of species not
in the fishery management unit.
8.
Present definition of OY for the reef fish fishery does not provide adequate
protection for the resource.
9.
Mortality t o juvenile red snapper ctue t o trawl bycatch reduces potential yield.
10.
Fishing pressure has increased dramatically in the past decade due t o increased
number of vessels, greater use of sophisticated electronic equipment, and
increased use of more efficient gear by all sectors of the fishery.
11.
Definitive research is needed t o determine whether artificial reefs contribute
more t o overfishing or t o the rebuilding of the reef fish resource in t h e various
Gulf of Mexico habitats.
12.
The user groups utilizbg .and dependent on ?the reef fish resources need t o be
identified and their m.ioeconomic and sociocultural characteristics delineated
to enable analysis of their respective impacts on t h e resource and the
differential impacts alternative management measures may exert on the various
user groups.
13.
The stock boundaries of reef fish are unknown.
14.
Overfishing of the reef fish stocks is the result of directed and nondirected
recreational and commercial fishing mortality.
15.
Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Brumfield offered a substitute motion to remove Problem 2 and approve the
other problems including t h e additional new problem regarding habitat. Testimony
has indicated t h a t t h e t r a p fishery is not a s abundant a s previously thought due t o
fishermen not utilizing their tags.
Mr. DeKeyser concurred adding there does not appear t o be a n alarming growth in
fish t r a p effort.
Substitute motion carried without objection.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 4.3.2, "Amendment 1 Management Objectives" on
page 22. He moved t o adopt objectives 1 through 7, with Objective 7 modified as
follows and renumbered as Objective I:
1.
The primary objective of t h e FMP shall be t o stabilize long-term populations
levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass
into t h e stock of spawning age t o achieve 20 percent spawning stock biomass
per recruit.
2.
To reduce user conflicts and nearshore fishing mortality.
3.
To respecify the reporting requirements necessary t o establish a database for
monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions.
4.
To revise t h e definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery t o reflect
the current species composition of the reef fish fishery.
5.
To revise t h e definition of optimum yield t o allow specification a t t h e species
level.
6.
To encourage research on the effectsof artificial reefs.
7.
To maximize net economic benefits from the reef fish fishery.
Dr. Clark suggested including t h e words "at least" before t h e words "20 percent
spawning stock biomass per recruit". The Council is not trying t o get a point; they
a r e trying t o build t o least 20 percent spawning stock biomass.
Motion carried with t h e inclusion of Dr. Clark's suggestion.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 5.2.2, "Proposed ,Addition of Species t o t h e
Management Unit" on page 25. He moved to adopt the addition of t h e species listed
in this section t o the management unit - tilefish, amberjack, white grunt, red
porgies, and gray triggerfish. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 9.1, "Optimum Yield a s a Long-term Goal" on page
272. He moved t o adopt the proposed option as written in t h e draft amendment:
"OY shall be equivalent t o the yield available from each species which maintains a
20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) population level. For those
species in need of management but for which SSBR values cannot be calculated, OY
can be expressed nonquantitatively a s all fish that can be taken in accordance with
provisions in this plan".
Dr. Nelson pointed out in order t o be consistent the words "at least" should also be
inserted before "a 20 percent spawning stock biomass
.I'
..
Motion carried with the inclusion of Dr. Nelson's suggestion.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 9.2, "Annual Total Allowable Catch Procedure" on
page 277. He moved t o adopt t h e Total Allowable Catch Procedure with t h e
modifications as indicated by underscore:
2.
The Council will convene a scientific stock assessment panel and special SSC,
appointed by the Council, that will review the SEFC report(& current harvest
statistics, economic, social. and other relevant data and will D r e D a r e a written
report to-the council specGying a range of acceptable biologi&d Latch for each
species or species group for which regulatiok d e v e l o p e d this amendment
apply. The range of ABCs shall be calculated so as t o achieve reef fish
population levels at t h e 20 percent SSBR goal by January 1, 2000. For species
or species groups where data in the SEFC reports a r e inadequate to compute an
ABC, t h e above working groups will use existing ABCs as a guide in providing
their best estimate of an ABC range that should result in a 20 percent SSBR
level. To the extent possible, a risk analysis should be conducted showing the
probabilities of attaining or exceeding the stock calculated for each level of
harvest within t h e ABC range and the economic and social impacts associated
with those levels. The working group report will include recommendations on
bag limits, size limits, specific gear limits, season closures, and other
restrictions required t o attain t h e management goal, along with t h e economic
and social impacts of such restrictions and the research and data collection
necessary t o improve the assessments.
In paragraph 4, modify t o read (changes underscored) as follows:
4.
The Council in selecting a TAC level for each species or species group for which
regulations developed in this amendment apply will, in addition t o taking into
consideration the recommendations provided for in (l), (Z), and (3), utilize the
following criteria:
a.
Set TAC within or below the ABC range or set a series of annual TACs that
reach the ABC level within five years or less.
b.
Subdivide the TACs into commercial ."and .recreational allocations which
maximize the net benefits of the fishery t o the nation.
Dr. Nelson pointed out again f o r consistency t h e words "or above" should be inserted
a f t e r t h e word *'at" in t h e sentence "The range of ABCs shall be calculated s o as t o
.In.
achieve reef fish populations levels at 'or above1
And t h e words "at least"
should be inserted in t h e same sentence before the words "a 20 percent SSBR level."
..
Ms. Kelley questioned whether all t h e Council members attended t h e c o m m i t t e e
meeting. Mr. Collins responded there were approximately nine o r t e n Councils
members at t h e committee meeting. Dr. Nelson added t h e majority of t h e Council
members were at t h e committee meeting.
Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1. I, I1Red Snapper Size and C a t c h Limits" on page
284. He moved t o adopt the following t o replace Proposed Option 1:
"A 25 percent reduction in recreational and commercial catches shall b e established
for t h e first fishing year immediately following implementation of this amendment
with subsequent changes made by following the framework (TAC) procedure
described in Section 9.2."
He noted this proposal is intended t o result in a 10 fish red snapper t r i p limit for t h e
recreational sector and 4.0 million pound quota for t h e commercial sector.
Dr. Matlock expressed concern t h a t if the Council is unsuccessful due t o t h e s a m e
types of events t h a t dealt with t h e Reef Fish FMP in t h e 1980s in getting t h e
amendment adopted in 1989 or 1990, t h e Council may have a n amendment adopted in
t h e year 2020 when there a r e no red snapper remaining. H e asked what information
was available t o give the Council insight in getting t h e amendment adopted before
t h e next 20 or 30 years. Mr. Swingle commented t h e statutory deadline for t h e
Secretary t o approve or disapprove a plan is by day 95 a f t e r being submitted, a n d
failing t o t a k e action o r approval results in i t being implemented within day 140.
Dr. Matlock commented t h e Council must g e t t h e document t o t h e Secretary, and
t h e r e a r e not time limits s e t once t h e document leaves t h e Council t o go t o t h e
Secretary. Mr. Swingle clarified day one s t a r t s a s soon as t h e amendment is
submitted. The last time t h e A c t was amended, language was deleted t h a t t h e plan
must be structurally complete. The Council now determines whether a plan i s
structurally complete which means t h e EIS and initial RIR analysis and o t h e r
accompanying analysis a r e in sufficient order t o go forward. In t h e past, NMFS
could wait until they made t h a t determination.
-
Dr. Nelson s t a t e d he opposed t h e change during t h e committee meeting. H e added
t h e evidence available indicates t h e condition of red snapper is probably worse than
any o t h e r species managed by t h e Council. He felt t h e r e is a reasonable biological
goal built into the plan in achieving a certain spawning stock biomass per recruit
level by t h e year 2000, but f e l t less comfortable in taking five years t o achieve t h e
range. He f e l t t h e goal will almost b e reached with a t h r e e fish bag limit, and t h e
Council moved this figure up t o five. Now, the figure has escalated t o a t e n fish bag
limit, which is an illusion being offered and will not achieve t h e necessary goal. H e
preferred relating t o t h e public t h e necessary management t o achieve t h e goals.
The Council should , t a k e initial,-action .,to. rebuild- t h e stocks, and allow t h e
opportunity t o relax t h e restrictions in t h e future as the stock improves.
Dr. Clark related t h e motion as s t a t e d indicates a 25 percent reduction in
recreational and commercial c a t c h shall b e established the first year immediately
following implementation of this amendment. The Council is on t a r g e t t o g e t t h e
amendment in place by January 1, 1990, however, if for some reason this does not
occur until January 2, 1990, then i t would not be implemented until January I,
1991. Mr. Gregory commented t h e committee's intent was t h a t this was t o be
implemented retroactively t o t h e beginning of t h e fishing year if this was approved
and implemented during t h e fishing year. Dr. Clark responded t h e motion did not
state t h a t intent. H e f e l t t h e wording should be changed such t h a t t h e amendment
would b e implemented as quickly as possible within t h e year it is implemented. If
t h e r e a r e only t w o days l e f t in t h e year, i t should be implemented in t h a t portion of
t h e year and all following years.
Mr. Green advised t h e committee record will reflect t h a t t h e c o m m i t t e e motion was
a bag limit of ten fish per angler per trip during t h e first fishing year o r t h e
remaining portion of t h e fishing year next following implementation of t h e plan.
Mr. Chauvin suggested staff adjust t h e motion a s discussed in t h e committee.
Dr. Clark commented on Dr. Nelson's concerns, and expressed he was convinced t h e
motion was insufficient and t h a t additional regulation of t h e commercial and
recreational sectors a r e necessary. However, he was also convinced t h a t t h e
necessary steps t o g e t t o where the Council needs t o be if adopted immediately
would b e catastrophic t o those people who a r e part of and participate in this
fishery. This is the first of several very difficult steps t h e Council will have t o t a k e
t o solve t h e problems in t h e red snapper fishery.
Mr. Jernigan s t a t e d the Council has been told t h a t perhaps a 74 percent reduction
was needed in harvest level, and initial reductions a r e being proposed of 24 o r 25
percent. He f e l t this reduction was inadequate, and offered a substitute motion to
retain t h e original proposed measure which is a five fish per angler per day bag limit
a n d a 2.9 million pound quota.
Mr. Green pointed out Joan Butler requested moving t h e stressed a r e a line inward
towards shore s o t h a t it would not cause users of t h e resource t o have t o t a k e a 45
mile trip for economic and safety reason. A major portion of t h e c e n t r a l Gulf
requires traveling at least 60 miles and perhaps 100 miles offshore t o c a t c h red
snapper. A person could not afford t o go 90 miles off shore for t h r e e fish; if a
recreational fisherman other than on a head boat a t t e m p t s t o go 90 miles offshore
he must go on a calm day. He felt t h e r e were economical reasons t o allow someone
at least t o a t t e m p t t o g e t finfish and also for safety reasons. The investments made
in t h e head boat industry throughout t h e Gulf demands consideration. An alternative
if t h e Council must t a k e extreme action would be a t h r e e fish recreational limit f o r
t h e reef fish resource throughout t h e Gulf and a 45 percent reduction in t h e reef fish
landings applying t o red snapper, grouper, etc. He felt this was not attainable and
should not b e applied, but felt t h e amendment should b e supported.
Mr. Muths explained t h e r e a r e t w o basic philosophies in fisheries management, and
neither are necessarily wrong o r right.. . He.concurred with Dr. Clark's position, but
was constrained t o support t h a t position because h e was concerned with t h e
accuracy of t h e landings data. He supported t h e committee's position.
Mr. Tatum opposed the substitute motion as it would result in users of t h e resource
leaving t h e industry.
Substitute -motion failed by a vote of four t o seven.
Dr. Clark reiterated t h e committee motion does not include t h e 13-inch minimum
size length, and f e l t this was an oversight. Mr. Collins commented this was t h e
current law.
Dr. Nelson asked at this point in the process if the FMFC were t o adopt a t h r e e fish
bag limit and a 14-inch minimum size limit in t h e S t a t e of Florida how i t would
a f f e c t t h e generic prohibition on sale of anything less than 13 inches t o t a l length.
Ms. Kelley f e l t t h e enforcement agents could best answer t h e question, but
commented t h e current size limit with t h e undersize allowances in t h e past have
basically resulted in t h e inability t o enforce t h a t size limit because a legal m a r k e t is
established for fish t h a t a r e undersized. Under the scenario described by Dr. Nelson,
whatever is t h e larger size limit is t h e one which will not be able t o be enforced
because t h e r e is a legal averaging for smaller fish. Most of t h e enforcement e f f o r t
is concentrated at a dealer point. Dr. Nelson asked the ramifications if t h e Council
would adopt a prohibition on sale of red snapper of less than 14 inches taken from
Florida's EEZ, and t h e S t a t e of Florida would adopt a prohibition on sale of red
snapper less than 14 inches. Ms. Kelley responded this would be a b e t t e r approach
but was not a perfect solution. Dr. Nelson asked if a t h r e e fish red snapper bag limit
was adopted for Florida s t a t e waters and a t h r e e fish bag limit for t h e EEZ adjacent
t o Florida were also adopted, could someone t h a t c a m e into Florida w a t e r s with
more than t h r e e fish claim they took those fish in the EEZ somewhere other than
Florida. Ms. Kelley responded this depended on the circumstances. If it is a highly
migratory vessel such a s a shrimp boat t h a t is from Texas, and t h e circumstances
suggested t h a t this could b e a likely scenario, i t could be a problem. If i t is a boat
from t h e western c o a s t of Florida t h a t does not have t h e capability of going some
other place, then this would probably not b e a problem.
