March, 1996 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

STAFF
Wayne Swingle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Director
Antonio Lamberte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economist
Steven Atran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population Dynamics Statistician
Richard Hoogland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat Specialist
Debra McNair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary
Anne Alford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary
Mike McLemore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOAA General Counsel
;
Roy Appugliese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida
Rip Ballard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Little Torch Key, Florida.
John Brownlee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sputh Atlantic Fishery Management Council, North Palm Beach, Florida
Bill Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Key West, Florida
Leo Cooper .. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon, Florida
Dan Crowley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Big Pine Key, Florida
Ralph Delph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Jesus Diaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florida
Don DeMaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida
Ellis Dosher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steinhatcher, Florida
Don Doyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian, Florida
Peter Durbum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Bob Elkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Gary Feist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
William Gibson, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Peter Gladding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Duke Goins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Larry Goins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida
Scott Goins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida,
Joe Golden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Douglas Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florida Sea Grant, Monroe County, Florida
Darrell Hannaseck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Marty Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tallahassee, Florida
Ben Hartig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Hobe Sound, Florida
Chuck Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort Pierce, Florida
Jesus Hernaudez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
..................................................... Summerland Key, Florida
Roger H&an
Anthony Iarocci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grassy Key, Florida
Robert Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon, Florida
Dan Kane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roseland, Florida
.
Doug Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Miami,
Florida
Damas Kirk .............; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goodland, Florida
Joe Kimmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NMFS, Saint Petersburg, Flarida
Tony Larnasa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West,Florida
Dick Livingston ................................ NMFSILaw Enforcement, Saint Petersburg, Florida
Yordy Martincz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Big Coppitt, Florida
1
Tom McUwain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NMFS, Pascagoula, Mississippi
Ron Meyers . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Little Torch Key, Florida
Tom Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Monroe County, Florida
Gerald Nicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tavemier, Florida
Billy Niles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida
Skip Norwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon, Florida
Mike Nugent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . hansas Pass, Texas
Shella O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boynton Beach, Florida
William Oliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surnrnerland Key, Florida
Eddy Owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Tom Parise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami, Florida
"PopsW.Petrick. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida
Bobby Pillar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summerland Key, Florida
Manny Puig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Little Torch Key, Florida
Chris Rackley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Big Pine Key, Florida
Doyle Raines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eighth Coast Guard District
Ralph Rayburn.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin, Texas
John Sanchez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monroe County Commercial Fisherman, Inc., Marathon, Florida
Jeny Sansom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organized Fishermen of Florida, Melbourne, Florida
Frank Sargent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint Petersburg, Florida
Chuck Sasco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Saint Lucia, Florida
Harold Schenavar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian, Florida
Ed Schroeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Galvesto% Texas
Gordon Sharp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florida Marine Patrol, Marathon, Florida
Robert Sierpiejko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Robert Spaeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOFA, Madeira Beach, Florida
Sam Steinrnetz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Elmer Stokes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian, Florida
Patrick Surtozzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boynton Beach, Florida
James Turner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian, Florida
Jim Weavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gainesville, Florida
John Wetzstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Dawn Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USFWS, Vero Beach, Florida
Bill Wickers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key West, Florida
Kay Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SASI, Pascagoda, Mississippi
Johnny Yarbrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steinhatcher, Florida
Bob Zales I1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Panama City, Florida
Dr. Roberts read the opening statement and requested for voice identification. LCDR Mark Johnson-introduced
CDR Doyle Raims to the Council. CDR Raines was the new Chief of the Law Enforcement Intelligence
InvestigationsBranch for the Eighth Coast Guard District in New Orleans.
The agenda was adopted with the following changes:
CDR Raines would give a presentation on Mexican shark boats following public testimony.
Mr. Minton moved to continue with council agenda should public testimony end earlier than
anticipated. Motion carried.
A discussion of National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS)'s proposal to withdraw both the Spiny Lobster and
Stone Crab plans would be addressed under Other Business. Dr. Kemmerer urged the NMFS presentation
be done by the close of the day.
The minutes of the January Council meeting held in Brownsville, Texas on January 24-25, 1996 were
approved with the following changes:
Page 1, Mr. Frank Fisher was in attendance to the Brownsville meeting.
Page 2, LT Richard East was from Corpus Christi, Texas.
Page 7, frrst paragraph, last sentence, changed "abstained" to "voted against."
Page 15, first paragraph, sixth line, change "vigorous opposition" to "legal concern."
Page 20,last paragraph, second line, change "planned steps to inhibit or retrieve this loss" to "the resultant
loss of marsh vegetation could exacerbate the hypoxic zone."
Page 22,Florida section, frrst paragraph, twelveth line, change "pound" to "fish."
Page 23, first paragraph, first line, change "peer review" to "distribution."
The minutes of the February Council Conference Call held on February 15, 1996 were approved with the
following changes:
Mr. Horn advised that Karl Lessard was in attendance and that Andy Martin was not. Mr. Swingle reported
that the attendance record would be clarified later in the document.
Page 3, second line, change "1995" to "1994."
Pages 38-40,the references to Perry Allen should have been Andy Kemrnerer.
blic T
w
DRAFT REEF FISH AMENDMENT 13 (extending Red Snqpper Endorsement System) and the
RED SNAPPERREGULATORY AMENDMENT (Specifymg TAC and Postponing Quota Allocation)
Kay Williams of Pascagoula, Mississippi represented Save American's Seafood Industry (SASI). She
questioned why a red snapper public hearing on Amendment 13 was not held hMississippi. In regards to
the addemhmto red snapper TAC regulatory amendment, they were in support of the increase in red snapper
TAC for 1996 to 9.12 million pounds (MP). They supported extending the recovery target date; and
supported the 14-inch minimum size limit in the commercial fishery. The fishermen she represented must
fish in 200-footwater to catch 15 inch fish, would fish for 3 to 4 days at a time, and they reported to have
observed the mortality rate of released fish increased in the depth of water of which they fished. Under the
proposed alternative to establish a split season for the 1996 commercial red snapper quota, the commercial
season would open on February 1 and would close on the day that the 3.06 million pounds (MP) were
projected to be harvestsd. They would like the season to reopen on September 15 with the remainder of the
quota, in addition to the unharvested portion of the 3.06 MP that resulted from the previous year's closure.
The SASI dealers supported opening October 1, while the SASI fishermen supported September 1; thus they
reached a compromise which resulted in the proposed September 15 date.
On Amendment 13, under 6.0 the proposed alternative, they supported extending the duration of the red
snapper endorsement system until Amendment 8 was implemented or until replaced by an alternate plan to
limit access to the commercial red snapper fishery. If either of the proposed options were not possible then
the endorsement system would terminate on December 3 1, 1997. They requested that the Council, as soon
as they were aware as to Congress's actions on ITQs, adjust the license limitation system be adjusted
accordingly. Mr. Minton iequested Ms. Williams to provide more detail as to why September 15 was more
appropriate than the proposed opening date. Ms. Williams replied that children were going back to school
and familieswere purchasing school items and apparel rather than fish (in September), therefore, the dealers
preferred October. Fishermen were concerned with the weather conditions (in October), so they preferred
September. A compromise was reached for September 15. Mr. Minton noted that Dr. Kemmerer had
previously stated that ifthe projected 1.59 MP were approved, there would be 3 to 4 weeks for that season.
This would move the opening into November, if approved. Dr. Roberts noted that Ms. Williams had
indicated Council should implement license limitations as approved at the January 1995, Houston meeting.
He asked if she had read the document completely and did not disagree with any of the license limitation
provisions. Ms. Williams replied that she had read the license limitation provisions thoroughly on several
occasions; she and her organization did agree with them as published.
Dr. Kemrnerer was concerned with the price of fish caught after October 1. Mr. Horn offered that in his
experience, September was one of the two worst months of the year for this type of business (for reef fish)
due to Labor Day and school beginning. July primarily one of the poorest months, as well as having the
Fourth of July holiday. He felt October would be better for both dealers and fishermen.
DRAFT COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC (MACKEREL) AMENDMENT 8
Ralph Delph of Key West, Florida supported allowing of charter captains to sell fish. He had a license that
allowed him to sell fish. He had been restricted to a bag limit which represented less than 10 percent of his
gross income and 20 percent of net income. It was impossible for a young man to get into the charter
business without the sale of the fish. As a captain, having the necessary license, if the people he chartered
to gave him the fish, then he felt that he should be allowed to do what he wanted to with those fish. Mr.
Williams asked Mr. Delph if he was addressing a specific amendment or something he had heard going
around the docks. Mr. Delph stated that he was addressing a proposed amendment that the committee (held
the prior day) had offered Mr. Williams replied that there was a preferred alternative which stated: "as a
condition of a fkderal permit issuedunder the coastal migratory pelagic fishery management plan (FMP) the
applicant must agree to comply with the more restrictive of state or federal regulations when fishing in state
waters." Included were regulations such as bag limits, size limits, trip limits, sale of fish and closures. Once
closure occurred, one could not commercially sell a coastal pelagic'captured in the federal zone.
the f&
Mr. Delph stressed that throughout the open season he was restricted to a bag limit of two fish per person.
He fished his bag limit at that time. Mr. Williams expressed that he was trying to clan& as to which issue
Mr. Delph was addressing. Mr. Hom asked Mr. Delph if he would have any concerns if a commercial vessel
was able to sell a bag limit after the commercial season closed. Mr. Delph replied that he worked with a bag
limit throughout the season Mr. Osburn stated there were a number of major fishing ports around the Gulf
that have very large rind substantial charter fleets and in many of those areas it was illegal for those charter
fishermento sell the catch Based on records there were virtually no selling of the charter catch and yet those
operators had been successfid. He inquired if Mr. Delph had any thoughts as to why they had been able to
be successfid in the long-term and what was the difference in the situation for him. Mr. Delph stated that
he had done a number of studies. One was based on the price of the marketable charter fee. In his fishery
(small off-shore fishing-type boats) the marketable fee would only bear a certain price. His boat was worth
approximately $125,000, amortized over an 8 year period yielded approximately $125 per day per trip plus
the cost of operahon The cost of operation had become astronomical. Mr. Osburn inquired as to how much
per day Mr. Delph made. Mr. Delph replied approximately $450 per day. Mr. Simpson questioned if Mr.
Delph was certain he was diligent in reporting the fish through legitament channels. Mr. Delph stated that
he had trip tickets for every fish that he had ever sold. Every fish that he purchased was paid for by check
and was declared as taxable income. Furthermore, he was not aware of any place in the Keys that it was
possible to sell fish without obtaining a trip ticket. Mr. Collins requested clarification as to what percentage
of Mr. Delph's income came fiom the sale of charter caught fish. Mr. Delph replied approximately 10
percent of his gross income, and continued that his entire living was derived from charter fishing and the sale
of fish.
William Oliver of Summerland Key, Florida waived his testimony time stating that the issues that he wanted
to discuss had already been addressed with the previous testimony.
Harold Schenavar of Sebastian, Florida was a hook-and-line day fisherman. He had been fishing in the
Sebastian area since 1980. He questioned if the TAC for the Gulf fish from November 1 through March 3 1;
would be raised or lowered Mr. Swingle advised that the Council would not set the TAC until the May 1996
meeting. The Council was expected to receive the Stock Assessment report approximately April 8, 1996.
Mr. Schenavar stated that when the crucial quota was filled there should not be any sales of that particular
species (of that quota). He did not feel the charter boats should be allowed to sell their fish because it
decreased the market price.
Don Doyle of Sebastian, Florida was a hook-and-line fisherman. He believed charter boat fishermen were
making two to three trips a day. Mr. Hartig asked what price Mr. Doyle expected to receive for his fish. Mr.
Doyle responded that he should receive between $2.00 to $2.50 per pound however he had only been
receiving $1.10 per pound Dr. Roberts inquired if most of the fish sold during that period fiom the charter
boats were applied to the counted commercial quota. Mr. Doyle stated, that speaking only for the fishermen
that he personally knew in that area, he did not believe that many of the fish sold were included in the
commercial quota Mr. Green asked Mr. Doyle what type of charter boats would be able to flood the market.
Mr. Doyle responded that any charter boat that had an electric reel on the boat. He had been able to catch
up to 1,000 pounds in an hour with that gear. Mr. Green did not believe the charter boats would keep that
many fish because they were under a recreational limit of fish, not a commercial limit of fish. Mr. Doyle
agreed and then expanded that some charter boats were honest and kept records of everythmg, however, there
were others thaf just because they were labeled as charter boats, would sell fish since they were able to.
Kay Williams of Pascagoula, Mississippi represented Save American's Seafood Industry. Their organization
opposed Amendmart 8. They did not see any analysis of the effect of the Florida net ban or other restrictions
that have beenplaced on M e s in the other Gulf states nor the impact that this would have on the Spanish
mackerel. She quoted various statistics of landings. They felt it was not the time to further restrict the
harvest of Spanish mackerel or enact any new regulations that would remove this fish from the non-voting
consumers. It was stated (page 7) that both stocks of king and Spanish mackerel were no longer considered
:.
over-fished. The fishery for cobia remained stable producing at its maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
There was no evidence of overfishing of dolphins. They did not want separate allowable biological catch
(ABC) ranges for e k e m and western group of king mackerel (page 30). An ABC for the western Gulf zone
based on flawed stock boundaries would not accommodate both the Mexican and U.S. fisheries. It should
have been made easier for the persons affected by the net bans to harvest in the EEZ and not further regulate
them. Further regulations would greatly affect the historical allocation percentage. On king mackerel stock
separation, the early season khing would be deducted from the Gulfstock which would not be fair because
the east coast could not catch their share. They should have no problem with catching their share in a short
period of time. They felt that either the biology or the science was wrong. The quota was raised over the past
several years both recreationally and commercially, yet there still was a healthy stock. To further regulate
this stock would be wrong. They felt this draft had little "merit" and that was why they could not support
any of the alternatives.
Bob Zales, TI of Panama City, Florida was a charter fisherman and the Chairman of the Mackerel Advisory
Panel. His understanding of the king mackerel stock identification was to try to separate the two stocks if
one got in the mixing zone on the southeast coast of Florida. The South Atlantic slightly benefited while the
Gulfof Mexico fishery was mildly devastated, which meant no commercial fisheries with the probability of
no recreational fisheries. He felt more information needed to be gathered, defined and clearly understood
prior to a stock separation taking place.
He supported the preferred alternative for the permit moratorium (2.5.2.1). Originally he supported the
moratorium on charter permits (2.5.3.2). If a moratorium was going to take place, he preferred it to start
"today" because if it was left to be a limitless fishery then in several years there would be a lot of permits.
With an abundance of permits, each individual permit would be of less value. The permits have not been
obtained by many people throughout the charter business in the Gulf of Mexico. Public testimony clearly
confirmed that by the individuals who stated they fished for many years prior to obtaining a permit. He
would like to have a refund for the permits that he had paid for over the last few years. Mr. Minton asked
what Mr. Zales's position on 2.5.3.2: charter boat permit moratorium. Mr. Zales replied that he did not
realistidly see how the Council could keep so many people out of the fishery. Initially he supported 2.7.4.1
the p r e f d alternative, however he had since changed his position and supported the 2.7.4.2 alternative for
no change. For 2.7.6 Council reqmnsibility for regulating migratory groups he supported what John Sanchez
and the Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Incorporated's presentation would state.