Dr. Nelson offered a n amendment t o the motion to include a bag limit of three fish
per angler per day in the EEZ adjacent t o Florida.
Ms. Kelley noted t h e original proposal indicated establishing as t h e measure a
number of fish and a poundage quota and t h e substituted measure only indicated
establishing a target percent reduction. She questioned whether t h e sentence a f t e r
t h e motion indicated on page t h r e e of t h e attachment which s t a t e s "This proposal i s
intended t o result in a 10 fish red snapper trip limit for recreational sector and 4.9
million pound quota for t h e commercial sector" is part of t h e motion. The measure
as written in t h e motion establishes a 25 percent reduction from current levels as a
target. It does not establish a ten fish and 4 million pound quota as t h e mechanism
t o implement it. If this is t h e Council's intention, t h e motion should be clarified.
Also, under t h e TAC procedure, t h e Council will be setting annually a t o t a l
allowable c a t c h and bag limits and quotas which can be adjusted based on t h e TAC
level. She asked if t h e Council was stating with t h e separate management measure
t h a t t h e TAC level will always be intended t o achieve a 25 percent reduction.
Dr. Nelson withdrew his motion.
Dr. Nelson offered a substitute motion to incorporate the stipulation of a ten fish
red snapper trip limit for the recreational sector and a 4.0 million pound quota for
the commercial sector in the amendment t o the motion. If the ten fish and 4.0
million pounds do not result in a 25 percent reduction, it will be the beginning of the
regulation.
Ms. Kelley questioned if t h e intention was not t h a t t h e decision on TAC would be
influenced by t h e 25 percent statement in t h e separate measure. Dr. Nelson
responded no.
Mr. Jernigan emphasized he opposed t h e amended motion and quoted from t h e stock
assessment: "Clearly, t h e red snapper population is severely overfished, and a
combination of a five percent level spawning stock biomass
indicate t h a t red
snapper in t h e Gulf of Mexico is either in t h e process of a stock collapse or very
close t o a stock collapse. No single management measure a p a r t from t o t a l closure
of t h e fishery can in itself effectively rebuild t h e population of spawning stock t o a
s a f e stable level". He commented this Council will be effectively voting t o s e t
excessive bag limits on a fishery in which this type of warning has been given.
...
Dr. Angelovic s t a t e d basically t h e 4.0 million pound commercial quota has not been
reached in t h e last t h r e e years, and t h e 1979-1986 average is a little over 4 million
pounds.
Mr. Gregory related t h e Council in July, 1988 decided t o base t h e percentage
reduction on the 1979-1986 average catch. For red snapper this is 5.3 million
pounds. He referred t o Table 8.1. In 1987, the c a t c h was 3.4 million pounds and
preliminary c a t c h in 1988 is 3.9 million pounds. This is not a reduction from t h e
current level of catch, i t is a reduction f r o m t h e average of 1979-1986 landings; t h e
same is t r u e for t h e bag limit.
Dr. Matlock expressed concern in basing t h e reduction on t h e cumulative landings
over a t i m e when t h e fish have been recruitment overfished.
Dr. Nelson noted t h e 1987 d a t a a r e available and indicate t o t a l harvest in 1987 is
only 3.4 million pounds. The initial reduction is a 17 t o 20 percent increase over last
year's harvest. H e expressed concern with this action.
Mr. Gregory referred t o Table 11.3A, page 354, and noted a 25 percent reduction in
t h e 1986 recreational c a t c h would result in a five fish bag limit. The 1987
recreational d a t a have not been analyzed. The 1986 d a t a was a n odd year for t h e
bag limit calculation data.
.-
-
.
Dr. Matlock asked t h e scientific rationale behind taking t h e approach of increasing
t h e t a k e over t h e most recent year a f t e r which recruitment overfishing has been
occurring for several years. H e also asked if t h e commercial quota included t h e
information relative t o t h e shrimp bycatch. Mr. Gregory responded no, when this
was originally presented t o t h e Council in July, the percentage was discussed for t h e
- more recent,.years.. 1ndooking.at. the-bag limit.tables,.it does not necessarily follow
a consistent trend year by year. Consequently, t h e Council decided t o use t h e 19791986 average, and this was applied t o both t h e bag limit table and t h e quota
calculation. Preliminary 1988 landings were 3.9 million pounds so t h e average is a
little higher than t h e current landings. Whereas, for amberjack, t h e landings a r e
much lower than t h e current landings because in red snapper t h e landings trend i s
downward and in amberjack t h e landings trend is upward. When a dramatic change
occurs, t h e original formula apparently does not work. The landings s t a r t e d t o
decline a f t e r 1983, which occurred with most of the species in t h e Gulf.
Mr. Jernigan asked if t h e r e has been any indication of a decrease in e f f o r t for red
snapper in t h e commercial fishery. Mr. Gregory responded t h e r e was no information
on this.
Mr. McCulla pointed out t h e landings in Louisiana have remained fairly constant for
t h e last t h r e e years. Mr. Gregory responded t h e landings in Louisiana have been
increasing probably because the boats who used t o bring their c a t c h back t o Florida
a r e now landing in Louisiana.
Mr. Jernigan strongly urged t h e Council t o not s e t a four million pound quota for t h e
commercial sector since they have not met this figure for t h e last t h r e e years, and
since t h e stock may b e in a state of collapse. If t h e Council does set this quota, a
deduction should b e made on t h e commercial quota f o r t h e average bycatch from t h e
shrimp industry which has been close t o one million pounds per year.
Mr. Tatum noted during t h e committee meeting there was anticipation t h a t t h e kill
of juvenile snappers by t h e shrimp fleet would be less this year because of t h e
implementation of TEDs.
Mr. Chauvin restated the substitute motion is a 25 percent reduction in recreational
and commercial catches t o b e established for t h e first fishing year immediately
following implementation of this amendment with subsequent changes made by
following t h e framework (TAC) procedure described in Section 9.2. This proposal
results in a 10 fish r e d snapper trip limit for t h e recreational sector and a 4.0 million
pound quota for t h e commercial sector.
Dr. Matlock suggested changing t h e language t o s t a t e a 25 percent reduction in last
year's recreational and commercial catches. He did not feel a motion could be
justified t o set a quota t h a t is higher than t h e most recent year's d a t a in a fishery
t h a t is about t o collapse.
Dr. Nelson altered his substitute motion t o recalculate the numbers in t h e quota and
the bag limit based on t h e landing-from
1985 t o 1987.
Dr. Matlock asked in those three years what t h e distribution of t h e c a t c h per person
was in t h e recreational fishery. He explained h e did not want t o vote for a bag limit
for red snapper t h a t is higher than what they have been achieving in most cases over
t h e last t h r e e years. Mr. Gregory referred t o page 354 and suggested taking t h e
average of those percent reductions. Dr. Matlock f e l t this would amount t o
approximately six t o seven fish and a 3.1 million pound quota. Dr. Nelson indicated
with the previous change his substitute motion would have a seven fish bag limit and
a 3.1 million pound commercial quota for red snapper for the first year. This is a 25
percent reduction but instead of using t h e period 1979A986, .the years 19851987 are
used because t h e - fishery has been declining rapidly and landings have declined
drastically.
Dr. Angelovic noted one of the considerations for approvability is t o determine t h a t
t h e objectives a r e being targeted; also, t h e benefits should outweigh t h e costs. He
f e l t t h e substitute motion moves in t h a t direction.
Dr. Clark asked if t h e impact of other proposed measures could be determined
against t h e quota. He asked if a quota specification should be set last a f t e r
determining t h e e f f e c t s of other measures. Mr. Swingle responded t h e quota is a
safeguard; t h e other measures may reduce landings t o t h a t extent even if t h e quota
is not reached.
Dr. Matlock s t a t e d t h e commercial fishery is able t o c a t c h 3.1 million pounds per
year. The Council has voted on t h e approach being taken relative t o bag limits and
quotas, and t h a t vote is in the administrative record and was t o manage t h e e f f o r t
primarily in t h e recreational fishery through bag limits and similarly manage t h e
commercial industry by quota. Given this policy is in place, i't seems appropriate t o
t a k e action in t h e manner being taken.
Mr. Muths expressed concern in t h e accuracy of t h e data.
Mr. DeKeyser moved t o table the motion until the first order of business tomorrow
Motionfailed by a vote of five t o eight.
morning. Substitute motion carried without objection t o have a seven fish bag limit and a 3.1
million pound commercial quota for red snapper for t h e first year. This is a 25
percent reduction, but instead of using the period 1979-1986, t h e years 1985-1986
are used because the fishery has been declining rapidly and landings have declined
drastically.
Lieutenant Falkey asked if t h e r e were biological d a t a which indicate t h e fishery
exists solely in t h e EEZ o r whether i t was mixed between the s t a t e s and t h e EEZ.
H e explained in t h e snapper/grouper fishery in t h e Atlantic much of t h e fishery
exists in t h e EEZ. The SAC was able t o establish a rebuttable presumption t h a t t h e
fish c a m e from t h e EEZ allowing for dockside enforcement, which is another tool f o r
enforcing t h e regulations. If t h e fish a r e split between t h e states and t h e EEZ, t h e
s a m e level of compliance of t h e law may not b e achieved. Dr. Matlock f e l t t h e
rebuttable presumption probably would not hold in the S t a t e of Texas, which has
almost without exception enacted t h e same or more restrictive bag limits for every
fishery t h a t occurs in the EEZ for which t h e Council has adopted any bag limits. He
f e l t this history would stand a s a representation of what t h e Council could e x p e c t
from Texas so t h a t t h e rebuttable presumption is unnecessary. The S t a t e of Texas
does not have an arrangement for them t o enforce federal law, but they do
cooperate very vigorously with enforcement agents in helping t o enforce federal law
by providing witnesses, etc.
Mr. DeKeyser related t h e r e a r e few if any snapper caught in Alabama outside t h e
EEZ. Mr. Swingle commented t h e Louisiana red snapper fishery is largely in federal
waters.
'
Mr. Collins referred .to- k c t i o n ,11 J .1, Red .Snapper SizeL.randC a t c h Limits on page
284 and moved t o adopt Proposed Option 2 to prohibit the sale of red snapper
smaller t h nthe
a established size limit and adopt Proposed Option 3 t o delete the
FMP allowance for keeping five undersize red snapper. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1.2 on page 291. He moved to adopt Proposed
Option 1 with changes in the proposed quotas t o combine red, black, and gag
groupers into a single 7.9 million pound quota and a 1.6 million pound quota for other
groupers.
Dr. Matlock asked if jewfish were included in t h e 1.6 million pound quota for o t h e r
groupers. Mr. Gregory responded i t is proposed t o remain separate and pointed out
t h e argument from NMFS for combining red, black, and gag into one quota was t h a t
they were co-occurring species. A lot of t h e other groupers were also shallow w a t e r
groupers. Basically, t h e deep water groupers a r e snowy, misty, yellowedge, and
warsaw and a r e found largely in different areas than t h e other groupers. Some
landings of t h e other species a r e very small relative t o black and gag.
Dr. Nelson amended the motion to adopt the committee motion but use the same
procedure in establishing the red snapper quota and bag limit utilizing the years
1985-1987 a s the basis for making the calculations for the grouper quota.
Dr. Matlock asked if t h e same rationale would apply in t h a t these fish a r e
recruitment overfished and the landings have been declining over t h e last t h r e e
years. Dr. Nelson responded t h e landings for t h a t period a r e higher than 1979 o r
1980. They a r e lower than they were for t h e period 1981-1984. There was a decline
in 1984. Another reason for t h e motion is t h a t approximately 8 8 t o 93 percent of
t h e landings for t h e grouper fishery have been in Florida, and he f e l t more confident
in t h e landings d a t a t h a t has been given for t h e years 1985-1987 because these were
reflected under t h e trip ticket system.
Mr. McCulla asked how the size lengths would a f f e c t the recreational fishery. Dr.
Nelson f e l t t h e a f f e c t would be very severe on t h e recreational fishery based on t h e
length distribution. It will probably reduce t h e recreational c a t c h by 75 t o 80
percent for t h e first year.
Mr. Swingle pointed out t h e committee motion was t o adopt Proposed Option 1
which included a size limit. The motion basically was t o cease having t h r e e quotas
for groupers.
Mr. Gregory commented t h e average for t h e t h r e e years was
approximately 12 million pounds and a 20 percent reduction is 9.7 million pounds.
Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion to utilize the same language and apply the
same size limits but having no commercial quota and no recreational bag limit.
Dr. Nelson asked why t h e recreational bag limit and commercial quota were being
eliminated. Mr. McCulla responded with these size limits 7 5 percent of t h e
recreational c a t c h will b e affected, which has a severe impact on t h e recreational
fishery. Testimony has indicated t h a t 24 percent of t h e commercial harvest would
be a f f e c t e d by t h e size limit. Based on public testimony i t appears t h e d a t a a r e a
little sketchy. Mr. Gregory commented Florida has had an 18-inch size limit for a
number of years. H e referred t o Table 8.4.8 noting t h e numbers c a m e from
interviews from 1983-1987, and a r e not broken down by year so t h e current length
- >frequency-distribution is not known. %A2O7inch sizerltlimit would reduce c a t c h
according t o t h e length frequency by about 30 or 35 percent, but i t would only be
effective for two t o three years. Dr. Nelson if instead of a 75 percent reduction, i t
would only b e 35 percent.
Mr. Gregory responded h e made this calculation
previously. I t appears t h a t a n a g e three red grouper is 14 inches. If these figures
r e f l e c t t h e current situation and entry is at 12 inches, i t would t a k e a 12-inch or 14inch animal t h r e e t o four years t o g e t t o 20 inches.
Mr. Jernigan asked t h e rationale for t h e substitute motion. The Council uses quotas
and bag limits t o a t t e m p t t o regulate harvest t o a desired level, and then other
modifications t o fishing gear, etc., a r e made t o a t t e m p t t o achieve these quotas and
bag limits. The quota only assures t h a t if t h e proper adjustments a r e not made in
fishing methods, gear, etc., t o accomplish a goal, then t h e quota guarantees t h a t t h e
previous s e t limit is not exceeded. A quota is no restriction if t h e measures imposed
work. He, therefore, opposed the substitute motion.
Dr. Nelson s t a t e d t h e r e has been testimony expressing concern over t h e likely
impact of a quota in t h e fishery. The likely impact h e f e l t would b e t h e most
heavily borne by t h e full-time commercial fishermen. There a r e other provisions in
t h e plan t o reduce t h e impact. The quota will b e measured in legal fish caught under
t h e 20-inch size limit. There a r e a number of people who will not qualify for t h e 50
percent income requirement t o sell fish. These fish which were never available t o
t h e industry will now not be sold so t h a t t h a t percentage of t h e historical landings
t h a t were taken by those sales will not exist. That percentage will be shifted t o t h e
full-time commercial fishermen so t h a t he will have those fish available t o catch.
The assumption is being made t h a t 20 percent of t h e landings a r e under 20 inches
and t h a t will reduce t h e commercial quota by 20 percent. This means t h a t t h e quota
will not run out and t h e r e will still be legal fish available t o catch. The loss of small
fish c a n b e compensated for by seeking additional larger fish. He did not f e e l t h e
impacts of t h e proposals will be a s dramatic on t h e industry.
Mr. DeKeyser noted t h e logic t h a t t h e additional fish from t h e 50 percent income
requirement will b e available is illogical. The industry is being faced with a 20
percent reduction in their quota and a larger minimum size, but then they a r e being
told they a r e being given a few thousand pounds of fish t h a t they c a n catch. If they
could c a t c h more fish now, they would be catching them. He asked how t h e
fishermen would be catching more fish than they a r e currently catching other than
by increasing their capital expense in their industry. He f e l t t h e fishermen would
not be spending more money on their grouper boats and gear other than t o replace
what they currently have. The 50 percent income requirement will c r e a t e a stronger
demand for imported fish. The imported fish now c r e a t e a tremendous c a p on t h e
price for grouper. Miami is t h e leading importer of grouper fillets from C e n t r a l
America.
Dr. Clark expressed he did not support t h e quota for t h e grouper fishery for t h e
s a m e reasons he did not support t h e quota f o r the red snapper fishery. The Council
is proposing a number of measures t h a t will reduce t h e c a t c h in t h e fishery
significantly and t h e interrelationship between t h e grouper quota and t h e red
snapper quota will c r e a t e tremendous problems.
Mr. McCulla withdrew his substitute motion and offered another substitute motion
to adopt the committee motion but have the commercial grouper quota t o be the
aggregate grouper landings.
calculation which is equal .to 90 percent .of ..tk
Mr. Gregory advised this would equate t o approximately 1 1 million pounds.
Mr. Tatum opposed t h e motion since i t proposed a grouper quota. He f e l t o t h e r
measures t o be considered l a t e r will have impact on grouper catches in t h e Gulf. I t
would be very wise of t h e Council t o determine how t h e conservation measures
worked in t h e first year, and then if necessary t a k e more constraints on t h e
resources.
Dr. Nelson clarified his original motion was intended t o include Mr. Gregory's
suggested provision regarding t h e deep water and shallow water groupers. The
c o m m i t t e e decided separate black, gag and red grouper limits would not be possible
because t h e fish occur simultaneously in t i m e and place. He f e l t t h e Council is in a
position with grouper t h a t was t h e s a m e a s ten years ago with red snapper. The SSC
has made its review, and t h e fishing levels a r e below t h e spawning stock biomass
goal, although t h e stock may b e in better shape than red snapper. The action being
taken with grouper will keep grouper from ever being in t h e s a m e situation as with
red snapper. He f e l t t h e 90 percent quota would b e acceptable, but f e l t i t is
important t o g e t management measures in place.
Mr. Gregory s t a t e d he identified deep water groupers as snowy, misty, yellowedge
and warsaw groupers, and all other groupers would be in t h e shallow w a t e r
category. The breakdown would be 1.8 million pounds for deep w a t e r fish and 9.2
million pounds for shallow water groupers. The western Gulf has a growing deep
water grouper fishery. Basically, west of Florida, t h e landings for red, black and gag
decline.
Mr. Green asked if t h e 20-inch size limit will result in a 20 percent reduction. Dr.
Nelson responded t h e 20-inch size limit will have some e f f e c t t h e first t w o years if
additional effort does not c a t c h additional larger fish. As a practical long-term
m a t t e r , t h e size limit will not a f f e c t the reduction in fishing e f f o r t needed t o
H e f e l t a quota was still
achieve t h e 20 percent spawning stock biomass.
necessary.
Lieutenant Falkey requested t h e Council t o express the limits in t e r m s of trip limits
instead of daily possession limits in order t o have better enforcement. Dr. Nelson
commented in some a r e a s in t h e S t a t e of Florida, t h e r e is t h e potential for t h e
fishermen t o make multiple trips in a single day. Lieutenant Falkey added
enforcement agents a r e confronted with the problem of proving t h a t a boat did o r
did not go out earlier in the day t o violate a daily possession bag limit. The
shoreside people also have a problem; t h e daily possession bag limit is a difficult tool
t o work with, whereas a trip limit is more enforceable.
Mr. McCulla withdrew his motion and offered another substitute motion t o establish
a 20-inch total length limit on red, Nassau, yellowfin, black and gag groupers, a 50inch limit on jewfish, five fish daily recreational possession limit on all grouper.
Mr. Jernigan s t a t e d t h e stock assessment information s t a t e s t h a t t h e c u r r e n t
estimates of fishing mortality of 0.43 red grouper population at t h e spawning stock
per recruit ratio of about 80 percent, and a minimum of 20 percent has been set.
The proposed size limits on grouper according t o t h e plan would have major impacts
. on t h e .recrmtionalr fishery. : The shorttterma,recreationa1,
c a t ~ h e susing 1986 as a n
index- would be reduced by about 75 t o 90 percent for red grouper, and 40 percent for
gag grouper, and 60 percent for black grouper. Since t h e size limits have already
reduced t h e recreational harvest t o t h a t extent, he recommended t h e Council also
remove t h e bag limit since t h e r e is no justification for bag limits on grouper if t h e r e
is not any justification for a quota on commercial harvest of grouper. Currently, t h e
plan states t h a t t h e major impact will be on t h e recreational fishery.
Dr. Nelson noted Florida has a five fish limit on grouper which would make this
consistent. The minimum size limit in Florida on grouper is 18 inches. Before t h e
Council held deliberations on t h e amendment, he presented t h e issues t o t h e Florida
Marine Fisheries Commission who voted t h a t it was their intent t o adopt any
regulations established in t h e EEZ which were more conservative than current
regulations in Florida. The Commission will be revisiting t h e reef fish issue in
May.
Substitute motionfailed by a vote of seven t o eight.
Amended motion carried t o adopt the committee motion but use t h e same procedure
in establishing t h e red snapper quota and bag limit utilizing t h e years 19851987 as
the basis for making the calculations for the grouper quota, i.e., t o establish a
commercial quota of 9.2 million pounds for shallow water grouper, 1.8 million pounds
for deep water grouper, a recreational bag limit of five fish, a 20-inch size limit for
red, Nassau, black and gag groupers.
MEETING RECESSED AT 5:30 P.M. ON THURSDAY, APRIL
RECONVENED AT 8:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1989
25,
1989 AND
o
Reef Fish Amendment I (continued)
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1.2, Proposed Option 2, and moved t o establish
minimum sizes of 12 inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and
8 inches total length on lane and vermilion snappers. An overall snapper
recreational daily possession limit of 10 fish shall be established.
Mr. Jernigan related t h e Council has not determined there was a need t o set a quota
on t h e commercial fishery for vermilion snapper, yet a bag limit is being imposed on
t h e recreational fishery, and a size limit which has a greater impact on recreational
fishery than i t does on t h e commercial fishery. The length frequency information
indicates t h a t the recreational fishermen on t h e average harvest a smaller vermilion
snapper than do t h e commercial fishermen. Imposing a n 8-inch size limit on
vermilion snapper impacts t h e recreational sector considerably greater than i t does
t h e commercial sector. H e offered a n amendment t o the motion t o delete the ten
fish per day bag limit.
Dr. Nelson noted t h e r e was new information on sexual maturity for vermilion
snapper, and asked if new analysis was developed for t h e modeling from Phil
Goodyear on spawning stock biomass per recruit and size at entry. Mr. Gregory
responded no. Dr. Nelson pointed out t h e new information indicated a six-inch size
at sexual maturity and. the. .previous. .modeling was based on 12-inch size of
maturity. H e asked h o w this would a f f e c t the Council's decisions. Mr. Gregory
responded aspects of Proposed Option 2 was based on t h e model for gray snapper as
a n index of t h e others. A model was initially developed for vermilion, and in
December a range was produced. He did not follow through on t h e s e p a r a t e
vermilion analysis because when t h e motion was discussed and t h e commercial quota
was reviewed, t h e information indicated t h a t most of these types of fish with t h e
exception of vermilion come from either state waters or t h e South Atlantic
Council's a r e a of jurisdiction. Most of t h e recreational fish c o m e from state w a t e r s
also. The discussion included t h e need for compatibility with Florida regulations.
The motion for just a bag limit was t o be compatible with Florida. Dr. Nelson
pointed out new information is available, but no analysis has been developed t o
advise t h e Council how this information will a f f e c t previous discussion. Mr. Gregory
commented t h e proposed size limit is 8 inches which is 2 inches larger. The
information from Bryan indicated t h e size of maturity is approximately 10 inches.
The model is based on Goodyear's advice t o use more conservative sizes of maturity;
24-inches was used for red snapper. Dr. Nelson asked t h e value of t h e document
received indicating size of maturity was at six inches. Mr. Gregory responded if size
of maturity was larger than eight inches, as a biologist h e would be concerned.
Since i t is smaller than eight inches, h e f e l t t h e biological concern did not exist.
Basically, t h e r e was not sufficient t i m e t o analyze all the species appropriately. Dr.
Nelson offered an amendment t o the amended motion to make the red snapper bag
limit severable and distinct and t o establish a 15 fish bag limit for lane and
vermilion snapper and a ten fish bag limit for all other snappers. He explained his
intent was t h a t one year into t h e plan, t h e stock assessment panel should make a n
a c c u r a t e review t o determine t h e action the Council should t a k e in order t o achieve
t h e 20 percent spawning stock goal. Essentially, t h e Council must t a k e some type of
action. Most of t h e commercial landings for vermilion a r e in t h e South Atlantic
area. H e did not feel most of t h e landings were in s t a t e waters. The bag limit will
help distribute t h e c a t c h more equitably among t h e recreational anglers. It would be
very difficult t o enforce t h e prohibition on sale due t o t h e 50 percent income
requirement for t h e commercial permit, and this would b e easier t o enforce if a bag
limit were in affect.