He was very concerned over the lack of enforcement on the charter boat permits. If the current regulations
were enforced then there would not be a need for new regulations. Mr. Minton inquired if Mr. Zales was
aware that 2.5.2.4 was the committee's preferred alternative pertaining to status quo, and if Mr. Zales's
concurred with that position. Mr. Zales agreed with the stipulation that needed to be implemented as soon
as possible. Mr. King noted the change in Mr. Zales's statement fiom being in support of the limited access
on the head boat and then favoring limited access when dealing on the commercial vessels. He inquired why
Mr. Zales felt that it was good to limit one without limiting the other. Mr. Zales's understood that the Council
implemented thecharter boat permit to better understand the "universal structure" of the Gulf of Mexico for
better reguhion of the fish. Commercially, approximately 100 percent of the boats in the fishery have the
appropriate permits. The charter vessel moratorium would be more restrictive. Mr. King stated that the
Council had the same situation arise in the red snapper fisheries. The Council went with a moratorium, ikoze
numbers, and made people prove how many fish they caught so the Council could issue an endorsement
system.
Mr. King in&
ifMr. Zales had a preferred date or an opinion as to how long fishermen should be given
to obtain a mackerel or pelagic charter permit. Mr. Zales replied there was a difference between the snapper
situation and the charter situation In the snapper situation the fishermen already had reef fish permits. The
problem was that some of the fishermen were f i s b g in stressed fisheries and then instructed by NMFS to
change fisheries. The fishermen compIied. Consequently, because those fishermen complied and did not
continue to fish in that fishery they were not considered historical fishermen. Mr. Zales did not feel a
moratorium would accomplish anythmg on the charter level. He felt the suggestion made in Panama City
seemed reasonable. In the state of Florida, fishermen would be required to have a salt water fishing license
for charter boats regardless of whether they had a permit if they were a charter boat prior captain to October
16. Then that could be used as a method of proof. Also, they would then fall under that moratorium. He
opposed the selling of fish that were caught recreationally on a charter boat. If Florida allowed it in one area
he would take advantage of that loop-hole as well. He sold more king mackerel on this year's charter than
he had ever sold in his life. It was not fair for the commercial fishermen to have to stop fishing when the
charter boat fishermen go out and do the exact same thing. The commercial boatmen fished under quotas,
regulations, use more equipment on their boat, and have different safety equipment than was required of a
charter boat. The commercial boatmen incur a lot more expense than the charter boatmen. Mr. Williams
inquired if Mr. Zales felt the states should consider requiring federal permits on charter boats. Mr. Zales
agreed and continued that permits would solve a lot of problems. Federal permits would also help to further
regulate the fishery by supplying a more accurate number of users in that fishery. Mr. Lessard inquired if
he correctly understood that Mr. Zales supported alternative 2.4.1. Mr. Zales .confumed under the
assumption that it would be done strictly to gather information, not to make any further restrictions. Mr.
Lessard pointed out that if alternative 2.4.1 did separate management of stocks there would be a reduction
in the ABC of Gulfstock kom 2.4 to 5.5 MP. Mr. Zales stated if alternative 2.4.1 indicated that it would
go into separate plans then he did not support it. He only supported strictly gathering the infomation to
examine the possibilities. Mr. Zales concluded that he supported altemative 2.4.2: status quo, not 2.4.1,
Mike Nugent of Aransas Pass, Texas was a charter businessman and a representative of the Port Aransas
Boatmen, Incorporated (PABI). PABI was founded in the 1930s and held approximately 150 members. In
Texas, charter boat captains and crews could not sell their catch. The charter boats in Texas simply sold the
opportunity for sport-fishemen to fish. They made their living fiom the fishing not from the fish. He
pemmUy felt that the charter boats that did sell their fish should have been considered under the commercial
sector not the recreational sector. His association would be in full support of this. In reference to the
proposals in Amendment 8: alternative 2.5.2: Pennit moratorik. There were 75 vessels in the state of
Texas that had federal permits (which was approximately 10 percent of the population of vessels). Either
the remaining vessels either chose not to apply for the federal permits, or they were not properly informed.
If the charter captains were to be forbidded fiom fishing specified waters, then it is not just the charter
captains kept fiom catching fish but also the paying customer. Their charter captains have been using the
sports-limits, and not keeping the fish; again the paying customer kept what they caught. The Eighth Coast
Guard District had never asked for the pelagic charter permits. If that permit was valuable enough for the
Council to consider a moratorium, surely it would be valuable enough that the law enforcement agencies
should have been checking for them. Therefore, PABI supported alternative 2.5.2.4: Status quo no
momtorim PABI supported 2.8.1.2: no change. They felt the Council's data was accurate, and urged the
Council not to incorpatate their numbers with the SAFMC just to compromise. PABI supported alternative
2.5.5.2: no change.
-
To reiterate their previous stance on dolphin management, PABI believed that in the fisheries today as the
emphasis on species targeted would v q , they understood the concept that fishermen could overfish dolphins
prior to getting regulations enacted. However, they would rather have studies done prior to having size and
bag limits. PABI supported alternative2.6.2.1: no change on the bag limits. Dr. Kemmerer questioned Mr.
.
Nugent if he had a federally permitted charter boat. Mr. Nugent replied that he did have a permit that was
issued in Novernk. Dr. Kemrnerer inquired if people were unaware of the requirement. Mr. Nugent stated
that he could not speak for everyone, however it was his belief that people were simply.just unaware.
Mr. Osburn notedthat the state of Texas had a fishing guide license for those fishing in state waters (which
required a $75.00 permit). That was more than the cost of a charter permit. He asked if the state fishing
guide was followed with high compliance. Mr. Nugent believed that there was a high percentage of people
in compliance. He reiterated that when the Department of Parks and Wildlife checked for permits, they only
checked for state permits. Mr. Osburn asked how often Mr. Nugent's boat had been boarded by the Coast
Guard and did not ask for permits. Mr. Nugent responded that over the last five years he was boarded
approximately two to three times per season, of which he could furnish at least ten boarding passes with
names,groups, etc. Mr. King inquired if the boardings were done in state waters. Mr. Nugent recalled the
majority of the boarclingswere done in state waters. Mr. King suggested that if the boats were boarded in
the state waters then presumably the Coast Guard would not have needed to ask for the pelagic pennit
because it would not have been necessary. LCDR Johnson volunteered that the Coast Guard recently
investigated that very issue. It did appear that, for whatever the reason, the permits were not being checked
for as they should have been. The reasons included, boarding in state waters, other operational priorities,
or in some cases there was ignorance of the boarding officer which would be addressed in the training center.
He could not assure the Council as to whether the majority of the boats have the required permits. Mr.
Nugent reiterated that the Coast Guard was a good group of people, and he felt that it was just one of the
subjects that did not come up.
Mr. Hartig inquired if king mackerel made up a good percentage of Mr. Nugent's business. Mr, Nugent
strongly agreed. Mr. Hartig further inquired if he continued to fish and release once the bag l i i t s were
obtained Mr. Nugent responded negatively and then added that he did not know of anyone who did because
it was difficult to release the fish without harm to the fish or the fishermen. They would just start to fish for
other species, which was another reason they were fishing in federal waters more regularly. As the number
of limits increased the boats moved farther out to sea to obtain more varieties of fish. Mr. Minton asked if
the Texas charter boat fishermen sold fish. He was under the impression they were able to sell the bag limit
in Texas. Mr. Osburn reported that "no sale" of recreational fish was allowed. They would have to have a
commercial finfish license and 50 percent of their income would have to come from commercial fishing. This
regulation had been in place for decades. Mr. Minton questioned how that worked in relation to red snapper.
Mr. Osburn informed it was the same policy; they would have to have a commercial license and the fish were
caught in state waters.
Ed Schroeder of Galveston, .Texas was with the Gulf Coast Party Boats and Charter Boats Association.
Under alternative 2.5.2: permit moratorium, he supported 2.5.2.1: preferred altemative. In 1987 the charter
permit was put in place and allowed higher recreational bag limits. This had been used as a potential limited
entty proThis was to benefit the fisheries through limited entry. In reference to the 75 boats listed
with pennitsin Texas, he believed that in 1995 there were only 5 1 charter permits throughout the entire state
of Texas, The decline was due to the fact that the bag limit had changed of which created no benefit to
having tbe pcits. There had been zero enforcement on this issue. He did not feel that the mackerel permit
issue should have been considered. There was no longer a differentialbag limit, which was the original intent
of the permit. It had been difficult for all of the fishermen to stay informed of all of the regulations, as well
as when they went into effect. He did not feel that he was properly informed. Dr. Roberts inquired if Mr
Schroeder received the newsletter that the Council regularly sent out. Mr. Schroeder replied that he did
receive the newsletter, however, he did not recall anything as to when the reef fish charter permits would go
into effect. He was informed by the permit office that it went into effect on April 1. He requested the
Council to concur. Mr. Swingle stated the permit rule was published in January under Amendment 11, with
a built-in delayed time period. April seemed correct. Dr. Kemmerer asked Mr. Schroeder if he received the
News Bulletin that NMFS distributed. Mr. Schroeder replied that he was not aware of the News Bulletin.
Tom Murray of Tampa, Florida represented MCCF. He agreed with Mr. Zales that more information needed
to be obtained prior to making decisions on stock identification boundaries. MCCF supported the emergency
restriction to redefine the o overfishing fishing definition of coastal pelagics in the Gulf of Mexico from 30
to 20 percent SPR The concern they had with the other approaches to optimum yield (OY) was that there
were not sufGcient supporting analysis. The OY level of 40 percent SPR was arbitrary. The definition of
OY in the Magnuson Act was: "the maximum sustainableyield as modified by any relevant economic, social
or ecological factors." The Gulf of Mexico king mackerel stocks had nearly doubled in the SPR since the
regulations of the early 1980s. The SPR was estimated to be approximately 13 percent, while presently it
would be estimated at about 25 percent. These changes were due to the regulations. Over the period of time
to have recovered the fishing stocks, the TAC exceeded the ABC in eight of the ten years. MCCF believed,
from the industry standpoint, that the regulations were overly cautious with the stock, however, they
understood the need for risk aversion in that fishery. The Council had done a nice job on the recovery. The
7.8 MP TAC was very conservative, giving a 40 percent probability of restoring the stock. While looking
at the Stdck Assessment Panel report it indicated that a risk adverse position for the Council would be setting
a TAC which would give approximately 50 percent or lower probability of reaching the overfished level. The
Council was more risk adverse than the 50 percent that the Stock Assessment Panel recommended, or 10 MP
upper range of ABC for the Gulf stock. Most fish stocks modeled the equilibrium SPR which did not raise
at a linear rate with curtailments and fishing effort. There was an increase in cost associated with the
Council's regulations as one went beyond the threshold. There would be very significant economic c.osts that
were not assessed for that alternative recommendation. The numbers in correspondence indicated that the
Council was looking for a reduction in TAC to reach 40 percent or 3- to 5- MP. This was needless and
arbitrary. When reviewing the OY definitions, it should be made certain that every percent gain of the SPR
does not cost in the associated work in terms of recreational and commercial fishers. The Stock Assessment
Panel report indicated that each additional 225,000 pounds of king mackerel added to the allowable catch
increased the risk of overfishing by 1percent. There was plenty of room to move. Mr. Hartig observed that
Mr. Murray did not want to use the 40 percent SPR for OY and inquired if there was a different percentage
figure that Mr. Murray did want to recommend to manage the fishery. He fiuther inquired if he favored the
use of the overfishing definition at 20 percent SPR arriving at ABCs. Mr. Murray felt the current OY
definition was as good as it could possibly get. The overfrshing threshold of 20 percent would be the best
availablefor scientific data. Dr. Kernmerer advised that the SPR at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for
king mackerel was approximately 35 percent not 20 percent, 20 percent was the definition of over-fishing
which had nothing to do with MSY; OY equaled MSY which was a SPR of approximately 35 percent. Mr.
Murray stated that his position was that the MSY should be adjusted to determine OY based on economic,
social and ecological factors. Dr. Kemmerer reviewed the Stock Assessment Panel report reporting that he
believed the Council was not far below the fishing percent risk level; rather, considerably higher. Mr. Murray
requested that the Council review page 10, figure 1 of the report. Dr. Kemmerer responded that he would
like to thoroughly review those data prior to replying.
John Sanchez of Marathon, Florida represented Monroe County Commercial Fisherman, Incorporated
(MCCF). He provided detailed comments in A Report and Review ofDraft Amendment 8 (Attachment 1)
for Council review. His public testimony focused on alternative 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits for Atlantic
king mackerel; and he related MCCF's concerns. They strongly opposed 2.6.4.2.1: preferred alternative of
the S A M . SAFMC's proposed to l i t Monroe County king mackerel commercial harvested on Atlantic
migratory group king mackerel to a 50- and now a 125-fish trip limit fkom April 1 through October 3 1 fkom
,.
Collier/Monroe to BrevardNolusia counties boundaries were not supported by a scientifically justifiable
argument, and was ill designed for protection of spawning fish and was inconsistent with several of the
National Standards in the Magnuson Act. To impose further restrictions on a fishery that was above the
Council's receatly stated OY target of 40 percent SPR was inconsistent with National Standards no. 1 which
strived to maintain optimum yield for everyone. The rationale that was put forth in support of this proposal
was based on inaccurate anecdotal information, not the best available data. Consequently, this was
inconsistent with Nation Standard no. 2. This proposal would allow larger trip limits of 3,500 pounds in
known spawning areas while imposing more restrictive measures of 125 fish on the southern portion of the
Atlantic migratory group king mackerel's range which was not an important spawning area. According to
a study that regarded the description and distribution of larvae and early juvenile king mackerel by Michael
B. Wollam, "Distribution and seasonality of larvae and juveniles indicate that these mackerel spawn in the
summer while in the northern portions of their ranges." The study went on to state, "The paucity of mackerel
larvae in collections fiom the southern part of their range indicates that this was not an important spawning
area" Similarly, a study that regarded larval king mackerel off the southeast coast of the United States by
Mark R Collins and Bruce W. Stender stated that, "an apparent concentration of the larvae between 32- and
33- degrees North suggests an upwelling associated with the Charleston Bump was an important spawning
and or nursery area." The study went on to state that, "Evidence fiom the present study suggests that the
region between 32 and 33 degrees North, seaward of the inner-shelf area, was either a preferred spawning
location of that larvae spawned elsewhere are concentrated in the area by currents. However, it was likely
that the former explanation was at least partially responsible for the concentration since small larvae (less
than or equal to 4 mrn) were significantly more abundant in this area than in the rest of the South Atlantic
Bight in summer." In addition, a species profile prepared by Mark Godcharles regarding the life history and
environmental requirements of king and Spanish mackerel in South Atlantic Florida states, "The paucity of
larvae in Southeast Florida, indicates minimal spawning in these waters." Furthennore, a 1992 study by
Elizabeth B. Noble that regarded the migration, age, growth and reproductive biology of king mackerel in
North Carolina states, "results showed that king mackerel have a prolonged spawning season off North
Carolina that peaks June through August." Proposing a 50- to 125- fish daily trip limit south of
BrevardNolusia while allowing those north of BrevarcWolusia 3,500 pounds contradicts National Standards
no. 3 which stated that stocks should be managed as a unit throughout their range. If the SAFMC believed
that the Atlantic group of king mackerel was in jeopardy then commercial fishing mortality should have been
reduced uniformly throughout the Atlantic group's migratory range. This proposal was not "fair and
equitable to all fishermen" and was consequently inconsistent with National Standard no. 4. They firmy
believed that all users should bear the burden of resource conservation not just those south of
BrevarcWolusia. Table 11 appearing on page 94 indicated that the proposed 50 fish trip limit would have
impacted 71 percent of Monroe County's post-April production during the 1994195 seasons, and would at
the present proposal of 125 fish, reduce production by 62.1 percent. They strongly opposed alternative
2.6.4.2.1 as it was inconsistent with several of the National Standards and felt this proposal had never been
adequately reviewed by the SSC (based on the information provided in Tab C, No. 7a and Tab C No. 7b).
In refto the data that some spawning occurred in areas to the south, Mr. Hartig personally agreed that
somemay have spawning in the south. The area off of Jupiter, Florida was of particular concern. There were
appro4 millionpeople who lived in three counties adjacent to that area which did cause concern to
the SAFMC. They would like to rebuild that group to the higher level that had been seen in the past. The
information that has been received fiom the advisory panel, fishermen and observations, all indicated this
species had steddy been declining. The catch had been down and the spawning group that d v e d was less
than 20 percent of what it use to be. The goal had been to obtain a spawning season reduction, especially
off of Jupiter. The limit of 3,500 pounds was derived fiom the North Carolina landing limit for a
combination of both Spanish and king mackerel. It was the SAFMC's intent to lower other established limits
in other areas so that all fishermen take part in the spawning conservation. The majority of the fish that were
caught in the area that in the first two weeks in April were late returning king mackerel; the fishermen were
able to take a "double-dip" in that Gulf quota which slowed down the recovery of the stock as well as the
over-nms. The fishermen have been able to catch large numbers of fish at a time, so that was why the 125
fkh limit was approved even though it did impact that Gulf stock in an adverse manner over that time frame.
The measures that had been taken were for the health and preservation of the that group of fish.
Mr. Sanchez related that MCCF was waiting for the stock assessment.(due April) to review the data prior
to continning if the quota given was correct. The best science indicated the SPR was up 50 percent for the
Atlantic stock yet the quota was decreased despite the fact that by definition it was a healthy fishery. If
Jupiter had spawning fish, then they agreed that the quota should be lowered in that area; however MCCF
was concerned with the areas that did not have spawning fish and were still impacted by trip limits and
&dive measures. In viewing two healthy fisheries, the Spanish mackerel quota limit was raised while the
king quota limit lowered, of which revealed inconsistenciesin management practices. The Council's attention
was r e f 4 to a transparencylchart (included in Attachment 1). They felt that the majority, if not all, of the
studies conducted on the spawnbig areas were primarily for northern regions. Mr. Williams advised that
Karen Burns of the University of South Florida completed a thesis on the southern regions in question.
Ron Meyers of Little Torch, Florida was a commercial fisherman as well as Vice President of the Monroe
County Fishermen's Association. He urged the Council to closely monitor the landings of the major user
groups, as well as implement new regulations that would curtail the increasing fishing pressures. The market
value price was deeply felt since there since Florida did not have a restricted species endorsement on these
fish He supported alternative 2.1.2: no change. He did not support alternative 2.2.1.1: preferred alternative
for allowable gear. He supported alternative 2.2.1.2: preferred alternative for experimental gear. He did not
support alternative 2.2.1.3: p r e f d alternative for non-conforming gear. He supported alternative 2.2.1.4:
alternative for no change. Under alternative 2.2.2: specification of Gulf king mackerel gear, he supported
preferred alternative 2.2.2.1: allowable gear, however he would like for it to allow spear fishing to be
included Under alternative 2.4: king mackerel stock identification, he strongly urged the Council to evaluate
impacts of establishingpermanent jurisdictional boundaries on 2.4.1: preferred alternative for analysis on
coastal pelagic. He felt the 5.5 MP would be devastating to the fishery. He supported 2.4.2: preferred
alternative for no change. Under alternative 2.5.2: permit moratorium, he supported 2.5.2.1: preferred
alternativefor vessel endorsement. Under alternative 2.5.3: transferability of permits during the moratorium,
he supported 2.5.3.2: preferred alternative for transfer of vessel permit; he preferred this to be automatic.
Under alternative 2.5.4: quah@ng income for pennits, he supported 2.5.4.3: preferred alternative qualifying
commercialvessel permit. Dr. Kemrnerer inquired if Mr. Meyers had any objection between earned income
and gross income. Mr. Meyers preferred for that to be worded for 50 percent of gross income, rather than
25 percent of earned income.
Under alternative 2.6.1: cobia management area, he supported 2.6.1.1: preferred alternative for.extended
management, Under altmative 2.6.2: cobia bag and trip limit, he supported 2.6.2.2: altemative for revised
bag or trip limits, option 1: specifL pounds per trip per day (select from a range of 10 to 500 pounds per
day), and optian2: spec@ a number of fish per day (select from a range of 1 to 20 fish per day). He favored
an allowance of 20 &h per day. Under alternative 2.6.3: dolphin management, he did not support 2.6.3.1:
altemative for considered management of dolphin. He supported 2.6.3.2: alternative for no action. Under
alternative 2.6.4: king mackereI management, and 2.6.4.1: cut off or damaged fish, he supported 2.6.4.1.1:
p r e f d altemative to allow retention. Under alternative 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits for Atlantic king
mackerel, he strongly opposed 2.6.4.2.1: preferred alternative to establish (specified) commercial daily
possession and landing limits. He felt there should have been changes made in the limits and starting dates
to protect the spawning fish Mr. Williams requested clarification on the income qualifier for charter boats.
Mr. Meyers statedihathe did not want the charter boats' poundage to be reflected on the commercial quota,
while at the same time he felt the charter boat industry should be given a "CH" endorsement on their
Saltwater Pducts License (SPL) license to allow the charter boats their own quota. He felt that ignorance
of the law should not be excusable for not having a permit. Dr. Roberts pointed out that on 2.5.4.3:
p r e f d alternative qual@ng commercial vessel permit stated "25 percent of his gross income or $5,00OU,
and i n q d of Mr. Meyers ifhis testimony was just in relationship to the gross income. Mr. Meyers stated
that he would have preferred that it read "50 percent of his gross income or $5,000."
onsolidation of Regulations
FEDERAL SPINY LOBSTER AND STONE CRAB MANAGEMENT PLANS
Dr. Kemmerer stated that the details of the Spiny Lobster and Stone Crab Management Plans were presented
in Tab K, No. 2. The President-felt that it was a very high priority for his administration to reform the
regulatory system to reduce the size and complexity of rules. This has been a high priority of the Department
of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NMFS. There were
two major activities that took place within that context. First, was the consolidation of regulations. That
would make the rules into one stable document for the three Councils, and would reduce the length of the
regulations which would ultimately improve the understandability. All the regulations would be condensed
in a single document for ease of reference. The other option, was the agency had reviewed all the FMPs and
had concluded that there were approximately six FMPs that could be withdrawn while clear transferring the
management responsibility to state agencies. The two southeast FMPs that were being considered for
removal were those for spiny lobster and the stone crab fisheries. In order to implement this, the Secretary
would draft proposed rules which would tentatively be published in the two weeks that followed, so that the
public would have opportunity to comment.
Mr. Lessard stated that landing records through Florida trip tickets indicated where they were located only
10percent of the fish were caught. Of that 10 percent there was a 50150 split between EEZ and state waters.
The stone crab management plan was the first management plan developed by the Council. The problems
that first brought about the formation of the stone crab management plan were still present. The inability
of the state of Florida to regulate fishing in the EEZ, and the inability to stop and regulate a vessel registered
in another state in the stone crab fishery fiom engaging in the EEZ (and circumventing Florida laws) were
reasons that he fhnly believed that any fishery that was a federal fishery should be managed by a FMP. He
would like to see Council take action to support the stone crab fishery and make sure that fishery would not
be abandoned by NMFS.
Mr. Collins inquired if the stone crab plan was given primarily to the state of Florida for regulatiig and the
stone crab fisbery exkmded in Alabama and Mississippi, would that mean that Florida has jurisdiction in the
EEZ over Alabama or Mississippi. Dr. Kemmerer replied that if an issue such as that arose, then it would
need to be addressed on a case by case basis. He continued that all the people participating in the stone crab
fishery to his knowledge were Florida residents. Mr. King questioned if Florida regulated the stone crab
fishery could Florida decide to make it a requirement that one had to be a resident of Florida to participate
in that fishery. If so, then how could the Council take the position to keep the stone crab plan from being
taken h m the Council'sj d c t i o n Mr. King inquired as to the procedures the Council would need to take
to oppose that act by the Secretary. Dr. Kemmerer replied that the Council would take a position and then
make the Secretary aware of that position. Mr King w e d that Council opposed Secretarial action to
eliminate the stone crab FMP.
,
Dr. Kemmerer stated that neither Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, or Mississippi have had a problem in only
allowing only their -stateresidents fish in their waters. Mr. King stated that during his lifetime he personally
had seen such examples happen in various states. He continued that many fishermen do not have confidence
in state legislatures and state fisheries management commissions. The Council would allow input from the
various states as well as Congress. He sincerely believed that it would be in the best interest of the people
to keep as many plans as possible in the hands of the Council. Otherwise the conclusion would be isolating
state fisheries in federal waters; and he does not believe that was the intent of the Magnuson Act. Motion
&by
vote of 11to 1,with Mr. Williams, Mr. Green and Dr. Kemmerer abstaining, that Council
opposed Secretarial action to eliminate the stone crab FMP.
Mr. Minton i
n
w of Dr. Kemmerer with the logic of removing those plans because it was a state fishery,
that also include Spanish mackerel since Spanish mackerel was a fishery active primarily executed in state
waters. Dr. Kemmerer replied that if the fishery was primarily in state waters then certainly it would be
looked at as a state fishery. Mr. Minton clarified that if the fishery was executed primarily in state waters
even though it would possibly involve different states then that fishery could be taken over by another
management organization that handled primarily state waters aspects. Dr. Kemmerer agreed.
Dr. Roberts reiterated that by prior agreement the public hearing was suspended until the Council could deal
with two agenda items.that had to be handled that afternoon. He then turned the floor to LCDR Johnson.
LCDR Johnson thanked the chairman and then re-introduced CDR Raines.
CDR Raines explained that he was the new Chief of the Coast Guard Law Enforcement for the Gulf of
Mexico.The Coast Guard was primarily concerned with drug and alien issues, alien smuggling and illegal
fisheries. Shortly a& his arrival his attention was focused on the border and on the various issues that were
taking place there. He asked his intelligence staff to put together an analysis of what was happening at the
border in the Gulfwith reference to Mexican shark boats. He emphasized that the statistics were intelligence
estimates, and they were not (given by) statisticians or biologists. They used various natural resources and
national assets. While focusing on the drug problem they came across some very important information on
fishery issues. He gave various statistics and descriptions on shark boats. It was explained that part of the
problem was that the Coast Guard were physically unable to catch the shark boats. A problem existed due
to a large fishery issue with hundreds of boats and that it was very easy to use the "shot gun" approach under
the cover of fishing to bring in the drugs. Typically 10 to 20 boats would go to the lead under the cover of
fishing, if there was not a Coast Guard presence found then another boat that was used for smuggling would
soon follow and move the drugs into the beach. The estimates indicated there was 1 ton of cocaine and
marijuana imported in per week; and 9,000 kilos of marijuana imported per month. There have been
documented cases where the shark boats have attempted to disable Coast Guard boats. The coast guard was
not going to shoot or use deadly force against fishermenunless the fishermen themselves were shooting. The
most the Coast Guard can do at that point was to get out of the way. This was obviously a problem. Alien
smuggbg was a problem processed in the same manner as drugs.
Pnmady the Mexican shark boats were targeting red snapper and shark. For sharks, the fishermen primarily
took the h s and discardthe carcasses. Shark boats had no qualm about taking every species that landed in
the nets. The only thing that they were concerned about not landing in Mexica were the sea turtles, so they
ate the sea turtles at sea and then discarded the carcasses. Typically, the Mexican shark boats crossed the
border under the cover of night, then crossed back over the border into Mexican waters just before sunlight.
If they had not already filled up their boats then they would sleep during the day and once again cross the
border into U. S. waters under the cover of night and fished until the boat was full. Mexican shark boats have
also been known to work as "pirates," for example, taking what they could from a shrimp boat while the crew
was sleeping. They conservatively estimated that each shark boat when worlung collected 200 pounds per
day, six days active per month; or 1.4 MP of red snapper per year to be landed in Mexico. Essentially, there
was an international fishery in the U. S. EEZ that was landing more than the local state. In conclusion, the
Coast Guardwas looking for better ways of enforcement. Unfortunately, in the mean-time the shark boats
have faster boats, they operated at night and were extremely difficult to detect, so the Coast Guard had been
unsuccessful catching them. These boats were fishing in U. S. waters because they have depleted the
Mexican fishery.
Mr. Collins stated that at one time these boats were using drift nets, and it had been a problem for years.
People around that area, especially red snapper fishermen, have had concerns as to why they have fishing
restrictions when these shark boats were coming into U. S. waters and catching all that they desired to. Mr.
Collins encouraged that he sincerely hoped that the Coast Guard could find ways to catch and enforce laws
on these boats operating illegally.
Mr. Osburn inquired as to what would be the estimated percentage of time that these illegal boats actually
fished in state waters. CDR Raines stated that the Coast Guard had better success in detecting these boats
in state waters rather than in federal waters. He gave an educated approximation that a good amount of the
illegal fishing was done in state waters. Whether these actions occurred in state or federal waters if it was
a Mexican incursion it 'stdl fell under federal jurisdiction. Mr. Osburn clarified that he was wondering if there
was any effort for cooperation in uniting with the Texas Game and Wildlife. CDR Raines replied that was
an area worth exploring. He continued that he was initially informed that the illegal fishing was not a big
problem due to it was a small number of boats taking small catches, and it was really a harassment issue.
He now believed it was a more serious problem than once thought.
Mr. King noted that CDR Raines referred to these boats as shark boats, yet the he gave the landings figure
of red snapper as if red snapper were a bycatch. He asked if CDR Raines had any figures estimating the
catch of sharks. CDRRaines stated that he did have figures, however, they were not readily accessible. He
continued that the problem with shark estimates, was that they are almost completely f m i n g only. These
men were out on the water for several days which made it difficult to land a shark that was marketable. These
Mexican shark boats were the biggest challenges in that particular area. They have acquired the name of
"shark boat" because of their method of fishing. It referred to the fishermen and not the product that they
were catching, They kept practicallyevery species that they caught. The term "fast foreign fishing vessel"
may more accurately reflect the boats that they have been discussing. Mr. King clarified that the reason he
was inquiring about the sharks was he had been hoping there would be data that could be attained to address
the current shark controversy. He requested if there were numbers available that they be presented to
Council. CDR Raines responded that they would be very happy to provide those figures. He reiterated that
the coast guard pnmanly looked at these boats from a drug standpoint. However, they were also concerned
with the fact that a lot of these boats landed undersized fish.