Mr. Jernigan referred t o page 127 and noted t h a t total recreational landings were
200,000 pounds, and t h e commercial landings a r e increasing dramatically. The
Council has decided no restrictions should be placed on commercial landings f o r
vermilion, therefore, h e f e l t t h e r e was no need for a recreational bag limit on
vermilion. H e added t h e length frequency curves indicate t h a t a n eight-inch size
limit impacts probably about 30 percent of the harvest in t h e recreational fishery.
It has virtually no impact on any other fishery. If t h e r e is no justification for
curtailing t h e total harvest for vermilion, there is no justification for a bag limit.
Dr. Matlock s t a t e d if t h e total landings a r e approximately four million pounds per
year, i t must mean t h a t most recreational fishermen do not currently c a t c h t e n o r
fifteen vermilion snapper in any case. Consequently, increasing t h e bag limit t o
fifteen from ten especially with a n eight-inch minimum size actually will have no
impact other than t h e recreational fishermen having a higher t a r g e t t o achieve. Dr.
Nelson commented in Florida vermilion snapper a r e t h e main portion of t h e
recreational c h a r t e r and party boat catch, and their catches often exceed t h a t by a
g r e a t deal. Dr. Matlock noted this was without a size limit, and with a n eight-inch
size limit approximately 30 percent of t h e landings will b e eliminated. H e added
information sent t o , t h e Council. by Mr. Gregory last -week indicates vermilion
snapper mature at six inches so t h e basis for t h e eight-inch limit has changed. If t h e
fish a r e maturing at six inches, t h e eight-inch size limit is higher than i t needs t o
be. Dr. Nelson commented t h e Council started at looking at a size of entry, and
given t h a t size of entry they tried t o determine t h e necessary reduction in F t o g e t
t h e population moving toward stabilizing at or above the 20 percent goal.
Mr. Brumfield asked the amount of habitat shared by red snapper and vermilion
snapper. Dr. Nelson responded beyond 200 f e e t of water, vermilion and red snapper
share t h e same habitat. Mr. Brumfield explained since t h e r e is a limit on red
snapper and no limit on vermilion and they share t h e same habitat, will t h e
fishermen put t h e red snapper back in the water and continue fishing for vermilion.
Dr. Nelson noted this was a realistic concern.
Mr. Gregory advised 30 percent of t h e recreational catches would be a f f e c t e d by a n
eight-inch t o t a l length size limit; probably less than five percent of t h e commercial
sector would be affected.
Dr. Matlock related t h e commercial landings from 1972-1986 for vermilion snapper
has consistently increased from lOO,OOO pounds t o 1.6 million pounds in 1986. If t h e
motion is passed, i t will effectively reduce t h e recreational c a t c h by 30 percent and
have no a f f e c t on t h e commercial catch. H e felt this was inconsistent.
Dr. Nelson withdrew his amendment t o the motion.
Dr. Matlock offered an amendment t o the motion to retain the bag and size limit for
vermilion a s indicated in the proposed option and impose a commercial quota equal
to a 30 percent reduction over the 1986 catch data. He explained this would reduce
both group's of fishermen by the s a m e percentage, and t h e expected reduction o n t h e
recreational c a t c h due exclusive t o t h e size limit will be approximately 30 percent.
Mr. Jernigan asked if a more appropriate management scheme would be t o have a
12-inch size limit on t h e commercial sector and a eight-inch size limit on t h e
recreational sector instead of using a quota. Dr. Angelovic commented a quota
would place another burden on NMFS.
Dr. Matlock withdrew his amendment t o the motion.
Mr. Jernigan moved t o amended the motion t o adopt Proposed Option 2 but t o
establish a ten inch size limit on t h e commercial harvest, an eight-inch size limit on
the recreational harvest and no bag limit for lane and vermilion snapper and twelveinch size limit for gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers. The ten fish bag limit
would apply t o all snapper except for vermilion and lane.
Mr. DeKeyser f e l t a ten-inch size limit on t h e commercial sector would place a
strain on fishermen in northwest Florida. He felt t h e r e was no need and no
scientific reasoning t o have a ten-inch size limit.
Mr. Gregory commented approximately five percent of t h e commercial harvest
would be a f f e c t e d by a ten-inch total length limit. H e suggested indicating t h e
requirements in fork length since i t is much easier t o measure. Lieutenant Falkey
suggested t h e measurements be in one or t h e other and not in t e r m s of both.
Mr. Swingle commented t h e Council specified total length originally because most of
t h e states' regulations specified total length. He was unsure whether this had
changed.
Dr. Clark pointed out t h e committee motion was t o have a n overall snapper
recreational daily possession limit of t e n fish.
Dr. Nelson offered a substitute motion t o establish a minimum size of 12 inches
total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and eight inches total length on
lane and vermilion snappers for the recreational sector, and ten inches total length
for lane and vermilkh snappers for t h e commercial sector and a snapper
recreational possession limit of ten fish on other snapper from which vermilion and
lane snapper shall be exempt and there is no bag limit on those, and that the red
snapper bag limit of seven is a separate and distinct bag limit.
Dr. Clark asked if t h e current motion of ten fish applies t o all snappers within t h e
motion o r only lane and vermilion. Dr. Nelson responded all snappers other than lane
and vermilion have a t e n fish limit and red snapper has a seven fish limit.
Lieutenant Falkey commented this type of complex regulation would make it very
difficult for enforcement agents due t o t h e difficulty in identifying t h e species. H e
suggested having a certain size limit within snapper, and a certain size limit for
grouper o r for t h e species t h a t a r e easily identifiable such as yellowtails. Many of
t h e fish coexist in t h e a r e a s of habitat, and having one bag limit on one fish in a
certain a r e a and a different bag limit on another fish with t h e size limits different
between t h e t w o makes i t very difficult t o enforce.
Mr. DeKeyser expressed he is in t h e reef fish business, and t h e two-inch difference
may not appear t o be much of a difference but it is a significant difference t o t h e
commercial market. There is evidence t h a t s t a t e s t h e fish a r e sexually m a t u r e at
six inches long; four inches is being added t o t h e commercial side and t w o inches t o
t h e recreational sector. He felt there was no logic t h a t t h e r e has t o b e a
difference. He urged t h e Council t o vote against t h e motion.
Dr. Matlock emphasized t h e commercial landings have increased 100 fold in 12
years, and t h e Council must immediately t a k e some type of action t o regulate t h e
fishery.
Mr. Gregory related a n analysis for gray snapper was developed and used a s a n index
for a l l other snappers. Originally, a separate analysis was developed for vermilion
assuming a 12-inch size of maturity. There is no spawning stock biomass advice as
t o t h e current conditions; i t is available for gray snapper. Red grouper was used as
a n index for other groupers due t o t i m e and available d a t a and resources. Dr. Nelson
commented isopleths a r e available, and growth and mortality r a t e s derived from
studies specifically for these species from which spawning stock biomass per recruit
a n d yield per recruit analysis were developed. H e referred t o page 190 in t h e
amendment and questioned whether d a t a were not specifically derived from
empirically derived evidence on vermilion snapper growth and mortality and
maturity.
Dr. Clark asked if t h e graphs t h a t Dr. Nelson referred t o were developed with a n
e s t i m a t e o f . minimum size -of maturity of ,12..inches for vermilion snapper. Mr.
Gregory responded this was correct. Dr. Clark noted t h e Council is now under t h e
assumption t h a t t h e minimum size of maturity is six inches, and asked if t h e
estimates were reanalyzed using t h e corrected minimum size would i t not be t r u e
t h a t t h e stocks would b e estimated being in a better condition than previously
thought. Mr. Gregory responded yes.
Substitute motionfailed by a vote of six t o eight.
Mr. DeKeyser moved t o adopt the wording of the substitute motion but t o have an
eight inch size limit for t h e commercial sector and an eight inch size limit for
recreational sector with all wording remaining t h e same. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins moved t o adopt Proposed Option 3 t o establish a minimum size of eight
inches total length for black sea bass. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins moved t o adopt Proposed Option 4 t o establish a minimum size limit of
28 inches fork length and a three fish per angler per day possession Limit for greater
amberjack and establish an annual commercial quota of 1.5 million pounds.
Mr. Green noted a total length was just established for vermilion snapper and f e l t
t h e size limit for amberjack should be consistent. Mr. Gregory commented this
could be converted, but amberjack a r e a large fish and their tails a r e usually deeply
forked, often frayed making i t difficult t o measure in total length. A legal size fish
could b e harvested, but end up illegal at t h e dock. Dr. Matlock related amberjack
a r e measured in total length in Texas.
Dr. Clark offered a substitute motion t o establish a minimum size limit of 32 inches
fork length and a three fish per angler per day possession limit for, greater
amberjack.
Mr. Jernigan s t a t e d t h e 28-inch fork length size limit with a t h r e e fish bag limit
would result in a 38 percent reduction in harvest; a two fish bag limit is g r e a t e r than
t h e 38 percent reduction in recreational harvest. The commercial harvest has
increased from 194,000 pounds in 1979 t o over two million pounds in 1987. He f e l t
t h e Council should have a reduction in this fishery t o maintain a 20 percent spawning
stock biomass per recruit level. The substitute motion has no reduction in t h e
commercial harvest and a greater than 38 percent reduction in recreational
harvest. He expressed this was totally inappropriate, and t h e r e should b e either a
quota on t h e commercial fishery or a size limit which is sufficient t o represent a 38
percent reduction in harvest. He opposed the substitute motion.
Dr. Nelson noted given t h e current level of fishing mortality and t h e size suggested
in t h e substitute motion t h e goal would not be achieved. H e referred t o page 240,
Figure 8.73 and 8.74 stating given two estimates of release mortality, 0 and .33, i t
would probably b e closer t o ten percent or less. Also, with a release mortality of
zero, at .4 in order t o b e above the 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit
level, i t must b e up t o 35 inches. To maximize yield at the same r a t e of fishing
mortality, 45 inches should be selected. He did not feel 32 inches by itself was
sufficient. The t h r e e fish bag limit for t h e recreational sector was chosen t o
achieve t h e reduction in F t o a t t a i n t h e goal. To balance this, a size limit of 40
inches may b e appropriate for t h e commercial sector.
Mr. .Gregory commented if 32 inches were chosen and a t e n percent release
mortality was assumed, in t h e long-term a 20 percent reduction in fishing mortality
in addition t o t h e 32 inch size limit would be necessary t o reach t h e goal of t h e 20
percent spawning stock biomass per recruit.
Dr. Clark s t a t e d a 32-inch minimum size for t h e commercial sector appeared t o b e a
30 percent reduction. He did not oppose differential minimum size limits.
Dr. Nelson pointed out size limits cannot be used t o predict reductions in fishing
mortality. They a r e transitory a f f e c t s and short-term and d o not constrain F.
Dr. Clark noted a framework mechanism was being instituted, and reductions w e r e
being considered starting now and going into t h e next few years until t h e goal is
met. A 3 0 percent reduction in harvest in a single year is a significant reduction in
harvest.
Dr. Matlock emphasized on this premise, t h e r e is no basis for having a bag limit on
t h e recreational fishery. If F is not being controlled in the commercial fishery, then
why a t t e m p t t o control F in t h e recreational fishery. They a r e inconsistent
approaches.
Dr. Nelson offered an amendment to the substitute motion to establish a 36 inch
minimum size for commercial harvest of amberjack, and a 28-inch fork length
minimum size limit and three fish bag limit for the recreational sector.
Dr. Clark related a 36 inch minimum size limit for t h e commercial sector would be
a n approximate 50 percent reduction in t h e first year. Dr. Nelson commented only
if i t is assumed t h a t t h e r e a r e no larger fish available. There have been no size
limits so t h e r e is no reason not t o harvest smaller fish. The 50 percent reduction
will only occur if i t is assumed t h a t t h e size limit is limiting and t h a t t h e r e a r e not
larger fish available t o catch. He f e l t this was not sufficient basis for this type of
regulation.
Mr. Todd Reynolds commented t h e Council is not taking into consideration t h a t with
a 32-inch size limit t h e r e will b e more spawning fish available which will help t h e
stock. A 36-inch fork length size limit is a 40-inch fish which is extreme. The
fishermen could tolerate a 36-inch t o t a l length size .limit.
Mr. George McKinney pointed out t h e handline c a t c h shows a larger preponderance
of smaller size fish than do t h e bottom longliners'commercial catch. The fishery in
r e c e n t years has shifted away from bottom longlining. The impact of a minimum
size length would tend t o be greater than what t h e charts indicate.
Dr. Matlock moved t o fable all pending motions on the floor.
carried.
Motion t o table
Dr. Matlock moved t o adopt the committee motion as indicated in Proposed Option 4
to establish a minimum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a three fish per angler
per day possession limit for greater amberjack and establish an annual commercial
quota of 1.5 million pounds. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins moved t o adopt Propom. ,Qption. 5-t o prohibit the ,sale of reef fish
smaller than the established size limits. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins moved t o adopt that all bag Limits be trip limits, and that multiple-day
limits not be allowed for any fishermen fishing under the bag limit.
Dr. Nelson felt t h e Council should explore t h e possibility of trying t o enforce twoday trips. There a r e a number of head boats throughout Florida and o t h e r a r e a s in
t h e Gulf t h a t t a k e long-term trips, and it would appear appropriate t h a t t h e people
on these types of trips be allowed t o c a t c h two-day's worth of bag limits. The
problem exists with enforcement. H e asked if a solution would be t o deny private
anglers multi-day trips but allow charter and head boats t o t a k e multi-day trips. He
also asked t h e fishermen if they had any suggestions. Mr. Bob Zales responded a
g r e a t deal of recreational two-day fishermen will be eliminated because they will be
under a bag limit, and it will be t o o expensive. Certified boats have a c e r t i f i c a t e of
inspection which requires a boat t h a t travels more than 12 hours per day t o have t w o
licensed captains on board and a double crew. He a s a fisherman would not pay a
double crew on his boat just t o satisfy a two-day bag limit in one day. Also, peer
pressure would assist in compliance of t h e regulation. He felt this would not b e a
problem t o enforce. Lieutenant Falkey commented not if other measures a r e
included such a s t o restrict t h e recreational fishermen from selling their c a t c h
unless h e has a commercial permit, and require a certificate of inspection.
Dr. Matlock suggested imposing a possession limit t h a t is twice t h e daily bag limit,
and any fishermen who possess more than the bag limit must be able t o demonstrate
t h a t his t r i p has been greater than one day. This would leave t h e decision of
whether i t c a n b e legitimately demonstrated they have been out more than one day
t o t h e enforcement agent, and i t also sets a limit of what they can have s o t h a t a
shrimp boat which has been out for 45 days cannot have 45 times t h e daily bag
limit.
Mr. Fondren asked t h e requirements t o obtain a captain's license. He asked if a
m a t e could obtain a captain's license and not be paid a s t h e captain and consequently
resulting in a loophole. Mr. Bob Zales responded a certificate of inspection requires
t w o captains and t w o deck hands depending on t h e size of boat. Lieutenant Falkey
added t h e certificate of inspection is a document where t h e boat actually has t o b e
inspected and must certify t o t h e Coast Guard t h a t additional s a f e t y equipment is on
board t h a t t h e normal recreational and uninspected fishing vessels do not normally
have. H e pointed out this summer uninspected fishing vessel regulations will b e
instituted requiring additional license; he suggested t h e commercial permit b e tied
t o t h e commercial documentation t o have a n endorsement t o engage in fisheries in
order t o sell catch.
Ms. Kelley explained t h e proposal suggested by Dr. Matlock is a rule t h a t is applied
t o everyone with a n exception; and, therefore, t h e rule will only b e as strong as t h e
exception because t h e exception can become t h e rule if you a r e not able t o do
anything. The difference between this and t h e other suggestion t o have t h e multiday limit tied into a particular class of people is t h a t t h e r e is a rule t h a t applies t o
one class of people and a different rule t h a t applies t o another class of people.
Classes of people a r e more objectively determined than t h e other which is on faith.
The Council question is what a r e you doing in terms of t h e e f f e c t of those two rules
on t h e objectives. What is t h e impact, and what is t h e degree of t h e problem likely
t o b e c r e a t e d under,either. scenario.,^ Is t h e class of people so large t h a t t h e e x t r a
amount of fish being harvested impacts t h e conservation objectives o r is t h e likely
exception being created under the other scenario too large.
Dr. Nelson asked the magnitude across the Gulf of t h e number of party boats who
engage in multi-day trips and where they occur. Mr. Gregory responded t h e r e a r e no
data, but public hearing testimony indicated i t is a minor segment of t h e head boat
industry; but for those people who make multi-day trips, i t is probably half or more
of their business, such as northern Texas because of t h e length of t i m e they g o out,
t h e Key West area, and central Florida.
Dr. Nelson offered a substitute motion to establish a n exception to the single d a y
possession limit to allow a two-day possession limit aboard vessels carry in^
c e r t i f i c a t e s of inspection and to require that such vessels which have been operating
while carrying passengers for hire be a b l e to provide receipts showing t h e y have
chartered for a trip of more than one day, and such vessels operating in the
commercial fishery be able to provide through the f o r m of logbooks o r other
information s o m e proof t h a t they have been operating for m o r e than a single day.
H e commented this would allow up t o two days c a t c h aboard a vessel.
Mr. Brumfield asked if t h e customers pay for t h e food and drinks. Mr. Bob Zales
responded his customers bring their own food and drinks, however, if they request
him t o provide these items he adds this as an additional charge. Head boats have
facilities t o provide food and drinks for t h e customers.
Dr. Clark noted enforcement officers at t h e Law Enforcement C o m m i t t e e meeting
related t h a t i t was necessary f o r them t o have substantial documentation in order t o
make a case. The motion indicates receipts a s a form of documentation which could
be easily obtained; they also must b e on a certified boat. The requirements t o b e on
a certified boat is t h a t if i t is out for t w o days it must have t w o complete sets of
c r e w on board including t h e captain and a n e x t r a deck hand, and they a r e required t o
fill out t h e logbook. H e suggested this be included in t h e motion in order t o help
enforcement. Lieutenant Falkey suggested merely tying this t o t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of
inspection t h a t a n inspected vessel with a n operator which is certified. Dr. Clark
s t a t e d if a boat has been out for four hours and has on board twice t h e daily limit
and a sheet of paper which indicates h e has been out for two days, and t h e law
enforcement officer does not check t h e logbook or ask whether t h e r e a r e t w o
captains on board, this c r e a t e s t h e exception t o t h e rule. He f e l t i t should be
specified t h a t t h e law enforcement officer must review t h e logbook which should
demonstrate t h a t a boat has been in t h e water for t w o days; also, at t h e t i m e t h e
two limits a r e there, t h a t two certifiable crews a r e on board at t h e t i m e t h a t t h e
boat is boarded.
Ms. Kelley suggested tying this into t h e Coast Guard requirements by simply stating
"in compliance with Coast Guard requirements".
Mr. Chauvin suggested staff in conjunction with General Counsel and t h e C o a s t
Guard develop t h e appropriate language t o satisfy this intent.
Mr. Tatum expressed concern in exclusively allowing this for a specific group of
people.
Ms. Kelley noted -the intent was..clear. and NMFS. will .de4velop t h e regulations. The
complexities of what the Council is trying t o accomplish in t h e amendment will
require a great deal of t i m e t o work out.
Mr. DeKeyser asked if a boat leaves t h e dock at 8:00 a.m. in t h e morning and
perhaps catches t h e bag limit by 1:00 p.m., would he be required t o s t a y out t h e
second day. If he were allowed t o come back since he had a two-day permit, he
effectively has beat the system.
Mr. Collins s t a t e d consideration should b e given t o the 4,000 shrimp boats in t h e
Gulf which stay out more than two days. In t h e S t a t e of Texas, a fish cannot be
filleted on a boat.
Dr. Clark noted his original concern was t h a t t h e Law Enforcement C o m m i t t e e
voted unanimously not t o allow people t o use phoney sheets of paper. The original
motion only indicates a sheet of paper, and he was opposed t o this. He suggested
staff and NMFS develop preliminary regulations with later Law Enforcement
Committee review.
Dr. Nelson o f f e r e d a n amendment t o the substitute motion that an exception apply
only t o boats carrying passengers for hire. On more than a one day trip they will
have a two-day possession limit, with NMFS modifying the language t o ensure its
enforceability and subsequent review by the Law Enforcement Committee.
Amended substitute motion carried by a vote of nine t o two.
Mr. Collins moved to adopt that permitted commercial fishermen be allowed t o fish
up to a maximum of 100 fish traps per permit holder and that such traps be
constructed with mesh size sufficiently large enough t o allow escapement of
undersize red grouper.
Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion t o adopt that permitted commercial
fishermen b e allowed t o fish up t o a maximum of 200 fish traps per permit holder
and that such traps be constructed with either 1 X 2, 1; X I t , or 1; hexagonal
meshes. Each t r a p must have at least two escapement windows on each of two sides
which a r e 2 X 2 inches o r larger. Traps fished shoreward of the 300 foot contour
within t h e federal waters shall be 33 cubic f e e t or smaller in volume. One panel o r
access door must be located opposite each of the sides with a funnel and be 144
square inches. Require a n annual permit and annual tags. Require routine reporting
of all trap permittees even if no fishing for reef fish with fish traps occurred in a
particular month. Failure t o report for two consecutive months will result in
revocation of permit for one year.
Mr. Fondren pointed out most of the public testimony on fish traps came from
Atlantic t r a p fishermen. One fishermen who fished the Gulf indicated he fished only
30 traps; therefore, he questioned the necessity of the 200 trap figure.
Mr. Green asked why 200 was chosen as the maximum amount of traps t h a t can be
fished. Mr. McCulla responded there a r e some fishermen who have invested in this
many traps, and they should be allowed to continue t o fish them. Mr. Chauvin
commented public testimony indicated that numerous tags were not being utilized.
Mr. McCulla related this would be determined a t the end of the first year based on
reporting.
Mr. Green stated only vessels 50 t o 60 feet long could carry 200 traps. Also, based
on public testimony, there is little trap fishing occurring in the Gulf; most is in the
Atlantic. One Gulf trap fisherman indicated he only fished 30 traps. He opposed the
200 trap figure.
Dr. Clark asked if the 2 X 2-inch escape panel was large enough t o release
undersized red grouper since the data indicates 90 percent of the fish trap catch is
red grouper. Mr. Gregory responded according t o available information, a 2 X 4-inch
window would release a 14 t o 15-inch red grouper. He did not feel there was
information as t o the size that would allow a 19 or 20-inch red grouper t o escape. A
2 X 2-inch window is not large enough.
Dr. Nelson noted based on studies by Bohnsack and Mahmoudi, a 20-inch red grouper
would be retained by a 4 X 4-inch mesh. A 19-inch red grouper could probably
escape through a 4 X 4-inch mesh. A gag grouper or black grouper 20 inches in
length could escape in something larger than a 3 X 3-inch mesh. He advised the SSC
had not reviewed this information.
Mr. McCulla modified his substitute motion t o change t h e figure t o a 100 t r a p
limit. He emphasized 87 percent of the fish released in the traps survive. This
fishery has a better survival r a t e than any other fishery.
Mr. Green stated in light of the lack of any attempt by NMFS t o track the
regulations that were prepared by NMFS in conjunction with t h e Council, he offered
a n amendment t o the substitute motion that t h e trap t a g procedure currently in
existence b e abandoned, under Section 641.4, Permits, Subsection B, 3D, Fees, that
presently recites t h a t no f e e will be assessed for any permit issued under this section
be reworded t o direct and indirect cost of issuance shall be charged for permits
issued. Under Section 8, 3E, t h a t permits will be on a n annual basis o r until t h e end
of the fishing year when issued and will b e valid until revoked. Under Section 641.5,
Recordkeeping and Reporting, language incorporated that states a permit shall be
revoked for failure t o comply with any one of the requirements established in
Section 641.5. Those requirements are t o be supplied within seven days of
completion of each trip and sets forth eight items that need reported on. Also, that
NMFS be required t o present a report of permits issued, t o whom they were issued,
and that a report be ma& t o the Council on a quarterly basis of the compliance with
the requirements set forth in the regulations.
Dr. Matlock opposed t h e motion adding t h e r e is not much t r a p effort, and they do
not account for much of t h e total grouper landings. However, they d o account f o r a
large proportion of the red grouper t h a t a r e taken t h a t a r e of concern t o t h e
Council. They will not be able t o keep what they c a t c h because 9 2 percent of their
c a t c h is red grouper under 20 inches. If this is t h e case, those fish must b e released
resulting t h e fishery being redirected at some other species. He asked if t h e r e w e r e
other restrictions in place t o protect the other fish t h a t a r e going t o be caught. Mr.
McCulla commented he disagreed t h a t 92 percent of t h e c a t c h was red grouper. He
reiterated 87 percent of t h e fish survive which is b e t t e r than in any other fishery.
They only c a t c h five percent of t h e total harvest, and one percent of t h e grouper
landings. If management measures a r e needed t o protect t h e other species, then t h e
Council should t a k e appropriate action, but a fishery should not b e restricted
because management.measures a r e not in place.
Mr. Swingle restated Mr. McCulla's substitute motion was t h a t t h e permitted
commercial fishermen b e allowed t o fish with up t o a maximum of 100 fish traps per
permit holder and t h a t such traps b e constructed with a mesh with t h e requirements
currently in t h e plan and t h a t t h e permit be on a n annual basis and t h a t t h e issuance
of tags also b e on a n annual basis.