Mr. Williams mqwedifthey have asked the assistanceof the Mexican government. CDR Raines stated that
they wae working with the Mexican government, however they had not been taking a lot of action on this
issue. It was also a very slow process. When the Mexican Navy reached out on the border, essentially the
fishery shut down. The shark boats, for the period that the law enforcement was present, stopped fishing
until that enforcement went back to the pier. Then the shark boats went right back out.
Mr. Wallin queried ifthe Coast Guard could tell the difference between a drug boat and a shark boat. CDR
Raines replied no. Mr. Wallin in@
if the Coast Guard could shoot a drug boat. CDR Raines replied yes,
however if it turned out that it was mistaken identity, then there would be a problem. Mr. Wallin further
inquired as to whom created the laws of the Coast Guard. CDR Raines states that there were a lot of issues
regarding the use of force. They do not want to shoot at the Mexican shark boats because they did not want
the Mexicans shooting at American (shrimp) boats. He concluded that they would to keep the Council
informed of all the issues involved.
Public
e
-
Rick Ballard of Little Torch Key, Florida was a commercial fisherman, who was also Vice President of
MCCF. He did not have a problem with charter fishermen keeping a tally sheet of the species that they
caught, however, he felt it should stop at the boat and not in someone's cooler or truck. He felt that his
responsibility should stop once he sold his fish, not ticketed if the permitted dealer he sold to was stopped
for somehow having too many fish. Under 2.5.2.1: preferred alternative on permit moratorium, he felt the
king mackerel fishery needed controlled access for new participants in the fishery. He believed the quota
would be reached in the near future. Under 2.5.3: transferability of permits during the moratorium, there
should be some type of vehicle to transfer permits within the industry. He felt that a person should be
qualified to sell the permit for one year; and he should qualify for any future years within that one year.
Under 2.5.4.3: preferred alternative to'qualify commercial vessel permits, he would like to see "50 percent
of gross income or $5,000 derived from sale of catch." Under 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits for Atlantic
king mackerel. He commented that several of these fisheries were opening up during peak spawning months.
He did not understand how they could reach the SPR when they were tampering with the fish at the most
vulnerable stages. He felt the Council should look at the fishery management rather than the political
pressures of these issues. Hampering a spawning stock was not beneficial to anyone. He would like to see
the opening dates of seasons to be sensitive to the spawning seasons.
Peter Gladding of Key West,Florida was a fisherman. He felt the Council should realize that in the state of
Florida charter fishermen have traditionally sold their fish. He proposed to be able to sell fish in the state
of Florida fishermen should have a "CH" put on the charter boat to record every fish that they sell. Charter
boats should be given their own quota, and be just as responsible as the other fishermen. When the season
was closed for commercial iishennen the charter boats still went out and fished recreationally, yet what they
caught during that time would be counted against the following year's quota as a commercial over-run. He
was against the charter boats selling their fish. It was unfair that the commercial fishermen have to slow
down fishing toward the end of the season when the charter boats have a vast fishery iri the Gulf. These
regulations should be consistent with the snappers, groupers and the rest of the regulations in the South
Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Williams questioned what would happen if the charter boats reached
their quota under a charter boat quota. Mr. Gladding replied that they would then do what everyone else in
the fishery did stop iishing. Everyone else was regulated. If the "CH" was on the license to begin with then
everyone would know what fish user groups were targeting these fish, and know what charter boats
traditionally caught.
Jerry Saosom of Melbourne, Florida was the Executive Director of the Organized Fishermen of Florida
(OFF), of which he represented. Their position was as follows: Under 2.2.1: specification of gear in the
South Atlimtk They supported2.2.1.4: alternative for no change. The landings on Spanish mackerel over
the last year had been practically nonexistent. Because of the prohibition of gill nets in the state waters they
did not believe there was a need for the Council to further slow down the fishej. Under 2.2.2: specification
of Gulf king mackerel gear, they supported 2.2.2.1: preferred alternative for allowable gear. Under 2.3:
transfer of Spanish mackerel at sea, they supported 2.3.1: preferred alternative to transfer permits. Under
2.4: king mackerel stock identification, they supported 2.4.2: alternative for no change. Under 2.5: fishing
pennit regulation, they supported 2.5.1.1: preferred alternative to require pennit and record keeping.
Further, they shared in Mr. Ballard's concern that once fish left the fisherman's possession clearly that
fisherman had no imntrol as to what was done under his name or was identified with his fish. Under 2.5.2:
pennit moratorium, they supported 2.5.2.1: preferred alternative commercial vessel permit, although the
p r e f w would be to establish a separate endorsement for king mackerel to establish a control date. They
were a p p d i v e about a five year moratorium, they would prefer that to be for a lesser time frame. Under
2.5.4: qualifying income for permits, they supported 2.5.4.3: preferred alternative for qualifying commercial
vessel permif although they would prefer the "25 percent of his gross income or $5,000"to be phrased "50
percent of his gross income or $10,000"because they felt it was very important with the reduction of catches,
pennits and quotas, the allocation be that if it was set aside for commercial fishermen that it only be for
commercial fishermen. Under 2.5.5: consistency of regulations, they supported 2.5.5.2: alternative for no
change. A fisherman who happened to have a federal permit should not be at a disadvantage for fishing in
state waters; he should be allowed to fish in both federal and state waters. Under 2.6: species specific
regulation and 2.6.1: cobia management area, they supported 2.6.1.1: preferred alternative to extend
management area for cobia. Under 2.6.2: cobia bag and trip limit, they supported 2.6.2.2: alternative to
revise bag or trip limits for commercial cobia fishermen, Option 1 (specify pounds per trip per day) and
Option 2 (specifjr a number of fish per day). Under 2.6.3: dolphin management, they supported 2.6.3.1:
alternative to consider management of dolphin. OFF felt the best thing to do was to follow Florida's example
with a commercial size limit. Under 2.6.4: king mackerel management and 2.6.4.1: cut off or damaged fish,
they supported 2.6.4.1.1:preferred alternative to allow retention. Under 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits for
Atlantic king mackerel. they felt that there should be more rational for the proposed trip limits, i.e.
consistency to spawning areas. Under 2.7: seasonal framework adjustment and 2.7.1: alternative to separate
ABC for Gulfgroup zones, they supported 2.7.1.2: alternative for status quo. Under 2.7.2: request
additional information fiom the stock assessment panel, they supported 2.7.2.2: alternative for no, change.
2.7.3: definition of overfishing. They supported 2.7.3.1: preferred alternative for specified revisions to
FMP.
Mr. Lessard requested Mr. Sansom's opinion of the letters (Tab K, No. 2) in reference to eliminating the
spiny lobster and stone crab FMP.Mr. Samson replied that he was the original Chairman of the Stone Crab
Advisoq~Panel, later a member of the SAFMC, and later still as Chairman of the Spiny Lobster Management
Committee, and had worked very hard on having both plans implemented. Both plans were implemented
over the adverse position of NMFS fiom the beginning. There was not any legal justification prior to those
plans in the state of Florida, other than the Magnuson Act, to implement the regulations that were needed to
keep the stone crab and spiny lobster fishermen from inflecting harm or injury upon each other, which still
had potential. The Magnuson Act and the Council were the only bodies that had the authority to implement
the kind of regulations necessary to keep those fishermen from doing very serious harm to each other. The
issues that were there to necessitate these two plans were still there; and the plans were relatively inexpensive
to maintain.
Mr. Wallin in@
ifMr. Sansom knew the commercial size limit of dolphin. Mr. Sansom believed it was
20 inches, which was very compatible.
Eddy Owl of Key West, Florida was a commercial fisherman. He did not believe that the dolphin need
management at this point in time. Science was showing that it was a strong fishery that grows fast.
Concerningcobia, he knew of fishermen who made multi-day trip limits; he personally went out for several
days at a time. He would like to see a 500 pound trip limit put on cobia. For kingfish, he did not believe
there were gear conflicts in the lower Keys. The stocks had been improving, so there was no need for
revisions. The biggest problem was with the charter boats, however he felt it could be dealt with fairly easily.
If the charter boats were given their own quota then it would not be difficult to regulate. He suggested the
charter boats could be given 2 percent of the quota (approximately 77,000 pounds) and once they obtained
that quota, close that 'sector. When the federal quota was 1 1 1 they could still have their recreational bag limit.
In reference to alternative 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits, he felt this was discriminatory and biased. The
areas that have spawning stocks were fished while other areas were being penalized. .
Elmer Stokes of Sebastian, Florida was a commercial fisherman. He hoped that the Sebastian area would
be up to 75 fish. He was against anyone who would try to get in the commercial fishery who was not a
commercial fisherman. In reference to Mr. Owl's comment that he would like to see the' charter boats have
2 percent, Mr. Stokes clarified that he understood that two percent to be 77 pounds per day landing;
Dan Kane of Roseland, Florida, he thanked the Council for extending the quota in Key West the previous
year. His boat had broken down when he was in Key West and could not fish for approximately two and one
halfmonths. He owed apprgximately $9,000 and was unaware of how he was going to pay it. Fortunately,
he was allowed to fish for an extended 2 weeks to 16 days. This allowed him to pay his debt and take his
boat home. It was greatly appreciated. He wanted to fish at 50 fish per day, which the Council did better
than that with 125 fish per day. The 125 fish a day worked well until some people fished unlimited. He still
felt the 125 fish per day was a good number for the west coast. For the east coast he felt that it should be
adjusted to 75 fish per day, with the 25 fish per day reserved for the last quarter. He did not believe that the
kingfish trip limits were fairly divided up. In reference to charter boats selling their fish. These fish were
caught, and put on @lay on bragging boards, then at the end of the day sold. He personally would not want
to eat a fish that has been sitting out in the sun for two hours and did not think that was right. The sport
&hermen were allowed 68 percent of the quota. He felt the sport fishermen should be allowed 25 percent
of the commrcial quota leaving commercial fishermen with 75 percent quota. He then thanked the Council
again for allowing him to continue to fish because it really helped him out.
Bobby Pillar of Summerland Key,Florida, he supported Mr. Meyers and the others on 2.5.4.3: preferred
alternative for commercial vessel permit with the wordage being changed from "25 percent" to "50 percent"
income requirement. This will help to determine who were the true commercial fishermen. He and his
brother had been fishing all of their lives. His brother was in the process of building a boat. The pennit
office would not give his brother a permit for the boat until it was documented. They could not get the boat
documented until the boat was ready to go in the water. The boat was approximately one month or two
months from being completed. The cut-off date was October 1995. He had all of his state permits, his
crawfish endorsement, his crab endorsement, and everyhng else. The permits would only be issued to boats
not to people. There should be some type of window for people to get in the fishery. He did not believe it
was fair to tell someone that they could not get a pennit because they were working for someone else, when
they personally had been working in the fishery for years. He supported the charter boats having their own
quota Under 2.6.4.2, he felt the commercial trip limit quotas given were ridiculous. On page 25, paragraph
2 of the Draft Arizendment 8/mackerel, the quoted the average size as 10.11 pounds per fish. -Ifwas not
realistic for a 40-foot boat run 80 miles for 50 fish totaling 500 pounds. A fisherman would burn 250
gallons of fuel, use $100 of ice, with 2 to 3 men per crew. With the net ban in affect, a lot of those people
are now turniug to catching kingfish. He felt it was the Council's job to keep the people who were
traditionaUycatchingthe
fishing where the fish were traditionally caught. If the Council wanted to keep
the 125fish for Atlantic stock in April he felt the fishermen should be given a 250 fish bag limit for a couple
of days. He supported the same on the cobia as the other fishermen had noted, of 20 fish or 500 pounds.
He would like to see the charter boats have the "CH" on their license. ~e agreed with Mr. Zales that a lot
of these other boats that were competing in the fishery, should be made to buy all of the additional
equipment.
,
Bdly N i of Summerland Key, Florida was a commercial fisherman. He was totally against everything in
Draft Amedment.8. The document only contained information that was against commercial fishermen and
nothing that was against recreational fishermen. He then read a quote from an article *at he brought (title
undisclosed)published by the University of Florida, "20.3 million residents by the year 2020. An increase
of 43 percent over 1995. In the past 25 years from 6.8 million to 1970 of 14 million." Florida was the
fastest growing state in the nation today, and little was being done to control the recreational fishing. To go
from 3,500 pounds to 125 fish, will put the fishermen out of business. Dr. Kemmerer asked what was the
average weight of the fish that Mr. Niles caught. Mr. Niles replied that most of the big fish weighed
approximately 4.5 pounds.
Manny Puigof Little Torch Key, Florida spear fished for pelagic. He felt spear fishermen would not impact
the fishery. He would just like to make sure that the spear fishermen were protected to still be able to catch
the same bag limits as the hook-and-line. Mr. King inquired as to Mr. Puig's technique of fishing. Mr. Puig
replied that he &-dives. Mr. Simpson questioned as to how many spear fishermen exist. Mr. Puig stated
that they were recreational fishermen and posed no threat to the fishery and would like to continue to
recreationally spear fish. Mr. Williams inquired how they determine what to target. Mr. Puig responded that
it was not necessarily the size of the fish, it was whether they were there at all to spear. Mr. Williams asked
if the recreational bag limit of two fish was sufficient. Mr. Puig replied that recreationally he agreed with
the s&e numbers that had been stated by the other fishermen. Recreationally, the bag limit of two (king
mackerel) was satisfactory. Mr. G m stated that he had heard of other sport divers who would like to spear
fish, however he believed that most people would not be able to get two per year. Mr. Puig advised that it
was very diff~cultto spear fish king mackerel. Likewise for dolphin and cobia.
Skip Nomood of Marathon, Florida, supported preferred alternative 2.5.4.3: commercial vessel permit for
king mackerel. Prior to the 2 fish limit going into effect (for cobia) for the commercial fishing, he directed
a fishery out of Big Pine Key area of hook-and-line fishermen ranging from 300- to 700- pounds per day for
the later of February through the beginning of April every year. He personally profited by approximately
$7,000 to $12,000 in income. He greatly missed it and would like to have that back. He proposed a 500
pound limit of cobia per day with a two day limit on long range local bay trips, or 20 fish per boat, or two
fish per day per person, whichever was greater. Few, if any, fishermen would go out specifically to fish for
cobia The cobia would help to supplement income. He felt that he could go out in the Gulf now, and allow
every boat to have varying amounts on cobia. That season was the time of year that cobia migrate through
the Keys. He believed cobia was not a stressed fishery and would have liked to continue to fish in that fishery
until their was more data could be obtained that it was a stressed fishery.