Mr. Jernigan pointed out t h e 87 percent survival r a t e originated in t h e Florida
Marine Research Publication which s t a t e s t h a t about 87 percent of t h e fish released
a f t e r capture in traps were able t o swim down toward t h e sea floor within 15
seconds t o t w o minute periods of observation. He commented this has little
relevance t o t h e number of fish t h a t survive. I t also has little relevance with t h e
number t h a t die before t h e t r a p is pulled, and therefore has no significance.
Dr. Clark referred t o d a t a provided in the original 1988 NMFS Reef Fish Assessment
for the Gulf of Mexico which included t h e stock assessment by Phil Goodyear.
Appendix B has landings of grouper by fish traps, and in 1985 t h e r e were 962,000
pounds of grouper landed in traps. Approximately 79,000 pounds of snapper w e r e
landed in traps. The argument has been t h a t this is a grouper fishery. He did not
f e e l t h a t a 2 X 2-inch window directs t h e traps at t h e fish t h a t t h e fishery is
directed at.
Mr. DeKeyser referred t o page 53 in Amendment I, which s t a t e s t h a t r e d and black
grouper is t h e predominant species accounting for 5 3 percent of t h e t o t a l catch;
snappers comprise 9 percent; porgies, grunts and hogfish comprise 24 percent. He
f e l t t h e r e was a contradiction in t h e data. A t best, t h e d a t a a r e suspect.
Dr. Nelson s t a t e d h e opposed fish traps since it is Florida law and until such t i m e
t h a t this will b e changed by t h e Florida Marine Fisheries Commission he is
compelled t o uphold Florida law. H e personally f e l t t h e impact of fish traps in t h e
-
fishery was incremental.
traps if possible.
He f e l t i t was wise t o eliminate undersize grouper from
J i m Murray, Coast Guard, asked if it was t h e Council's intent t o limit t h e amount of
fish t h a t t h e fishermen can t a k e with a certain number of traps. The fishermen
under t h e current wording of t h e motion would have t o be caught fishing t h e traps
resulting in enforcement agents boarding t h e vessel and have him haul in his t r a p s
and make sure he has 100 o r less. He could have different strings s e t in different
areas, and a s long a s t h e enforcement officer does not c a t c h him fishing more than
100 traps at any one time, h e is not in violation.
Mr. Green commented under Section 641.4, V, i t s t a t e s t h e applicant must provide a
s t a t e m e n t t h a t will allow authorized officers reasonable access t o his property
(structure) t o inventory fish traps for compliance with these regulations.
A
Ms. Kelley commented it would be appropriate for the Council t o establish t h a t
reporting is a condition of having t h e permit. When speaking of t h e revocation, i t
results into directing a particular sanction which has usually been avoided because
under t h e Act this tends t o be left t o t h e Secretary. She suggested i t b e in t h e
nature of a recommendation t o t h e Secretary, and approval of t h e management
measure itself does not necessarily reflect approval of the recomrnenda tion. She
suggested establishing-%thiszas,a condition on. the: permit ;and have t h e condition be
t h e compliance with t h e reporting requirements. This establishes t h e regulatory
basis t o t a k e those actions. The actual sanction t h a t could be imposed for a
violation is under t h e enforcement discretion.
Mr. Chauvin asked if this could b e accomplished in t h e regulations.
responded yes.
Ms. Kelley
Substitute motion as amended carried by a vote of eight t o six.
Mr. Collins moved to adopt the proposed option that reads: "Trawl vessels must
comply with the same size and bag limits that are established for the recreational
fishery harvesting reef fish."
Mr. Collins offered a substitute motion to read: "Exempt shrimp trawl vessels from
the minimum size limit for all snapper and provide a possession limit of 20 snappers
per trip for vessels that can document a trip of five days or more. H e added TEDs
will soon b e required for all shrimp boats. TEDs will not allow a legal size snapper
of 13 inches or more t o b e caught, therefore, every snapper t h a t will be caught will
b e in a lesser range. By throwing those snappers overboard, no management is
accomplished and t h e fish a r e wasted. If a person working on t h e shrimp boat cannot
t a k e fish home, he will compete against another fishery. Also, some of t h e boats
stay out as long as 40 days, and t o l i m i t these boats from retaining a fish because i t
is not of legal size is unfair. A shrimp o r trawl vessel c a n be identified as a vessel
t h a t does not have a rod o r reel, a bandit rig, longline, roller rig and drift fishing
gear aboard.
Dr. Matlock felt t h e r e would be a tremendous magnitude of impacts in allowing
4,000 shrimp boats t o keep 20 undersize snapper per person, per boat, per t r i p year
round. Mr. Collins responded i t makes t h e same sense t o allow t h e m t o keep t h e fish
rather than throw them overboard with very little survival. The owners c a n advise
t h e c r e w members t o throw all snapper overboard, but if someone does not throw
snapper overboard and is boarded by t h e Coast Guard a t sea or brings t h e m into t h e
dock, NMFS will c i t e t h e crew member but t h e boat owner will have t o pay t h e
fine.
Dr. Matlock questioned if t h e boat owner who is not on board t h e boat is held liable
for a crew member or captain violating t h e undersize prohibition. Ms. Kelley
responded generally yes, but every legal structure available between owner and
operator of boats in t h e commercial situation is such t h a t it makes good sense and
goes from an objective point of view and enforcement point of view t o hold t h e
owner liable.
Dr. Matlock offered a substitute motion t o state that t h e owner of any vessel is not
liable for a violation of t h e size, bag, o r possession limits or the quota in the reef
fish fishery unless h e or she is o n the vessel.
Mr. Chauvin ruled t h e substitute motion was not germane t o t h e specific motion. H e
f e l t this motion could b e made if Mr. Collins' motion was defeated. Dr. Matlock
agreed.
Mr. Swingle referred t o Tables 7.13 on page 99 and 7.14 on page 100, which indicates
. landings
landings by.shrimp.traw1 vessels .with n ~ . r e s t s i c t i o n son t h o ~ e ~ l a n d i n g sThe
in 1978 were 200,000 pounds and declined t o 56,000 pounds in 1986 for red snapper,
and grouper landings have not been significant.
Mr. Gill f e l t i t would b e a waste of resource in disallowing t h e shrimpers t o t a k e
these home. The Council is trying t o protect t h e species, but t h e r e will be a natural
bycatch, and they should be allowed t o retain this bycatch.
Mr. DeKeyser expressed concern with 4,000 boats being allowed t o retain 20 fish per
person and f e l t it was excessive. The Council will be allowing t h e shrimpers a n
exception over other fishermen.
Dr. Nelson concurred with Mr. DeKeyser and felt t h e shrimp bycatch c r e a t e s a
tremendous impact on t h e rest of t h e reef fish fishery. If t h e bycatch somehow
could be eliminated, t h e numbers would be 6 0 t o 90 percent higher. NMFS, through
a Council motion, was requested t o conduct studies t o determine if shrimp bycatch
could b e eliminated through t h e use of TEDs and excluder devices. H e noted Mr.
Collins did not support t h a t motion. The use of TEDs as currently constructed
should reduce t h e bycatch of larger fish but will not help t h e bycatch of small fish.
The manner in which t h e shrimp industry operates is handicapping t h e reef fish
industry.
Mr. Green f e l t t h e r e was no reason for a n industry who refuses t o adopt any type of
gear t h a t would decrease t h e kill of fish for which they a r e not directing their e f f o r t
t o receive any donation from t h e snapper/grouper fishery. Even though t h e law
states t h a t TEDs will b e instituted May 1, h e was advised t h a t Congress through t h e
shrimp industry's influence will delay this law at least 90 days. H e opposed t h e
substitute motion.
Mr. Collins reiterated t h e reason for t h e industry opposing t h e use of TEDs was
because it results in a 5 t o 30 percent loss in shrimp. Every shrimper in t h e Gulf
would favor eliminating bycatch if i t could b e accomplished without loss in
production of other catch. H e felt i t was unfair for a boat owner t o have t o pay a
$6,000 t o $10,000 fine for a crew member who went against t h e advice of t h e boat
owner.
Dr. Clark f e l t the substitute motion would allow some shrimpers t o c a t c h a s many
undersize reef fish a s they desire. He opposed this type of loophole.
Mr. McCulla asked if t h e r e was any method t o exempt t h e owner from a c r e w
member violation if t h e owner was not on board t h e vessel. Ms. Kelley c i t e d a n
example is a provision in t h e mackerel plan t h a t s t a t e s t h e operator of t h e vessel is
responsible for t h e cumulative bag limit on private vessels. Basically, absent any
evidence of owner involvement i t would avoid owner liability.
It does not
necessarily insulate t h e other people on board the vessel. Theoretically, t h e Council
could write a regulation t h a t states this, but i t does not speak t o any of t h e o t h e r
considerations t h a t were discussed in terms of what a f f e c t it has on t h e person, t h e
a f f e c t on t h e measures and objectives the Council is trying t o achieve.
Substitute motionfailed by a vote of four t o nine.
Motion carried t o adopt the proposed option that reads: "Trawl vessels must comply
t h e same size ,and bag.-limits that;we,established.for t h e reaeational fishery
harvesting reef fish."
- - --with
Dr. Matlock moved that the Council include the appropriate language that states
that t h e person responsible for violations of t h e size, bag, possession limit, and quota
in the reef fish fishery is the boat operator and not the owner if he is not on board.
Motionfailed for lack of second.
Ms. Kelley expressed concern for this proposal. The Act establishes who c a n b e held
liable and t h e Council cannot change t h e Act. The Council can make a n operator
responsible for a specific regulation, but t h e a f f e c t of t h e motion in enforcing any of
t h e previously adopted measures. Also, this has not been presented at public
hearings. She related NOAA General Counsel in t h e enforcement of regulations has
strenuously argued and fought for and gotten in Federal District Courts a c c e p t a n c e
of t h e proposition t h a t owners a r e liable in law under t h e Act.
Mr. Tatum s t a t e d t h e boat owner is entitled t o due process by t h e Constitution of
t h e United States.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.2.3, Longline Gear Restrictions on page 31 1, and
moved t o prohibit t h e use of longlines and buoy gear for t h e directed harvest of reef
fish inshore of t h e 50-fathom isobath west of Cape San Blas, Florida (85O 30'W) and
inshore of the 20-fathom isobath east of Cape San Blas, Florida (85O30'W). The
retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e.g., shark,
swordfish, and tuna) is limited t o the recreational bag limit. He explained t h e intent
is for t h e prohibited area to be specified by latitude-longitude and loran coordinates
that approximate the depth zones as described.
Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion t o prohibit the use of any gear
recreationally or commercially for t h e directed harvest of red snapper in the months
of April and May. Motionfailed for lack of second.
Motion carried with one opposed.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.2.4, Additional Gear Restrictions on page 315, and
moved t o prohibit the use of entangling nets for the directed harvest of reef fish.
The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other entangling n e t operations is
limited to the recreational bag limit.
Mr. Tatum noted public testimony indicated there were very few fishermen
participating in t h e use of entangling nets, and felt this gear was not adversely
impacting the fishery; therefore, he opposed the motion.
Dr. Nelson felt entangling net gear was not needed in the fishery, and it is not
compatible t o fish a gill net adjacent t o a rock or a reef a s it can get wrapped
around the reef. He favored the motion.
Motion carried with one opposed.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.3, Fishing Year on page 317, and moved t o adopt a
fishing year for all reef fish species of July 1 through June 30.
Mr. DeKeyser- offered. a substitute- motion to.adopt a fishing year for all reef fish
species January I through m e m b e r 31. He explained the Lenten season, January
through March, a r e the prime months of the year that the reef fish industry uses t o
sell his catch. Market prices a r e considerably higher during this time, usually 25 t o
30 percent at certain times. A July I fishing year could result in the season closing
a t a time when the revenues for reef fish would be down, primarily in the late
summer and fall.
Mr. Chauvin pointed out the current fishing year in the plan is January 1 through
December 31, and if the committee motion is defeated it will revert back t o this
fishing year. Mr. DeKeyser withdrew his substitute motion and expressed opposition
t o the committee motion.
Mr. McCulla concurred with Mr. DeKeyser and also expressed opposition t o t h e July
1 through June 30 fishing year.
Mr. Fondren asked the reasons the committee chose t o change the fishing year. Mr.
DeKeyser recalled the argument was that some of the main times t h e fish spawn,
primarily grouper and snapper, a r e in late spring, May through June; therefore, by
setting a year beginning July I, a closure would occur somewhere near t h e first of
the year and protect the fish during spawning.
Motion failed
--
by a vote of four t o five t o adopt a fishing year for all reef fish
species of July I through June 30.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.4, Stressed Area Boundaries on page 318, and
moved t o extend t h e present boundary of t h e stressed area t o include waters off
Texas out t o t h e 30 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Texas. Also t o
extend the present boundary of the stressed area t o include waters off Louisiana out
to t h e 10 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Louisiana
Mr. Collins asked if t h e Council had authority t o propose a stressed a r e a in state
waters of Texas. Dr. Matlock responded not without going through t h e preemption
process, however, Texas has t h e same stressed a r e a t h a t is presently in t h e Council's
plan. Mr. McCulla felt t h a t if t h e Council adopts this proposal, t h e S t a t e of
Louisiana would probably follow suit.