Bill Wickers of Key West, Florida represented the Key West Charter Boat Association (KWCBA). It
consisted of over 35 charter boats in the Key West area. They did not feel that alternative 2.5.5: Consistency
of regulations was ethical or legal. He did not understand how the Council could make someone sign an
agreement that would make an action illegal in an area (Florida waters) that was in fact not illegal in that
area Most pcople would call this extorsion. If there was a problem with giving the state rights to regulate
it's ownjudktion, then the state should be approached in a legal manner. In Florida the charter boats were
allowed to sell their matianal catch provided the boats had the proper licenses. This state (Florida) as well
as the Council previously recognized the importance of fish sales to the economic vitality of the charter
fishing mcfustry. In Florida, state law allowed one to use charter income to qualie for the restricted species
in saltwater license. In the federal pennit system the charter income was allowed when qualifjlng for federal
reef fish and shark permits. It would be a major mistake to try to undo all of the state and federal laws that
at the time of the discussion allowed the sale of charter boat caught fish. In Key West, they have always sold
their catch. Most of their clientele flew into the Keys and did not want to take their catch. Those fish
belonged to the customers, however they chose to leave the fish with the charter boats. These were
traditionally "tipsWSo'the
crews. Fish sales made between 20 to 25 percent of a crew's income. It would be
devastating to lose that income. Their association was not adverse to the concept of having a charter boat
kingfkh quota The MCCF supported this idea and was not opposed to the charter boats selling their catch.
They were a fourth user group. They had always sold their catch and they had always been in a grey area
between recreational and commercial. They had to meet every requirement of the law to be considered
commercial with the exception that their clientele were restricted to bag limits. If the customers wanted to
give their bag limits to the charter boats there would not be any harm done. They caught them under a bag
limit and willingly gave them to the charter boats. The charter boats had all of the licenses under the law and
should be able to sell them. When he went to the New Orleans Council meeting the previous year, he
understmi that the Council would bring forth a change in the calendar year. Right now they king fish quota
begins on July 1, which was believed to be a political move. He felt it was not based on any science, rather
it was based purely on politics, and the Council should re-address that issue. It did not make any sense for
the fishery to began when the fish were full of eggs and were ready to spawn. The fishery quota should begin
either December 1 or January 1, and allow the fishermen who had historically caught to continue to be
allowed to catch that fish. By not changing the date, the Council was allowing new entrance into a fishery
that the Council had stated they did not want new entrants in. There would not be a need for the moratorium
ifthe start date was reversed. The reason that the fish prices had been down was not because of the charter
boat tkh The fish prices had been down in the Key West area all year because of imports. In reference to
the proposed commercial trip limits for the Atlantic king mackerel, the proposal did not directly effect the
charter boats because they were under a bag limit. However, he personally felt the verbiage of the proposal
It did not make sense to allow the residents up north to have 3,500 fish and then allow
was dis-ry.
the residents down in the south only 50 fish. Mr. Williams inquired if Mr. Wickers made multiple trips per
day. Mr. Wickers replied that the most trips of any charter boat that he knows of was three hipsper day,
however he felt that was an excessive exception. There were some many laws and it did not seem like
someone enforced them Mr. Williams stated that in all fairness to that particular fisherman, approximately
one year ago, Mr. Williams had the marine patrol follow-up on the individual per Mr. Wickers' request and
they did not find anythmg. Mr. Wickers speculated that one day must have been the exception to the rule,
and that same boat was the only boat that was the cause of the problems.
Peter Durburn of Key West, Florida was a jig fisherman who also did a little trawling. He had been virtually
been shut out of the fishery (since 1986) until February of this ye&. Some boats were unable to make long
trips of 50 to 70 miles. He was able to fish a little this year because of the trip limits and the Gulf was briefly
shut down. It would'be advisable if somehow the Council could develop a trip situation where the season
could be extended by the start date of December or January 1. He felt that most of the fishermen have been
in agreement. He would like to endorse Mr. Norwood's cobia statement. He does not understand or agree
with alternative 2.6.4.2.1: preferred alternative for commercial trip limits. Anytlung that the Council could
do that would try to get the fishery to the way it was back in 1985 would be greatly appreciated.'
Jesus Diazof HaricIa was a commercial fisherman in Key West. He related that fish that had been harvested
have been on average 4.5 pounds not 10 pounds. For a small commercial fisherman to drive out 80 miles
of 4.5 pounds each was not profitable, accounting for expenditures. The historical fishermen
for 125
have not been catching the fish because it was not worth it to them. He felt that everyone deserved a little
bit more of the quota: so they could make an honest living. Mr. Williams inquired as to why Mr. Diaz did
not catch &h right off of Key West rather then in the Tortugas. Mr. Diaz replied that his boat ran 10 miles
per hour, and it was not logical to expend the time to drive out 12 to 15 miles and drive back and forth. He
could only do one trip of 50 fish at 4 to 5 Ibs, 250-300 pounds total being sold at $1.00, less expenses.
James Tuma of Sebastian, Florida was a hook-and-line fisherman. He would like the 50 fish per day limit
increased to 75 fiSh per day, as well as keep the 25 fish once 75 percent of TAC was attained. He did not
agree that it was fair or reasonable that the Carolinas were allowed to have 3,500 pounds while the southern
regions were only allowed 50-head. He felt the southern regions should have at minimum 125 fish limit.
Any fisherman in that area should be able to attain 125 fish by themselves, much less with a crew. He
believed the charter boat fishermenjust wanted to have the focus shifted off of them by saying the problem
was with the imports. The previous year he received between $2.25 to $2.40 per pound, this year he received
only $1.10. The decrease was not due to imports, rather because 15,000 to 18,000 pounds per day were
coming out of the Keys and shipped to the Carolinas.
MEETING RECESSED AT 5 3 0 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 8:30 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 13,1996.
Dan Crowley of Big Pine Key, Florida was a commercial fisherman. He felt the cobia bag limits should be
increased The income quality rate on the permits make them too easy to obtain. In the last year the
applicants were increased by 100 percent, per the Draft Amendment 8. If one would take the number of
charter boat permits and divide that by the number of trips, it would come out to less than 900 pounds of fish
per p&on The traditional fishery that they have had in the Keys had been there for a long time. With the
new fishery that was coming into existence by allowing multiple new permit holders would eliminate the
fishery altogether. If the date was changed for the fishery to open around January 1, and not allow the
residents in the Panhandle a 50 fish limit, then possibly the residents in the Keys would be able to have
adequate catches. He would just like his fair pottion of the fish. Mr. Minton inquired as to what was the size
of the cobia that Mr. Crowley had been catching. Mr. Crowley stated that he only fished for them for two
days. In that time fiame he caught an 18 pound and a 22 pound fish. However, most of the fish were much
smaller. Mr. Minton wondered if he had seen any large fish in the Keys area. Mr. Crowley responded that
he did not fish that much for cobia, however, the ones that he has seen fell within the range. Mr. Lessard
stated that his average size fish over the last year was 28 pounds gutted weight.
Doug Gregory of Monroe County, Florida, and Florida Sea Grant, stated that as in Mr. Pillar's testimony,
no one could go into the small business of fishing overnight. He urged an appeals board be established to
develop some criteria to allow people who were building boats and investing in a business to be able to get
into the fishery. There were a number of cases like this that were sincere and not bying to speculate. On the
SSC review by mail, he believed that the review was important to Council process and when it was sent out
by mail there would not be comments. Even when comments were given, the SAFMC would not receive the
interaction of the group, the vote or the consensus that the Council was looking for by the committees. He
strongly urged the Council not proceed with mail reviews. In regards to the overfishing definition. He sent
a letter to the Council in January to try to explain how he felt the definitions in the OY worked..
He was the Vice Chairman of the SPR Management Strategy Committee that the Council convened the
previous year to Ioak at this to try to obtain a standard among the fisheries for managing based on biological
yield and what determined the number of fish stock. He spoke with Dr. Mace, the Chairman of the
Coinmiand they had a meeting to look at equilibrium versus non-equilibrium yield. That was the only
part of the report that was incomplete. There should be minor changes to the report, and that revised final
report would be sent to the Council soon. The recommendations on the overfishing definition would not
change at all. It was b t r a t i n g that the SSC and the Panel report came to the Council a year ago, and the
Council tried to get the overfishing definition for mackerel changed to be in line with these proposed
recommendations but because of various things that happened within the administration the Council was
unable to do it. Now the Council and the industry were being held "under a guillotine" because this change
in the overfishing deijnition was not previously made. The Council may not have the flexibility that it needed
to set the allocaiiom when the Council proposed meeting in May (after the Stock Assessment Panel Report).
He encouraged the administration to approve the emergency measure to go through because the
recommendations of the SPR Management Stradegy Committee were endorsed by the both Council's SSC.
Therefore both of the scientific committees have recommended that the fishing defmition be at 20 percent
SPR, and the target goal be at 30 percent or higher. The SAFMC SSC endorsed the SER report that the
target be at 30 percent. The Council's SSC stated it should be anywhere above the 20 percent, approximately
40 percent or below. That could be measurably different from the 20 percent. The real key was that the
target OY be measurable and different from the overfishing definition so that a fishery, that was on the brink
of being overfished, would be managed. He encouraged the Council to invite Dr, Mace and himself to the
Council's Joint Management Committee meeting to explain the SPR report to the South Atlantic Council.
The SAFMC had never had the benefit of that explanation, which may be part of the problem of
compromisingon this issue. It was important that the overfishing guidelines be standardized until a history
of catches and stock assessments can be obtained and evaluate what percentage was most appropriate for that
species. The National Scientific.Consensus felt 20 percent was a good starting point for determining an
overfishing threshold. This wa3 based on a NMFS overfishing workshop.
Mr. King inquired as to what action needs to be taken to request that Mr. Gregory go to the meeting. Mr.
Swingle advised that the SAFMC had already requested that Dr. Mace attend the joint session. He did not
know what the response to that was. In the event that she was unable to attend, it would be appropriate that
Mr. Gregory attend. Mr. Gregory stated that if Dr. Mace could not be in attendance he would like to go
because that was an important issue. Mr. King clarified that the reason that he raised this issue was that he
had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Mace and questioned her if any of the concerns that were raised by the
SAFMC on the SPR committee report had been addressed. He recalled that she stated the equilibrium or
non-equhbrium issue was the only issue that still needed to be addressed with exception to it in itself being
a cfraft document. Mr. Lessard stated that he would encourage the Council to have Mr. Gregory in attendance
rather than Dr. Mace. He felt that Dr. Mace tended to speak in very scientific terms, whereas Mr. Gregory
could explain the same data in simplistic terms for the common man to understand and put in perspective,
Mr. Gregory urged that if Dr. Mace was able to attend it would not be appropriate for him to attend and
interpret what she said Mr. Minton agreed with Mr. Lessard that he too preferred for Mr. Gregory to attend
due to the critical nature of this issue because it could set precedence for other fisheries. SPR was a very
complicated issue even for those who had been trained in it, whereas Mr. Gregory started this process and
could best explain it. He recommended that Mr. Gregory be invited to the meeting, not necessarily to
interpret but there was a lot of explanation that can happen one-on-one. Mr. Gregory dealt very well with
people. This was a critical time, where the Council needed to make a decision which would effect Council's
decisions for years to come. Mr. Swingle stated that if it was the consensus of the Council that Mr. Gregory
attend, travel arrangements would be made. Dr. Roberts requested for clarification as to if Mr. Gregory
would be a formal part of the program or if he was just attending in an advisory capacity to the Council's
Mackered Committee. Mr. Minton felt that the program could be divided up between Mr. G r e w and Dr.
Mace, whmeach could take their strong points and present those points at the meeting. Mr. King did not
want to se!f policy far what the SAFMC had requested of Dr. Mace. However, the Council Committee would
feel mc~tccdkmbleifMr. Gregory were in attendance to answer questions. Mr. Brownlee stated that the
SAFMC would not have any problem with Dr. Gregory's attendance in the stated capacity. Mr. King
reiterated that he did not want the Council's intent to be misconstrued as lack of trust. Mr. Gregory stated
that he personally felt that either he or Dr. Mace should be in attendance.
Chuck Hawkins of Fort Pierce, Florida was the President of Concerned Fishermen of Florida (CFF). Many
of the individual efforts in Amendment 8 were addressed by the CFF in a letter to the SAFMC. He would
like to specifically address alternative 2.6.4.2: commercial trip limits for Atlantic king mackerel. For the
past five to ten years 'the fishermen have been concerned with the increasing catches on the Atlantic stock of
fish He p e r s o ~ Uhad
~ spoken with charter boat captains and tournament directors, and concluded and they
all had concerns about the Atlantic king mackerel. He was aware that the spawning ratio was 50 percent, and
the Atlantic stock was supposed to be a healthy stock. On the other hand, his profit ratio determined
otherwise. He was informed that the CFF proposal for trip limits, with some ramifications and a public
comment period, would be adopted and implemented by April 1, 1995. When that date arrived the CFF
proposal was not implemented. They wrote letters to their Congressmen and the Secretary, however did not
receive any action. The proposal was sent to NMFS. NMFS was concerned for the Monroe County
commercial fishermen that they would not be able to live on the 50 fish limit. Under the public testimony
given at this meeting, it was his understanding that they could live on the 50 fish trip limit. CFF spoke with
their fishermen and agreed that Monroe County needed a 125 fish trip limit, and if that was what it would
take to get the limits implemented then CFF would agree with that. He personally went to Saint Augustine
to listen to Dr. Kemmerer's discuss the paper by John Vondruska (at NMFS) that showed as much as a 7 1
percent economic loss in Monroe County. He felt Mr. Sanchez's testimony confirmed that statement. Mr.
Hawkins' reviewed Mr. Vondruska's figures and felt the figures showed a greater loss than was present. He
did not feel the data in Table 11, page 94, in the Draft Amendment 8 was accurate. In summary, of over the
97 percent of all trips made, were made with less than 125 fish. He stated that while the MCCF would bear
a disproportion in the share of the reduction the impact on the BrevardfDade area affected more than ten
times the trips in any year. The CFF which proposed said actions would be affected more greatly by a larger
reduction than the MCCF areas. The CFF would like to see the Council's preferred option pass.
Captain "Pops" Petrick of Summerland Key, Florida, and Summerland Seafood, noted that when reviewing
Draft Amendment 8, he did not see much that he liked. He liked even less of what he felt was going to
happen to the small fish house. This would create an economic barrier. Under the proposed plan, his fish
house would have to hire a minimumof two more people (a dock hand and a bookkeeper). To alleviate that
burden, the federal government should give them a $35,000 per year grant. If the federal government did not
want to provide the grant then the fish house would have to raise the price to the consumer or would have to
pay the fishermen less. The newly proposed shipping containers would also create an additional burden to
the fish house, as well as a burden to the shippers for hauling half-empty boxes. Data within Draft
Amendment 8 was greatly underestimated, i.e., renewing of permits were more timely than five minutes. He
currently had a sohare reporting package with the state of Florida. He preferred the Council to obtain and
utilize the same software package. He earnestly stressed that the verbiage was too harsh. Mr. Williams
clarified that Mr. Petrick's comments were directed toward the dealer permits. Mr. Petrick agreed. Mr.
Williams questioned if, in reference to the comment of fish being stored in separate half-full boxes, Mr.