Mr. Gregory noted within t h e stressed area, fish traps, powerheads or bang sticks,
and roller trawls a r e prohibited for t h e direct harvest of reef fish.
Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.5, User Group Conflict Resolution on page 322,
and moved t o adopt status quo - no regulation. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.6, Closed Seasons and Areas on page 326 and
moved t o defer consideration of closure t o the TAC procedures. Motion carried.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.7, Permits and Gear Identification on page 327
and moved to adopt the proposed option a s follows: "Require an annual commercial
fishing permit for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition that more than
fifty percent of an individual's (owner or operator) earned income must be derived
from commercial or charter/head . boat fishing. Charter and head boat applicants
must submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants
must submit properly documented vessel number on the permit application." I t is
the intent that the sale of fish caught can be made only when the vessel is fishing
under a commercial quota
Mr. Jernigan asked whether this would represent limited entry. Ms. Kelley f e l t this
was a legitimate question and advised the Act does not use t h e t e r m "limited entry"
but speaks of limiting access. She was unsure of t h e legislative history behind t h e
inclusion of this language. The use of limited access may or may not depending on
t h e legislative history mean more than that. She s t a t e d t h a t t h e 10 percent earned
income requirement definitely was not a problem because it defined users. A t some
point if t h e percentage requirement is, for example, 99 percent, i t could be
concluded t h a t access was being limited because of t h e difficulty t o g e t into t h e
fishery. She could not advise if t h e Council had drawn t h e line correctly t o avoid
this. She suggested whether a n action is termed limited access, if all t h e bases have
been covered in t h e record t h a t t h e Act talks about, then t h e question does not
necessarily need a n answer in order t o b e able t o include t h e measures.
Mr. Jernigan asked t h e conditions t h e Council must question. Ms. Kelley responded
t h e discretionary provisions s t a t e t h a t with respect t o any fishery, t h e Council may
establish a system for limiting access t o t h e fishery in order t o achieve optimum
yield if in developing such system t h e Council and Secretary t a k e into account t h e
present participation in t h e fishery, historical fishing practices in and dependence on
t h e fishery, t h e economics of t h e fishery, t h e capability of fishing vessels used in t h e
fishery t o engage in other fisheries, t h e cultural and social framework relevant t o
t h e fishery and any other relevant considerations.
Mr. Jernigan expressed concern t h a t t h e Council is slowly imposing t h e s a m e
restriction in every fishery, and i t will come t o a point at which a person who is not
already a commercial fishermen will not be able t o become a commercial
fisherman. Currently, a fishermen must prove t h a t 50 percent of his income c o m e s
from commercial fishing in t h e preceding year. A fisherman could engage in a n
unrestricted fishery for one year, and then enter t h e reef fish fishery. However, a l l
t h e unrestricted fisheries a r e slowly being eliminated.
Mr. Swingle commented a person could also become a deck hand aboard a vessel and
e a r n their income for t h e preceding year from this participation, and then move into
t h e reef fish fishery. In t h e mackerel plan i t is specified t h a t those persons fishing
under a permit a r e those allowed t o fish under t h e commercial quota. H e suggested
this be s t a t e d in t h e last sentence which states the intent. The sentence states t h e
intent is a vessel can sell fish if fishing under a commercial quota. This would mean
others a r e excluded from fishing under t h e commercial quota. Another provision in
t h e mackerel plan for t h e charter boat sector is t h a t t h e r e be no more than t h r e e
persons aboard a vessel, otherwise they a r e considered a s being under c h a r t e r and
cannot fish commercially with four persons aboard t h e vessel. This is also not
clarified in t h e language. Also, t h e head boats a r e included who may not b e able t o
effectively commercial fish with only three persons aboard t h e vessel.
Mr. Green noted t h e r e was substantial testimony yesterday regarding t h e 50 percent
income requirement. H e s t a t e d one of t h e requirements is t o t a k e into account t h e
present participation in t h e fishery. As of today, t h e r e is participation from those
people who ldo .not earn .5O .percent of their. income from t h e fishery. Another
requirement is the economics of t h e fishery. H e felt there was no study conducted
relative t o economics t o determine whether i t would be possible for those people
who a r e presently participating in t h e fishery t o ever achieve 50 percent of t h e i r
income from the fishery a s they may not have sufficient capital t o invest in t h e
fishery in order t o achieve t h e 50 percent income requirement. He f e l t t h a t this
could be challenged.
Dr. Clark f e l t t h e Act clearly indicates t h e Council has the right t o establish this
type of requirement a s it s t a t e s t h e Council can prohibit, limit, condition or required
use of specified types of fishing gear and fishing vessels or equipment. However,
t h e r e is a lack of economic studies t o determine t h e impacts of this type of
requirement.
Mr. McCulla favored t h e motion, and asked if t h e Council should require a f e e for all
permits in order t o be consistent since t h e t r a p fishermen a r e being required t o pay
a fee f o r their permit. Ms. Kelley asked if there was a s t a t e m e n t in t h e Reef Fish
FMP regarding f e e s being charged on permits. Mr. Swingle responded under t h e Act,
administrative fees can b e charged for any permit issued but only for t h e c o s t of
issuance. Under t h e current Reef Fish FMP, t h e r e is a s t a t e m e n t t h a t specifies no
administrative costs will b e charged for permits. H e was unsure whether this
prevented NMFS from charging f e e s or if t h e Act itself allowed f e e s t o b e charged.
Ms. Kelley commented t h e use of permits has been increasing, and t h e c o s t t o
process t h e permits also has increased resulting in more costs for t h e price of t h e
tags. The Council c a n justify charging a f e e in one fishery and not another if i t
costs more than collecting t h e money.
Mr. Fondren reminded an unrestricted resource is not being dealt with. Severe
restrictions have been placed on people who derive all their income from t h e
fishery. The group t h a t this t a r g e t s is not totally dependent on a limited resource
for their livelihood and have other sources of income.
Mr. Tatum asked if i t would b e legal for someone t o sell fish without a permit in t h e
S t a t e of Florida. Dr. Nelson responded not presently; with mackerel t h e Commission
adopted t h a t if a person wants t o exceed the bag limits, they must have t h e federal
king mackerel permit. The Commission probably would approach this in t h e s a m e
manner. In order t o control occurrences within Florida s t a t e waters and since t h e
Commission has no authority t o e n a c t this type of regulation, i t would have t o go
through t h e legislature. They do have t h e authority t o s t a t e they must have t h e
federal permit.
Dr. Matlock s t a t e d this was an important measure t o pass. It was recommended by
OFF, and t h e original proposal was amended relative t o their comments and based on
public hearings. This s a m e type of regulation is presently in place in Texas. I t has
been challenged in federal court seven years ago and was upheld in federal waters.
The actions relative t o quotas he has taken have been based, in part, on t h e notion
t h a t whatever quotas were s e t up were t o be available exclusively t o t h e bona fide
full-time commercial fishermen such t h a t they will be able t o offset some of t h e
losses they will incur as a result of t h e lower quotas by having more fish available t o
t h e m because they will not be competing with part-time fishermen. If t h e motion is
defeated, he f e l t t h e quotas will have t o be reset. Also, based on Ms. Kelley's
comments, he f e l t i t would be appropriate t o address t h e six items relative t o
limited access. One was whether t h e r e are- too-many-parlicipants in t h e fishery.
Information has b e e n submitted at t h e public hearings relative t o historical fishing
practices, and numerous d a t a provided t o the Council by NMFS. The maximum
figure would probably be about 1,000 boats who would not be able t o sell their c a t c h
if t h e motion was adopted. Since t h e r e a r e l,OOO boats t o b e a f f e c t e d and their
impact if no action is taken amounts t o approximately 1 t o 2 million pounds of fish.
It i s consistent with t h e Council's intent t o reduce effort by removing these people
from t h e commercial sector of t h e fishery. They have t h e ability t o continue fishing
recreationally as they a r e presently doing, they just cannot sell their fish.
Consequently, they a r e not being denied access t o the fish. There is not much
information regarding t h e economics in t h e fishery, but t h e information available
clearly indicates t h a t if this action is not taken, t h e economics in t h e fishery will
suffer in t h e long-term. The capability of fishing vessels using t h e fishery t o engage
in o t h e r fisheries is already occurring. He was unsure of t h e meaning of t h e cultural
and social framework relative t o t h e fishery. He emphasized if t h e Council does not
t a k e action i t could jeopardize t h e long-term viability of t h e fishery.
Dr. Nelson pointed out Mr. Swingle requested if t h e intent was similar t o king
mackerel with t h e number limitation. In developing this, i t was assumed t h a t i t
would be implemented as king mackerel. H e asked if this could b e handled in
drafting t h e regulations or if t h e Council must address i t explicitly. Mr. Swingle
responded this could be done in t h e regulations, but t h e other issue was t h a t under
t h e mackerel rule i t did not allow for head boats, which just s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e should
be no more than t h r e e persons aboard t h e vessel because i t is primarily a trolling
fishery and charter boats engage in that. One of t h e issues is whether a head boat
c a n commercially fish with only t h r e e persons aboard since they probably would
become a bandit rig operation. He asked if there should b e a limitation of seven
people aboard a head boat.
Dr. Nelson f e l t they could fish but could not fish a s much if they had seven o r t e n
people on board.
Motion carried t o require a n annual commercial fishing permit for t h e sale of reef
fish, with the qualifying condition t h a t more than fifty percent of a n individual's
(owner or operator) earned income must b e derived from commercial o r
charterthead boat fishing. Charter and head boat applicants must submit their
Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit
properly documented vessel number on the permit application. It is t h e intent t h a t
t h e sale of fish caught can be made only when t h e vessel is fishing under a
commercial quota.
Mr. Collins noted the committee adopted rejected option 4 t o require annual permits
for fish t r a p possession and their use in the reef fish fishery which was inclusive in
Mr. Green's previously adopted motion. He referred t o Section 11.8, Statistical
Reporting Requirements on page 333, and moved that data will be collected by
authorized statistical reporting agents from a sample of commercial and
recreational catch t h a t ensures representation of all major segments of t h e category
of users of a resource and is of sufficient size t o provide statistically valid estimates
for stock assessment analyses and quota monitoring. Any such d a t a collection should
rely upon techniques t h a t ensure comparability of data. Until such t i m e that a
statistical based sampling program, as described above, is developed that provides
representative samples of the recreational and commercial catch, a minimum of t e n
percent of t h e total catch for: each species shall be. sampled for bioprofile d a t a as is
presently described in the Trip Interview Program documentation. Those fishermen
and dealers selected by the Center Director, or his designee, must make their reef
fish (head and fins intact) available at the dockside for inspection by those agents.
Mr. Tatum stated there a r e problems in funding the port sampling program and asked
why i t was being required that ten percent of the total catch be sampled for
bioprofile data. The Council cannot require NMFS t o do this and NMFS cannot
require the states since it is a cooperative program. He questioned whether this was
an effective method. Dr. Angelovic commented this would mean that t h e entire
statelfederal cooperative program would have t o be reconstituted.
Dr. Clark questioned whether ten Dercent would be sufficient t o be statisticallv
valid. He o'ffered an amendment to'the motion t o delete the phrase "a minimum df
ten percent of t h e total catch for".
..
Mr. Fondren asked if this would mean that if the Council did not have t h e ten
percent sampling on a species, then appropriate action could not be taken t o make
changes. Mr. Gregory commented the ten percent was specified t o acquire data on
the different species. Under the existing data collection program, it is very unlikely
t h a t the Council will be able t o monitor the effectiveness of t h e management
measures particularly in detecting whether a stock is recovering. The bioprofile
data which became the statelfederal cooperative program in 1984 has given only
enough data t o develop a n assessment. This very same program is falling apart.
There is enough data t o develop assessment, but there will not be a continued flow
of data t o continue t o monitor. Mr. Fondren reiterated if the ten percent profile is
not obtained for each of the species, will the Council be able t o make management
decisions. If there is only five percent sampling, does this mean the data cannot be
used t o make management decisions. Mr. Gregory responded the data could be used
and management decisions could be made without data.
Mr. Green asked if this would b e cause for NMFS t o reject a management proposal
because t h e t e n percent was not obtained. Mr. Gregory responded he did not think
so. Dr. Angelovic commented t h e policy side was t o use t h e best d a t a available; he
f e l t t h e t e n percent bioprofile would not b e obtained.