Petrick was interpreting the dealer permit section to imply he would need to obtain those boxes. Mr. Petrick
replied that separate boxes were the only way to keep track as to who caught what fish. Mr. Williams
in@
if M x m e n brought their fish directly to the fish house. Mr. Petrick c o n f i e d . Mr. Williams did
not interpret the proposal inquiring that, simply to keep records of how much was bought-from each
fishermanaot stored individually. Also, through the Florida trip ticket system he inquired if Mr. Petrick filed
his records d k d y to the state of Florida through a modem. He continued to see if Mr. Petrick kept records
of the different species. Mr. Petrick replied that he did complete a report every two weeks. Mr. Williams
further cladkd that Mr. Petrick attains his records in the office not on the truck. Mr. King believed that the
issues that had been discussed at the committee level would effect people, and he would readdress those
issues prior to the fid.l Council taking a vote. Mr. Williams stated that the basis for this was that the Council
was intasted in monitoring the landings because mackerel was under quota. Secondly, because the Council
was consideringlimited access for managing king mackerel fishery because of the derby nature of the fishery.
Mr. Williams queried if Mr. Petrick personally saw fishermen andfor fish houses averting the trip ticket
system that was in place. Mr. Petrick stated that he did not h o w of any and felt the data were fairly accurate.
He suggested that law enforcement begin to look at the trucks who buy fish along the highway fiom boats;
and stated that tougher law enforcement were the only solution to the problem.
Bill Wickers of Key West, Florida represented the KWCBA, spoke again in reference to alternative 2.6.3:
dolphin management. The KWCBA tried for several years, and were instrumental in convincing the state
of Florida to come up with bag and size limits on dolphin. They highly recommended, for conservation
reasons, that the Council consider and institute a requirement that the 20 inch commercial size limit be
changed to 22 inches, and putting that limit on recreational fishermen. They strongly endorsed the 22 inch
size limit for everyone as fishermen fished recreationally the smaller fish were dumped over the side as they
catch larger fish, due to bag limit requirements. A minimum size limit across the board would eliminate a
lot of the needless waste. In regards to the moratorium on Atlantic king mackerel was that it seemed unfair
to pick an arbitrary date. It would be better to endorse the date that the amendment would be adopted or a
date so many days after 'the amendment was adopted. This way the.people who did not have permits that
would qualrfil for them in time to get the paperwork in order, rather than picking a date that was retroactive.
In reference to the charter boat moratorium, the KWCBA all had permits so it was not a hardship on them.
The charter boat industry was very difficult to make a living in. Mr. Simpson clarified that on the dolphm
management issue, they wanted a bigger minimum size limit instituted recreationally, and did want them
enforced commercially. They also wanted a differential size. Mr. Petrick replied that they would like the 22inch size limit endorsed recreationally and commercially. A 22-inch fish would be able to spawn. Also, any
fish under the weight of 5 pounds would cut the price in half. Mr. Lessard expressed appreciation for
speaking on this. One of the problems that he had seen as a commercial dolphin fishermen was the prime
mortality of the fish. Dolphins were very severe fighters. There was a high mortality on this spe,cies. He
was concerned that if they tried to implement a 22-inch fish there would inevitably be an even higher
mortality ratio. They essentially would be killing what they were supposed to be saving in the name of
conservation. Mr. Wickers felt that most dolphin ran in schools of about the same size and the fishermen
would be able to know in advance of catching several fish that the fish would be under size limit. The 22inch size limit was primarily recommended to protect the spawning.
John Sanchez of Marathon, Florida represented MCCF (spoke again) stating that his previous testimony was
addressed in other testimony. He requested that if the Council would like to reconsider issues that he or
someone else had testified on, then the Council should review the verbatim transcripts of such testimony and
not characterizations of testimony by concerned members of the public. He thanked the Council for allowing
him to readdress.
Final Council Action on Draft Mackerel Amendment 8
Mr. Williams stated that the Council still needed to review the South Atlantic public hearing summaries and
letters fiom the public. He stated there was an emergency request to change the definition of overfishing
which the Council would address directly after final action on Draft Mackerel Amendment 8. In reviewing
(Attacbmcnt 2) the Overview to Amendment 8for Coastal Pelogics FUP summarized by the SAFMC's
both the SAFMCs and the Council's positions were shown. ( I ) On specified actions to which both the
SAFMC and the Council Committees agreed, it was appropriate final action be taken. (2) On specified
actions where our Council needed to address recent SAFMC Committee action, then final action should be
taken. (3) On specified actions that both the SAFMC and the Council were awaiting committee action, it was
recommended that Council take no action (at that time). This was in reference to pennits and the overfishing
definition, which would be addressed at the Joint Mackerel Committee meeting.
Mr. Kimmel, asked if the Joint Mackerel Committee would only consider actions if there were some debate
between the two councils; other actions would be final. Mr. Williams clarified that the joint committee would
not need to reconsider this, because (for example) an action where the Council needed to address recent
SAFMC action, a committeehad already ruled. The Council concurred with that committee then there would
not be a need far thejoint committee to reconsider it. Mr. Green questioned if technically the entire document
would be reviewed or if only discussing certain points would be discussed at the joint committee meeting.
Mr. Swingle advised that since the two separate committees had already addressed some of the issues the
joint committeewould not need M e r review. It would be noted that the two committees were in agreement
on said issues. The issues that would be deferred to the joint committee meeting should have final action
taken by that committee in April 1996. The Council would then receive and take final action on these issues
in May.
Mr. Williams called for the letters to be summarized to the Council. Mr. Swingle noted that the Council
received numerous letters (Tab C, No. 5) including petitions that pertained to five of the actions in the
amendment. Under alternative 2.5.2: charter vessel permit mora'torium, the majority of the comments
supported the status quo for no moratorium (which supported the Council's committee action). The petitions
were primarily fiom Texas, as well as other individual comments which recommended for no moratorium.
Under altemative 2.5.5: consistency of regulations proposing people follow the more restrictive of either the
state or federal regulations when fishing in state waters, the preponderance of comments were for no change.
The federal regulations should apply to the federal waters only. Under alternative 2.6.2: cobia bag and trip
limits, the preponderance of the comments were for no change in the present limits. Under a1ternative 2.6.3:
dolphin management, the preponderance of the comments supported the no action or management needed
for dolphin. Under alternative 2.8.1: OY, they supported no change in OY from the Gulf definition, i.e., for
king mackerel the preferred OY to be expressed as MSY. There were comments that suggested the charter
permits be revoked. There were suggestions that the control date for the charter boat moratorium be on
implementation of the amendment or in 1996; the October date was not well received. For cobia commercial
limit, there were suggestions that an allowance of at least four fish per person be allowed for vessels on trips
lasting for more 24-hours. There were a few letters recommending higher cobia limits for the commercial
sector. There was a suggestion (fiom the Southeast Fisheries Association) that the Council not further
restrict Spanish mackerel. It was suggested that the current opening date under TAC on king mackerel was
discrimjnatory. There was one letter of support for expanding the management of cobia to the Mid-Atlantic
area. Numerous letters (some of which were form letters) suggested that overfishing be defined at 20 percent,
SPR level. There was opposition to the limits on the dolphin. There were letters opposing the 50 fish
commercial limit to the Atlantic group mackml for the fishery in south Florida. There was some opposition
to the 50 percent earned income level.
Mr. Atran presented the SAFMC public hearing summaries. The SAFMC had to postpone some of the
scheduled hearings due to bad weather. They indicated that some of the hearings needed to be rescheduled
prior to taking final action Under alternative 2.2: gear regulation, public comment indicated equal support
for hook-and-line only for Atlantic king mackerel, with only one opposition to experimental gear. There was
approxhatdy a three to one ratio in favor of supporting that gear. A 600-yard limit was proposed, which
several people &ltwas an insufficient amount in order to be able to catch that species. There were only six
responses to the dealer permitting, of which three supported and three oppose$. For the commercial pennit
moratorium,seven opposed with three in favor. On qual@hg income there were eight responses, five people
felt having the $5,000 income requirement was too lenient, and preferred the more restrictive, 50 percent or
$20,000 income minimum. One comment supported the grand-fathering in the pennit system for those
people who had held a permit for ten years. There were 17 responses to the cobia bag and trip limits. Six
suggested the cobia bag limit should be decreased to one bag limit per person. Five people supported
maintaining the current cobia bag limit but allowing multi-day trip limits. Four people felt cobia was not a
major part of the fkhery. One person was opposed to the no sale provision. Recommendations for dolphin
management was overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo. Of those people who spoke in favor of some
limits to the dolphm, two felt the limit should be raised to a 22 inch size limit, while two others felt there
should not be a size limit at all due to mortality. It was suggested that a bag limit per person should be
combined with a 40-per-boat limit. Two people supported commercial trip limits of 50 fish for Atlantic king
mackerel, while eight spoke against the trip limits..
NMFS and NOAA comments would be made as the Council proceeded through each action. Under
alternative 2.0: management alternatives, both Council and SAFMC were in agreement on the additional
problems in the fisheq. Mr. Williams moved to adopt preferred alternative 2.1.1: Add problems 11.
Localized reduction in abundance of fish due to high fishing pressure; and 12. Disruption of markets.
Motion &.
Mr. Swingle advised that handout on Review ofPrefrred Alternatives in Drafr Mackerel Amendment 8
changes recommended by Management Committees of Council and S A M C (Attachment 3) would assist
in following the proposals recommended to Draft Mackerel Amendment 8.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.2.1: specification of gear in South Atlantic, specifically 2.2.1.1: preferred
alternative for allowable gear. The Council needed to address recent SAFMC action. The South Atlantic
committee adopted motions to address intent regarding areas of jurisdiction, use of cast nets, and multi-gear
trips north of Cape Lookout. The SAFMC Committee Recommendation for 2.2.1.1called for the proposed
changes for allowable gear in the South Atlantic:
(a) add cast nets and delete "not to exceed 600 yard;" (b) change 600 to 800 yards; (c) the single gill
new be limited to a runaround gill net; and (d) apply throughout range. They directed Atlantic
Migratory Group king mackerel fishery in South Atlantic's Council's area of jurisdiction south of
Cape Lookout was limited to hook-and-line gear. Multi-gear trips, consisting of mixed species
including king mackerel not to exceed 3,5000 pounds, are allowed north of Cape Lookout.
Mr. Williams stated if the Council did not concur with the SAFMC,Cornmittee recommendations then the
matter would be addressed by the Joint Council Committee. He recalled that at least two people from public
testimony commented that they needed to be able to use a ballyhoo seine.
Mr. King questioned what was a ballyhoo seine. Mr. Williams replied that a ballyhoo seine was a land-to-sea
net, a modified purse seine. It measured several hundred yards, however, he was urisure of the specific
dimensions.
Mr. Lessard felt that the SAFMC address up the 3,500 pound trip limit in the northern regions, and
questioned if tbt C o d should defer to await for committee actions. Mr. Williams concurred. Mr. Hartig
stated it was not the SAFMC's intent to eliminate the.ballyhoo fishery, which are not under the coastal
rnigratciry pdagic plan The issue fell under the mackerel fishery. Mr. Brownlee reiterated that the issue had
notbing to& with the ballyhoo fishery, but instead dealt with the North Carolina fishermen carrying a net
on board to catch king mackerel, Therefore, the ballyhoo fishermenwould not have been affected unless
catching king mackerel, once they obtained ballyhoo. Mr. Williams felt that it was just as important for the
Council to express their intent so that the regulations would be clear. It would also have shown the other gear,
for ballyhoo, were not included. Mr. McLemore stated that if there was a bycatch of mackerel in the ballyhoo
net fishery and one was going to allow,incidentalmackerel catch there, then there was a possibility for an
enforcement loop-hole. Mr. King inquired of Mr. McLemore if anyone had a definition distinguishing
between a driftgill net and a gdl net, so that it can be defined by visually looking at the gear. If so, Mr. King
requested an explanation of the differences. Mr. McLemore stated that was an issue he had raised in his
comments. Law enforcement personnel previously testified that as long as a gear was allowed if used in one
manner but not allowed when used in a different manner and visual differences are not evident, the law can
be enforced only at the scene. Mr. King concurred that it was the manner in which the net is used and not
the appearameof thenet Mr. Williams moved to defer section 2.2.1.1, Under Specification of Gear in
South Atlantic, to Joint Mackerel Committee. Motion carried l,g consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.2.1.2: specificationof experimental gear in South Atlantic. The Council
needed to address recent SAFMC action. The SAFMC Committee had made no change with the intent to
include Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). It was noted the Council Committee needed
to address the intent of SAFMC. The only change was to include the MAFMC. Mr. Lessard moved to
adopt preferred alternative 2.2.1.2 as modified (addition underlined) Experimental Gear - South
Atlantic In consultation with the Council, the Regional Director may issue permits for experimental
gear (for coastal pelagic in the SAFMC and MAFMC areas) on a limited basis provided that a process
was implemented to collect data on the use of the particular gear concurrently with issuance of
permit. The data collected would be reviewed by the assessment group as soon as possible after the
gear has been in use for 12 months or some specified period of time. The Council would review the
data and the group's report and determine whether the gear should be allowed. Any changes would
be made by plan amendment. It would be the Council's intent to allow the sale of catch from
experimental gear. Motion carried.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.2.1.3: specification of non-conforming gear in South and Mid-Atlantic. The
Council needed to address recent SAFMC action. The South Atlantic Committee changes made were
editorial to reflect intent regarding species with no bag limit and include the MAFMC. It was noted the
Council Committee needed to address the intent. The only change was to include the MAFMC and to have
the exception as specified in section 642.22(a). Section 642.22(a) was specified as drift gill nets. Stating
this exception would avoid creating an internal conflict. He questioned if this would include people such as
Mr. Puigwho spear fishes. Mr. Hartig stated it was the SAFMC's intent to allow them to continue to catch
their bag limit and to spear fish Mr. Williams moved to adopt Preferred Alternative 2.2.1.3 as modified
(additions underlined): Non-Conforming Gear South Atlantic. Possession of coastal pelagic aboard
a vessel using non-conforming gear was limited to the bag limit for species with a-bag limit in the
SAFMC and MAFMC's areas of jurisdiction. (ExceN as specified in section 642.22(a)L Motion
carried hy sonsensKs.
-
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.2.2: specification of Gulf king mackerel gear, specifically 2.2.2.1:
preferred alternative for allowablegear. Both the SAFMC and the Council concurred for no change. It may
be appropriate to apply for spear guns; however, that may go beyond the realm of king mackerel. Mr.
Lessard questioned if thiswould be the appropriatetime to review comments given by legal staff. Mr. Green
requested that prior to Mr. McLemore responding to questions, he would like to address the requests given
by the spear fishermen. He inquired if the spear fishermen would fall under the alternative 2.2.1.3 which
would allow them to take a recreational bag limit by using non-conforming gear. Mr. Williams felt that
would be appropriate.
Mr. M c h o r e questioned ifthe South Atlantic had the same enforceability problems of uses of gill'nets as
the Gulfof Mexico had He continued that if a gear was allowed to be used in one manner but not allowed
when used in a different manner then there would be a law enforcement problem. When law enforcement
officers board a vessel and would see a drift gill net they would be unable to say what that net was used for.