Dr. Nelson pointed out t h e motion refers t o bioprofiles and not landings data; this
would b e collecting hard parts, scales or otoliths, t o use in aging fishes, ovaries t o
look at reef fecundity, etc. There is a t h r e e million pound red snapper quota at
t h r e e pounds each which is one million red snapper. He has conducted a number of
these studies and 100,000 scales or otoliths would not b e needed t o do a study; a very
good study could b e conducted with a sample of 2,000 t o 6,000.
Mr. Tatum offered a substitute motion for staff working with the states and NMFS
t o develop a.statistically valid program t o monitor t h e reef fish landings.
Dr. Clark opposed t h e substitute motion because t h e committee motion included
carefully structured language regarding t h e stock assessment analysis and quota
monitoring and t h e substitute motion does not.
Dr. Nelson also opposed t h e substitute motion.
Substitute motion failed.
Amended motion carried that data will be collected by authorized statistical
reporting agents from a sample of commercial and recreational catch that ensures
representation of all major segments of the category of users of a resource and is of
sufficient size t o provide statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses
and quota monitoring. Any such data collection should rely upon techniques that
ensure comparability of data. Until such time that a statistical based sampling
program, as described above, is developed that provides representative samples of
the recreational and commercial catch, each species shall be sampled for bioprofile
d a t a as is presently described in t h e Trip interview Program documentation. Those
fishermen and dealers selected by t h e Center Director, or his designee, must make
their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at the dockside for inspection by those
agents.
Mr. Collins moved t o adopt proposed options 2 and 3 as follows:
Proposed Option 2: Require head boat operators who a r e selected by NMFS t o
maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information t o NMFS on at
least a monthly basis.
Proposed Option 3: Require charter boat operators who a r e selected by NMFS t o
maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Center Director that a r e t o
be submitted weekly (as is required in the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP).
Information t o be included in the forms must include, but not be limited to:
(1) Name or official number of vessel.
(2) Operator's Coast Guard license number.
(3) Date of trip.
(4) Number of fishermen on trip.
(5) Area fished.
(6) Fishing methods and type of gear.
(7) Hours fished.
(8) Species targeted.
(9) Number and estimated weight of fish caught by species.
Dr. Clark referred t o option 3, (5), and f e l t the intent of t h e motion was not t o
collect this type of information, but was t o collect generic information t h a t is useful
for stock analyses. Mr. Swingle pointed out this meant statistical a r e a which is
basically one degree square or 60 miles as you go along t h e coast, and t h e r e a r e 21
statistical zones across t h e Gulf and extend in some instances farther than one
degree offshore.
Motion carried.
Mr. Collins noted t h e committee adopted rejected option I t o require routine
reporting of all t r a p permittees. A t a minimum, monthly reports will b e required of
permittees even if no fishing for reef fish with fish traps occurred in a particular
month. Repeated failure t o report will result in revocation of permit for one year.
He noted this was adopted in a previous motion.
Mr. Collins referred t o Section 12.2, Research Recommendations Identified in t h e
Amendment on page 384 a n d . moved t o adopt t h e research recommendations as
follows:
(1) Greater emphasis must be placed on the collection of bioprofile and catcheffort statistics from all user groups by geographic area.
(2) The spawning stock biomass and recruitment levels of reef fish populations need
t o be monitored on a continuing basis by geographic area
(3) Growth, mortality, maturity and fecundity schedules (proportional activity by
size) a r e needed for species in the fishery management unit.
(4) The effectiveness of the different trawl designs (including TEDs) used within
the shrimp fishery in reducing the bycatch of reef fish, especially pre-recruit
reef fish needs t o be evaluated. Catch rates of all bycatch species need t o be
determined for various trawl designs fished in different regions of t h e Gulf for
both day and night trawling.
( 5 ) The socioeconomic and sociocultural aspects of t h e reef fish fishery needs t o be
evaluated with the purpose of examining the potential utility of a limited entry
management strategy and for purposes of allocations.
Motion carried.
Ms. Kumpe noted a motion was necessary for submission of Amendment 1 with t h e
modifications made at this meeting.
Ms. Kelley pointed out t h e new guidelines that a r e in e f f e c t now specify t h a t at t h e
t i m e t h a t t h e Council approves t h e amendment for submission, they must have
before them t h e RIR analyses, etc. She s t a t e d there is some analyses in t h e
amendment, but the RIR has not been completed and probably will have t o be
modified based on t h e changes made during this meeting. It is very important t o
have t h e regulations t o b e reviewed by t h e Council t o ensure t h a t they a r e exactly
what t h e Council wants. Also, if t h e r e is any inconsistencies, t h e only way t o
determine this is t o have t i m e t o reflect on these and clean up t h e document.
Dr. Matlock moved t o reconsider action which was taken on the grouper quotas.
Motion to reconsider carried.
Dr. Matlock moved that there be a ten percent reduction in grouper harvest for the
1985-1987 average of 12.1 million pounds which would equate to an 1 1 million pound
overall quota, a 9.2 million pound quota for the shallow water grouper, and a 1.8
million pound deep water grouper quota.
Mr. Gregory commented t h e Council has currently proposed a 25 percent reduction
from t h e 1985-1987 average landings of 12.1 million pounds which equates t o a 9.7
t o t a l quota with a 1.6 million pound deep water quota and 8.1 million pound shallow
water quota.
Motion carried by a vote of seven t o three.
Mr. Chauvin noted final approval of Amendment 1 t o t h e Reef Fish FMP will be
taken at t h e July meeting.
o
State Directors' Reports
Mr. Gill related in t h e past legislative session, t h e r e were six bills which were
submitted and four passed. One of t h e bills was t h e Live Bait Bill which would help
t h e live bait industry t o shore up their industry by defining a live bait dealer, a live
bait boat, t h e number of boats each dealer should have, etc. The state was given
back oyster management. Gill netting and purse seining and ordinances will be
established for these throughout t h e Mississippi Sound. They were charged t o
develop ordinances for soft crabs. Currently t h e ordinance stipulates blue c r a b
cannot b e taken unless i t is five inches from point t o point. The soft c r a b industry
desired 2-314 and 3-114 size crab. A change in legislation gives t h e authorization t o
also c i t e t h e contractor who as well as t h e property owners violate Corps of
Engineers' wetland permits. Also, t h e other part of the wetlands protection law t h a t
was passed was there was a n exclusion in t h e law t h a t s t a t e d t h a t any one who had
an existing channel, boat slip or dock and wanted t o perform maintenance dredging
they need only t o show a valid permit from t h e Corps of Engineers prior t o 1973.
This was not giving t h e state t h e authority t o determine where spoil disposal
material should b e placed. This was removed this year, and currently anyone who
wants t o perform maintenance dredging must go through t h e s a m e process. The
process is t h a t t h e state currently issues approximately 90 percent of t h e COE's
permits for up t o 2,500 cubic yards of maintenance dredging. The legislature also
passed t h e Marine Debris Bill and anyone caught dumping any type of garbage in t h e
S t a t e of Mississippi is subject to a first offense of $500 and second offense is
$10,000.
Legislation was introduced t o impose heavy fines on saltwater a n d
recreational fishermen selling their c a t c h t o restaurants and fish houses and included
t h e m in t h e citations. This was approved by t h e Senate but did not pass t h e House.
Dr. Matlock noted t h e S t a t e of Texas is in the process of proposing a one fish per
person bag and possession limit for sharks. The hearing process will begin next
month, and will be implemented September 1. The Shrimp Plan is under way and
should be completed soon. There a r e three new commissioners.
Dr. Nelson s t a t e d effective July 1 there will be new regulations in place affecting
t h e harvest of black drum which will allow for a harvest of fish between 14 and 24
inches and a bag limit of five for recreational anglers who will have a n exception
t h a t one of their five fish can b e greater than 24 inches. Commercial harvest will
be limited t o 500 pounds per vessel per day between 14 and 24 inches. The s a l t w a t e r
license is in t h e House and Senate.
Mr. Tatum advised t h e S t a t e of Alabama introduced t o the House a bill t h a t would
eliminate t h e commercial bait shrimp law.
Dr. Clark reported t h e S t a t e of Louisiana has a draft bill t o begin monitoring all
commercial fish sales. There is currently no in-state monitoring other than NMFS
port agents. He related i t is his intention t h a t every action of t h e Council will go
before a decision-making body in t h e S t a t e of Louisiana for their consideration. This
has not been t h e historical practice. He particularly referred t o t h e actions of t h e
mackerel committee and t h e actions taken on reef fish.
Mr. Richardson noted t h e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Director resigned in
March, and they a r e currently without a full-time director or assistant secretary.
He assumed this would continue for a few months. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
recently completed a satellite study on turtle migration through t h e Gulf of
Mexico. Mr. Conrad Fjetland s t a t e d they were waiting for a n official response from
t h e Office of t h e Chief of Engineers on t h e recommendations t h a t were submitted
by t h e Division Engineers on the GBANS study. The official response is expected t o
be received next week. However, he has informally been told t h a t t h e Chief's office
will probably reject offshore disposal which would mean t h a t he would accept a bay
disposal option. If this occurs and t h e report is received, they will seek referral
through t h e Council of Environmental Quality process, which is fairly involved.
Ms. Kelley s t a t e d t h e plaintiff in the Islamorada case t h a t began in December, 1986,
has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal last month. The Readnour case which is t h e
challenge t o t h e western zone and recreational mackerel closures on king mackerel
was filed January 31, and t h e plaintiff's request t o challenge t h e closure s t a t e d t h a t
t h e TACs a r e arbitrary and capricious closures which a f f e c t e d them in a
discriminatory fashion, t h e king mackerel resource is not overfished, and t h a t t h e
regulatory program did not apply t o fish in t h e western Gulf because t h a t was a
separate stock.
o
Other Business
Mr. Chauvin related there is situation with t h e stone crab, shrimp, and spiny lobster
fisheries in t h e Tortugas a r e a which needs discussed.
Dr. Angelovic noted this concerns t h e a r e a which was opened on an experimental
basis for one year and is ready t o b e reopened.
Ms. Joan Butler advised t h e situation related t o t h e t o e of t h e boot a r e a which was
voted t o reopen last year. I t was reopened suddenly and caught a number of
fishermen by surprise. The stone c r a b and lobster fishermen had used this a r e a as
p a r t of their fishery. When i t was suddenly reopend a number of traps were lost due
t o t h e shrimp trawling. This year i t is scheduled t o reopen May 1 through November
30. A number of lobster and stone c r a b fishermen have requested t h a t action be
taken t o keep t h e a r e a closed at least through November and allow t h e shrimpers t o
trawl t h e a r e a a f t e r November. The fishermen feel t h e r e will be serious conflicts if
this does not occur. This summer t h e lobster and stone c r a b fishermen will place
their traps in t h e a r e a and beginning August 1 t h e shrimp vessels begin t o trawl t h e
area.
Mr. Swingle recalled years ago when opening t h e a r e a was debated, t h e r e was
testimony from t h e spiny lobster industry t h a t indicated t h a t they did not fish t h e
area. They fished within t h e s t a t e waters. They may, since i t has been closed for a
number of years, have moved into the area.
Ms. Butler s t a t e d t h e lobster fishermen have moved into t h e area, and i t has become
traditional lobster and stone c r a b area.
Dr. Angelovic noted action t o open t h e a r e a was taken through emergency action,
and due t o t h e slowness of bureaucracy, i t was closed again. On May 22 i t will be
reopened and remain open until November 2. He asked if during this t i m e in May t h e
majority of shrimping in t h e a r e a was over. Mr. Chauvin responded i t was down t o a
. minimal amount.-. M ~ . C o l l i n sadded~usually.this-is t h e t i m e the.boats go t o t h e Texas
closure area. Mr. Chauvin asked if t h e r e was t h e option for emergency action. Ms.
Kelley responded theoretically this is t h e option always available.
Ms. Butler noted t h e stone c r a b fishery closes May 15, and t h e lobster fishery is
closed until August I. The solution would be t o have t h e a r e a closed August and
September. She was unsure how this could b e accomplished. Since 1981, this has
become prime stone c r a b and lobster area. On August 1 they will b e moving their
traps into t h e a r e a knowing t h a t t h e shrimping possibility is present.
Mr. Chauvin f e l t emergency action would have t o b e taken. He suggested this be
discussed at t h e July meeting with more information obtained until t h a t time.
Mr. Chauvin noted there was a shrimp stock assessment meeting scheduled for June
and t h e organization of t h e populations dynamics individual, William Bayliff, does
not have funds available for him t o attend t h e meeting. H e has requested t h e
Council pay for his expenses t o Galveston. Mr. Swingle related it would approximate
t o $600. All t h e other individuals have agreed t o pay for their travel. Dr. Bayliff
was suggested by Dr. Klima t o review the shrimp analyses t o determine whether
overharvest is occurring.
Dr. Nelson moved t h e Council pay t h e travel expenses for Dr. Bayliff to a t t e n d the
stock assessment meeting in Galveston. Motion carried.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:40 P.M.