That appeared to be the same gear. Mr. Swingle stated that they would probably have to catch the drift gill
nets in the act to h o w exactly what they were used for. Mr. McLemore agreed and reiterated that if the law
enforcunentofficers found a drift gdl net in the water then the fishermen would not be able to retain the fish.
Mr. King felt that the purpose of a drift gill net was to set it our and leave it. If someone where to find an
unattended net in either the Gulfof Mexico or the South Atlantic, and a boat was not attending that particular
net, then that net could be defined as a drift gill net. A run-around gill net was a net that would be circled
around by a boat and pulled in A net could not be determined once it was being retrieved, however, it could
be determined if the net were adrift. Mr. McLemore reiterated that a drift gill net was determined by
definition, as to whether or not it was attached to a vessel. Mr. King felt that there would not be any way to
determine that except by landing. Mr. McLemore stated at the last SAFMC committee meeting there was
a presentation by an enforcement office who showed a video of excerpts of a pilot who flew over a boat with
a net behind it for eleven hours maintaining eye contact and radioing in. The fisherman did not keep the
mackerel because he heard the plane, therefore law enforcement could not make the case. A few other similar
situations were presented Mr. McLemore stated the point was to recognize an enforcement problem would
be present as long as the definition of a gill net was focused and based on the use.
Mr. Lessard questioned if the one-hour sub-time was needed to retrieve the net. Mr. Williams concurred.
He continued that once the fish have been driven into the nets, the nets must be pulled in to the boats prior
to attracting sharks. Mr. Lessard suggested insertingMi.e.spiny lobster and stone crab" rather than leaving
the verbiage worded for multi-species vessels. Mr. Swingle suggested the i.e. be changed to e.g. to cover a
broader s p e c t . . Mr. Williams stated the intent was to provide for northern Gulf shrimpers so a shrimp
trawl could be canied on the vessel while fishing for king mackerel. Mr. McLemore stated that the e.g. made
the alternative very broad which could create a legal loop-hole. Fishermen could circumvent the specification
of an allowablegear to an exception. Mr. Williams felt that realistically fishermen could not catch any king
mackerel with stone crab traps, and very few with a shrimp trawl. Mr. Lessard moved to adopt as
Preferred Alternative 2.2.2.1: Allowable Gear as modified (addition underlined). Gulf Group King
Mackerel may be taken only by hook-and-line (including longline) and run-around gill nets.
Possession is prohibited aboard a vessel with a drift gill net. It is not intended to prohibit possession
s ~ i n lobster.
v
shrirn~trawl. fish trao. stone
aboard appropriately permitted multi-species vessels,
with other fishing gear aboard. The incidental catch allowances for purse seinevessels of up
to 1percent of king mackerel and 10 percent for Spanish mackerel of all fish aboard remains in effect.
Dr. Roberts believed the intent was to make alternative 2.2.1.3 applicable to the Gulf and retain alternative
2.2.2.1 as modiiied. One was not meant to replace the other. Mr. Minton .concurred. Mr. Brownlee
suggested the Council simply modify 2.2.1.3 to include Council. Mr..Williams amended motion to adopt
Preferred Alternative 2.2.1.3 as modified (additions underlined): Non-Conforming Gear South
Atlantic Possession of coastal pelagic aboard a vessel using non-conforming gear was limited to the
dna areas of jurisdiction.
bag limit for species with a bag limit in the SAFMC,
in section 642.22(a)L Amended motion carried by consensus for 2.2.1.3.
Except as
-
Mr. Shippikit the "e.g." should be "i.e."based on Mr. McLemore's recommendation making it exclusive to
cover all altmative gear. Mr. McLemore reiterated that he felt the list of exemptions should be exhaustive
rather than demonstrative. Mr. Shipp stated the intent was to include every conceivable gear which needed
to be included. Mr. shipp moved to amend Preferred Alternative 2.2.2.1: Allowable Gear as modified
(amended portion underlined). Gulf Group King Mackerel may be taken only by hook-and-line
(including longline) and run-around gill nets. Possession is prohibited aboard a vessel with a drift gill
net. I t is not intended to prohibit possession aboard appropriately permitted multi-species vessels,
& spiny lobster,shrimp trawl, fish trap, stone crab, with other fishing gear aboard. The incidental
catch allowances for purse seine vessels of up to 1 percent of king mackerel and 10 percent for
Spanish mackerel of all fish aboard remains in effect.
Mr. Minton suggestedthat if Council staff found that another gear had been overlooked, Council should give
the editorial license to add that in prior to the April 8 meeting. Mr. Simpson stated that he understood the
idea was to hard-limit drift gill nets without hard-limiting other areas.. The amended alternative (2.2.2.1)
would hard-limit those other areas. He inquired as to what was the original intent of the Council. Mr. Horn
requested clarification as to if the Council's intent was to allow multi-species vessels as long as they had
permits to have fish on board Dr. Roberts agreed Mr. Horn asked why the Council would want to stipulate
gear ifa vessel had a permit. A fisherman could possibly come up with a gear that would not be disallowed,
however most &hermen had already exhausted most of their options. He felt it was not necessary to further
specify who should have certain species on their boat. Mr. Green commented that it was better to have
specifics stated.
Mr. Minton responded the original alternative stated "up to 1 percent of king mackerel and 10 percent for
Spanish mackerel if all aboard remains in effect" which would mean either number or weight. If it were
number, conceivably there could be a lot of fish brought aboard. In the state and Gulf regulations, he
believed there was a five percent bycatch in the purse seine fishery (by number), which was potentially a large
number of fish Mr. Swingle clarified the percentages in the preferred alternative referred to weight. There
was areplation that stated one was not considered to be fishing for king or Spanish mackerel with the purse
seine if the catch was less than a specified number of feet.
Mr. Horn offered substitute motion to adopt Preferred Alternative 2.2.2.1 as originally written:
Allowable Gear. Gulf Group King Mackerel may be taken only by hook-and-line (including longline)
and run-around gill nets. Possession is prohibited aboard a vessel with a drift gill net. It is not
intended to prohibit possession aboard appropriately permitted multi-species vessels, with other
fishing gear aboard. The incidental catch allowances for purse seine vessels of up to 1 percent of king
mackerel and 10 percent for Spanish mackerel of all fish aboard remains in effect. Substitute motion
carried.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.3.1: preferred alternative for the transfer of Atlantic Spanish mackerel at sea. The
SAFMC Committee proposed to delete this item from the document. The Council needed to address recent
SAFMC action. Mr. Williams moved to delete section 2.3:l from Mackerel Amendment 8. Motion
carried by consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.4.1: preferred alternative for king mackerel stock identification. The SAFMC
Committee proposed to delete this item from the document. The both committees agreed. -Mr. Horn
questioned why the SAFMC wanted to delete this item. He noted this had been an issue the Council had
discussed on many occasions and he supported separating the management of this issue for each Council.
He felt stadc identification was something that the Council would have liked to have performed. Mr.
Brownlee replied that the rationale for deleting from this document was to postpone addressing the issue.
There was not any indication that the SAFMC did not want to implement it at a later time. He suggested the
Councii defer action until thejoint committee meeting Mr. Lessard supported deleting alternative 2.4.1 from
the document to temporarily defer. Mr. King believed that Dr. John Gold was diligently working on the stock
identification problem fiom a geneticist standpoint. Mr. Brownlee felt there was not enough information to
make a determination either way at the present time. There was the possibility of delaying the entire
,
amendment while awaiting additional information on one issue. Mr. Swingle advised that the proposed
alternative's verbiage w& simply stated: "after staff has prepared a detailed analysis of the impact of
establishing boundaries for management the Council would (then) evaluate", which would take another
amendment action. Mr. Horn urged that the Council keep that issue in the amendment. Dr. Shipp agreed,
and felt this should speed up the process rather than slowing it down.
Mr. Horn movedto adopt Preferred Alternative 2.4.1: After the next stock assessment and after staff
has prepared a detailed analysis of the impact of establishing boundaries for management the
Councils would evaluate impacts of establishing permanent jurisdictional boundaries and separate
council fishery management plans for coastal pelagic in order to obtain public comment for
development of Amendment 9. Motion carried by consensus.
Mr. Williams stated the SAFMC Committee deferred all except one of the actions. In reviewing the
Amendment 8 overview of the SAFMC Committee's recommendations, they deferred alternative 2.5.1:
dealer permits, alternative 2.5.4.3: qualifjrlngincome for permits, and alternative 2.5.5.1 : consistency of
regulations. The they did take action on alternative 2.5.2.3: charter king mackerel permit moratorium, which
was a Council issue only. The SAFMC Committee proposed to delete this item from the document. The
Council needed to address recent SAFMC action.
There was some confusion as to which handouts the Council should have been viewing to have been able to
follow the SAFMC Committee's recommendations. Mr. Brownlee proposed that the Council defer all of 2.5
to the Joint Committee Meeting.
The Council committee originally supported alternative 2.5.2.3 but later switched to support alternative
2.5.2.4. On behalf of the committee Mr. Williams so moved to change the Preferred Alternative from
2.5.2.3 to 25.2.4 Alternative: Status Quo No moratorium on coastal pelagic charter permits.
M o t h sarried by consensus.
-
Prior to continuing, Mr. Williams requested for direction from Dr. Roberts. For alternative 2.5.4.3:
qualieing income for permit, there was a committee motion that he could have made on behalf of the
Council's commi#ee, however in doing so the Council would be taking fmal action. The SAFMC's committee
had not taken final action since they deferred it to the Joint Committee Meeting.
Council aereed by consensusto defer section 2.5.4.3. to joint committee meeting.
Mr. Horn reiterated that he fourid it difficult to following the SAFMC committee's recommendations. There
were four separate documents being referred to, and well as an additional document that Mr. Williams had.
Mr. Williams agreed that it was @cult to follow between the documents, and he did not feel that they were
doing justia to the information at hand. He requested for one condensed document that would have the
complete inhmaticm neededto make appropriate decisions for the issues at hand. Mr. Williams stated that
it was diSadt bemusethen were actions that the Council had taken; there were subsequent actions that the
C o d ' s Caimmittcehad taken but the Council had not taken action on; there were actions that the SAFMC
had taken; there were actions that the SAFMC's Committee deferred; and actiotis where both Councils andlor
committees had already considered and agreed on and the Council could take final action m. There are
several Werent actions at hand. He apologized for the codhsion. Mr. Swingle offered that Mr. Mike
Jepson's OwmMew
to Amendment 8for Coastal Pelagic FUP (Attachment 2) would be a single condensed
document that the Council could work from. Mr. Williams agreed. Dr. Roberts addressed Mr. Horn's
. .
concerns. The Coyncil would be taking final action in May. The Council was getting positioned to assist
their committee in the joint committee meeting.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.6.1.1: preferred alternative to extend range of cobia management. Both the
SAFMC Committee and the Council Committee were in agreement to accept the preferred alternative. Mr.
Williams moved on behalf of the committee to adopt preferred alternative 2.6.1.1: Extend the
management area for cobia through New York, i.e. through the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council.
Mr. Collins expressed concern over having all three councils agree on this one issue when it would primarily
affkct the Mid-Atlantic area, while referencing difficulties in agreeing on the Swordfish FMP. Mr. Williams
stated the difference between the Swordfish plan was that all five Councils had to reach an agreement. In
the case at hand, all three Councils do not have to agree on this particular issue. The MAFMC simply had
to abide by what the Council and the SAFMC have agreed to. Motion carried.
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.6.2.1: preferred alternative for cobia bag and trip limits. Both the SAFMC
Committee and the Council were in agreement to accept the preferred alternative. Mr. Williams moved to
adopt Preferred Alternative 2.6.2.1: No change in a daily bag and possession limit of 2 cobia per
person per day applies to anglers and commercial fishermen.
Mr. Lessard stated that after listening to the public testimony, the preferred alternative's verbiage should be
modified. Mr. Lessard gffered a substitute motion to adopt the include 2.6.2.2's: Option 1 (change
~ dav applies to anglers and ~ o ~ m e r c i a l
underlined) to read: A 500 pound limit Der vessel Der t r i per
fishermen.
Mr. Lessard felt that it would have been more beneficial to have a poundage rating because of high-grading.
The law enforcement perspective had been to regulate by the number of fish, which was detrimental to the
resource. Mr. Williams inquired if 500 pounds per day would imply on a multi-day trip there would have
been a multi-day possession limit. Mr. Lessard replied that a 500 pound possession limit should have been
sficient Mr. McLemore requested for the rationale for imposing a pound limit. Mr. Lessard replied that
had been an opportunist fishery that had been in Florida for years and a large number of fishermen had
previously made a large portion of their income from cobia. It was unfair to the commercial fishermen to
limit them and their crew to two fish per day when the charter boat fishermen would be lariding more fish due
to the number of their clientele. Mr. W i l l i k inquired as to the terms of identifying a commercial cobia
fisherman. Mr. Lessard felt that it would have to be an appropriate licensed fisherman fishing in the EEZ
(anyone that would have a pelagic permit). Mr. Williams clarified that it would not be a pelagic permit,
rather a mackerel pennit. Mr. Lessard believed that one was required a pelagic permit to commercially
harvest cobia. Mr. Swingleclarified that the commercial permit only applied to Spanish and king mackerel.
Mr. Lessard requested general counsel address this situation. Mr. McLemore suggested that the Council
could impose a permit requirement if they felt there was a commercial fishery. He questioned if there was
adequate recad to support that. Mr. Lessard replied he had his own catch records of daily log entries that
spanned over the last 25 years. Mr. McLemore clarified the Council would need an administrative record
in context to this amendment.Mr. Lessard stated that the Florida trip ticket lbdings would show there had
been a commercial fishey. Mr. McLemore fiuther clarified if the Council had identified, based on those trip
tickets and the Council's administrative record that there was a commercial fishery. Mr. Swingle stated that
in each year the stock assessments were done they had included the cobia recreational and commercial
landings over an extended period. The data was there to support if there was a commercial fishery.
Dr. Shipp believed that this was not the appropriate time or place to address the issue of cobia commercial
fishery. The Couricil did not know what the license requirements were and the previous stock assessment
had been vague. There was question as to the strength of the stock, since the only data available was the
testimony. This issue could be serious enough to justitjl a complete plan amendment at a later date. He
spoke against the substitute motion. Mr. Horn directed attention to the discussion section under alternative
2.6.2.2. options stated, "the current bag limit of two fish per day which also applies to commercial fishermen"
in itself implied there has been a commercial fishery that were limited to two fish. This had been a measure
to allow the fishermen to keep some of the fish that they were already catching. He continued that other
states beside Florida would be able to contribute records to support there were commercial landings and sales
of cobia Mr. King questioned Mr. McLemore what constituted and defined a commercial fishery on any
species, the sale of fish, or the income. Mr. McLemore replied that it varied from fishery to fishery. The
Council had the choice of how to define a fishery.
Mr. Green inquired if the 500 pound possession referred to each individual on the vessel. Mr. Lessard felt
it should be 500 pounds per vessel. Mr. Green supported Dr. Shipp's position. This was an important
fishery with a commercial importance as well as recreational. He also agreed with Mr. Lessard that this was
an oppo-stic
fishery. He was concerned that without further knowledge of the stock the fishery could
decrease relatively quickly if fished commercially under those types of guidelines. It should be dealt with at
later date. Mr. Minton inquired of Mr. Kimmel what the probability of obtaining additional information or
a stock assessment on this species. Mr. Kimmel felt that he was not able to answer the question at that point
in time. Under the discussion under alternative 2.6.2.1 it stated, "in its 1995 report to the Council's Stock
Assessment Panel to recommend no management changes for cobia at this time because current yield for the
Gulfand South Atlantic area was at 2.2 MP."Mr. Minton related he was not against Mr. Lessard substitute
motion,especially since it was on a per vessel limit. He was hesitant to make a change without knowing what
would happen Unfortunately, on this issue there was not enough data. However, if no action was taken, then
it may never be taken. Mr. Osbum observed that it seemed intuitive if the limit increased to 500 pounds per
vessel per day for a large number of commercial vessels, then as a whole the fishery would be overfished in
regards to MSY. Mr. Simpson clarified that the substitute alternative was for a per trip limit. Mr. Fisher
believed that the lack of ability to identtfy who was a commercial cobia fisherman; anyone could qualiq.
Everyone could have gone out and caught the 500 pound limit, and for that reason he spoke against the
substitute motion.
Mr. King felt that one of the problems may have been the "double-counting" of this fish. It would be counted
in both the recreational Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and reflected in the
commercial sale of the same fish (whether charter boat, head boat or anyone else). He perceived by staying
at the same limit in the status quo, there would never be any change. He was in favor of the motion to be able
to cause that chaige. Mr. Swingle requested clarification if the change was applied to both recreational and
commercial sectors. Mr. Lessard felt the recreational fishery should stay at a two fish limit. He preferred
wording to reflect that a condition that for the fishemen to catch cobia they must have a commercial pelagic
license. Possibly the Council could open the fishery on an experimental basis to have a stock assessment
p e r f d The MOTE Marine Laboratory have had a research grant but have been unable to receive enough
cobia to conduct a study. Without the commercial harvest the Council were unable to know the condition
of many of the stocks.
Mr. McLemore believed there to have been several issues associated with this issue that needed to be
adWith an experimental fishery he reminded the Council that any fisheries or measures that impose
would still have to meet the National Standards and other
a fishay, whether called experimental or 0threquirements of the Act. One of those requirements (under National Standards #1) was to set OY and
.
prevent overhhing. If the catch limits had been increased while MSY had already been reached, then ensure
there were records to-support the result would not create overfishing. The Council could consider imposing
a permit or an endorsement on existing permits. A question that needed to be answered was if the record
showed that the people who were catchmg cobia already had the commercial permit, the charter permit, or
both, because the measure was not in the amendment. That would be another restriction that would need to
be adchewd at public hearing. If the Council wanted to impose those types of measures a s well as raising
the limit, it may be needed to more fully address the issue of a formally managed fishery.
Mr. Williams expressed he was sympathetic for attempting to help the commercial'cobia fishermen. They
have not been faring as well in the market as they use to. However, he supported Dr. Fisher that it would be
difficult to distinguish who was a commercial EEZ fisherman, and he would vote against the substitute
motion Mr. Hartig offered a SAFMC perspective; he would prefer to see a boat limit placed on cobia rather
than the two-fish per person per day. It would allow a more equitable distribution among the boats in the
fishery. A six fish limit per vessel would help most of the commercial fishermen. This would also lessen
the number taken by the larger charter boats. He did not believe it would increase the level of landings to go
over MSY. Mr. Zales added that cobia was also being caught off of piers, not just the vessels.
substitute motion failed by a vote of 9 to 5.
Mr. Miton supported Mr. Hartig's position. Mr. Horn suggested when the Council completed the review
of Draft Amendment 8, the Council may want to pursue cobia as a separate amendment. All of the
ramifications, potentials and possibilities of an increase of commercial landings, and the options of the
numbers of fish and the pounds of fish could be reviewed in detail. Mr. Minton offered a substitute motion
to adopt (change underlined) to read: the recreational and commercial limits for cobia be limited t~
2 fish per Derson per trip with a maximum of 6 fish per vessel in'possession applies to anglers and
commercial fishermen.
Dr. Shipp commented he did not see how this verbiage changed the issue at hand. The commercial vessel
was still only allowed two fish per person. He concurred with Mr. Brownlee's statement that this one issue
could delay the Amendment 8 process. Mr. Brownlee stated the SAFMC's possession was to have two cobia
per person per day. The rationale for rejecting this issue had been due to the same confbsion the Council was
experiencing. He felt the Council was not making a wise decision in considering changing the verbiage on
this issue. If the fishery was already being fished at MSY, by changing the limit to a different arbitrary
number, the Council could accomplish something they did not intend to do (in trying to accommodate just
a few people). If a fisherman chose to fish by himself or with a crew, that was his choice. A bigger boat
would be able to hold more fish.
Mr. Minton felt the substitute motion did consider part of the potential over-runs, without compromising the
comatian of the species and addressed the equitability of what should be done with cobia. Mr. Brownlee
reiterated if a commercial fisherman wanted to have more people on his boat, he could potentially catch the
same amount of fish as the charter boats. Mr. Minton replied it would only be equitable if the additional
people wauted to pay that fisherman. Mr. Green stated he agreed with Mr. Minton, however, he felt the
timing was wrong. He felt the Council needed to readdress this issue when more information had been
obtained. This would provide the time to make it more equitable. If made into a solid fishery it would
eliminate some of the abuses in the fishery. At that point it would not result in treating any of the parties
fairly. Mr. Minton offered he did not want to have Amendment 8 delayed due to this one issue. Substitute
motion yithdrawn.
,
Mr. King ref& the Council to the original motion: to adopt Preferred Alternative 2.6.2.1: No change
in a daily bag and possession limit of 2 cobia per person per day applies to anglers and commercial
fishermen. Motion mrried by consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.6.3.1: alternative for dolphin management. The SAFMC committee
proposed to adopt the no action alternative. The intent was not to supersede a state's authority to impose
regulations. The Council committee needed to address SAFMC actions. Mr. Horn that in light of the
previous discussion, since there was not a way to determine a cobia commercial fisherman, that there was
not a way to determine a dolphin commercial fisherman. Mr. Horn moved to delete section 2.6.3 from
Mackerel Amendment 8.
Dr. Shipp concurred with Mr.Horn's position and suggested the Council could include dolphin as well as
cobia when creating their.next amendment. Mr. Kimmel inquired if "deleting" and "taking no action" were
the same concept Dr.Roberts requested legal counsel interpretation. Mr. McLemore stated it was not quite
the same thing. Mr. Horn stated-if the Council was not taking action on the alternative, he did not see a
difference in taking it out of the document and leaving it in without action being taken. Mr. Minton clarified
that if deleted, the next time the Council reviewed the Amendment 8 document the dolphin section would not
be included Mr. Simpson directed the Council's attention to 2.6.3.2: altemative for no action, and felt this
alternative would equate to the same effect. Mr. Horn stated if dolphin management would be taken
completely out there would not be an alternative to view. Dr. Shipp felt for protocol, the Council should be
acting in concordance with the SAFMC. Mr. Shipp pffered a substitute motion to take no action on
section 2.6.3 of Mackerel Amendment 8. Substitute motion carried hy .
Mr. Hartig stated that he obeyed the state rules when fishing for dolphin (fish), and questioned if he still
needed to follow the 20-inch size limit. Mr. Williams replied that the size limit was a number agreed to by
the commercial industry, and believed the state requirements needed to be followed.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.6.4.1.1: disposition of cut-off or damaged fish. The SAFMC
Committee proposed a motion to disallow the sale of cut-off fish above the trip limit. Intent was to allow
five fish over trip limit,but no sale of fish over trip limit. The Council Committee needed to address SAFMC
actions. Mr. McLemore commented that it had the potential to undermine the enforcement of the size limit.
It would not have been possible to tell if something were cut-off by a barracuda or otherwise. He questioned
Mr. Hartig if the fish were sold once they were cut-off, Mr. Hartig replied they do sell the cut-off fish. They
simply made a clean cut after the barracuda or shark has bitten into them. He would like to see those fish
counted. Fish would be wasted if not allowed to be brought in. Mr. Minton stated that since this issue was
first brought up through the law enforcement panel, he felt the law enforcement testimony reinforced the
dii3iculty in making a case ifa fish had been cut-off by a shark, barracuda or a knife. This action had stated
that these fisbwould not be counted against the quota, which would be a problem. Also, the law enforcement
officer that would tell a fisherman not to sell that fish would not know if that fish would or would not be sold
unless he was able to stay with that fisherman at the point of sale. He could not support the five fish
proposed by the SAFMC Committee, however he agreed with effort that was attempted to be made for the
comemationofthe tlsh Any fisheman could make a jagged cut on a fish and drag it through the water, and
a court of law would not be able to determine what the cut was made from. He supported the original
verbiage of 2.6.4.1.1 in terms of the conservation behind it and the hopefid reduction of wastage. Mr. Wallin
concurred with Mr. Minton. I€the fish were dead there would be no reason to throw them back. They should
be counted on the quota. He did not understand the rationale of throwing five fish away. Mr. Williams
clarified that it would simply fill the quota slightly faster. Mr. Minton felt the Council should hold the
position that they originally had prior to the SAFMC Committee's change.
Mr. ~ i n t o n the
d Council held their position in support of 2.6.4.1.1: preferred alternative to allow
retention of up to 5 cut-off (barracuda damaged) king mackerel on vessels with cominercial trip limits.
These fish would not be counted toward the trip limit and may be sold. Motion carried By EDnsensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.6.4.2.2: commercial trip limits for Atlantic king mackerel. The SAFMC
committee proposed a motion to adopt Council preferred option and to delete from Amendment 8 if the
action was approved under deferred decision on Seasonal Framework Adjustment which was sent to NMFS
February 27, 1996. The Council committee needed to address SAFMC actions. For clarification the
p r e f d alternativewas read for the record: "2.6.4.2.2:preferred alternative of the GMFMC: Establish the
following commercial daily possession and landing limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel:
3,500 pounds
April 1 March 3 1 . Volusia/Flagler to NYICT
BrevarcWolusia to Volusia/Flagler 3,500 pounds
April 1 October 3 1
Dadehfonroe to BrevardNolusia 50 fish
April 1 October 3 1
April 1 October 3 1. Monroe County
125 fish."
-
Mr. Horn questioned why there were radical differences in the landing limits from county to county. Mr.
Williams cl&ed that the 3,500 pound trip limit came from North Carolina state law where a combined daily
vesseVtrip limit of 3,500 pounds for both king and Spanish mackerel existed. Just north of Cape Canaveral
which was the VolusiaEIagler County line, the fishermen have to travel a great distance off shore to be able
to catch king mackerel. The higher trip limits are appropriate in those areas where the fishermen have to
make the long trips off shore. This explained the year round trip Limit (April I - March 3 1 Volusia/Flagler
to NYICT 3,500 pound limit) north of Daytona Beach. The April 1 - October 31 BrevarWolusia to
Volusia/J?lagler 3,500 pound limit had been imposed for the same issue. The fishermen have to make a long
migrahon (20 or more miles)off shore. The April 1 - October 3 1 Dade/Monroe to BrevarcWolusia 50 fish
limit was because at that time of year the fish are closer to share. The April 1 October 3 1 Monroe County
125 fish limit was to again accommodate the longer distances.
-
Mr. Horn queried as to what the distances in Monroe County were. Mr. Williams replied that it would
depend on where they would go. If the fishermen were going all the way to the Tortugas it would be
approximately 70 to 80 miles. All of the fishermen did not have to travel that far. Mr. Horn commented to
allow one group of fishermen that travel 20 to 30 miles 3,500 pounds and another group who have to travel
more excessive distances 50 or 125 fish, was not fair and equitable regardless of the overall quota. Mr.
Williams stated that the t a w g data had always suggested that everythmg in Monroe County was Gulf group
king mackerel. He viewed that they had a slight bonus in what was used to define the Atlantic migratory
group of king mackerel. .
Mr. Woods requested clarification of why they changed the units of pounds to fish. Mr. Hartig explained
that theNarth Carolina statute was a state landing limit that was expressed in pounds rather than fish. Fish
was used mtheother states for law enforcement purposes. Mr. Woods asked what the equivalent of 50 fish
was in poundage Mr. Hartig estimated that each fish weighed approximately 10 to 11 pounds each. Mr.
Collins recalled that public testimony stated alternative 2.6.4.2. was against National Standard No. 4, and
requested Mr. McLemore if the proposal was in fact not in compliance with the National Standard. Mr.
McLame felt it would depend on the reason and rationale for implementing the differing limits and if the
record was in support of it. National Standard No. 4 stated that they could not discriminate between
fishermen, or the residents of different states. He could not see any discrimination based on statehood, the
majority of the fishermen affectedwere residents of Florida. Any allocations that were made would also have
to be fair and equitable, which was something the Council should address.
Mr. King was unclear as to the effect of the Gulf Stream was in regard to the migratory pattern of the
mackerel. Herecalled fiom public testimony that a couple of fishermen who lived and fished out of New
Symma Beachquested a 125 fish limit. He was concerned why that particular area allowed 3,500 pounds
when just south of that line (off of the Sebastim and Indian River County area) the limit was less. Mr. Hartig
stated the reason that line was chosen at that time was because that was where the multi-day trips started (in
the summertime)and where the fishermen would spend two to four day! at sea to catch king mackerel. The
day fisheries were throughout the southern regions. Mr. Kimmel pointed put that this item was one of the
few that NMFS had commented on. There seemed to be an inequity impact to the various fishing groups.
The burden of resourcemanagement or conservation should have been borne equitability over the fishermen
regulated.
Mr. Horn questioned as to why the Council was using landing limits given by North Carolina in relation to
the bulk of the fisheries in Florida Also, the limits were given for multi-day trips, while most of the Monroe
County fishermen would (also) make multi-day trips if traveling 70 to 80 miles off-shore. He felt a more
equitable situation should be obtained. Ifone group in Florida was justified in obtaining 3,500 pounds, then
other counties could have justified the argument to the same extent. Mr. Osburn inquired if NMFS had a
recommendation on limits that would achieve the goal of equitable distribution. Mr. Kimmel replied NMFS
did not have a specific recommendation. They felt this was an allocation issue that the Council should decide.
Dr. Shipp questioned if there was a normal ratio in weight of Spanish mackerel to king mackerel, since it
generally would have been an aggregate catch. Mr. Hartig stated that it was the SAFMC's intent to make
each area contribute equally to the conservation of that resource in the next amendment. Possibly it could
be thoroughly reviewed on the committee level. It was not their intent to stay with the 3,500 pounds in the
future amendment. They were going to attend to the conservation of the species throughout the spawning
season. Dr. Shipp stated that one of issues that was brought out in testimony that was of concern to him, was
that the average size of the fish in different areas. In general, a head count would have been a better
parameter to use than weight. Mr. Green concurred with Dr. Shipp. The intent of the 3,500 pounds was a
mix between Spanish mackerel and king mackerel. There may be a solution in clariljmg that quota as "x"
about may be king fish This would bring both of the regions in line with the Keys as well as being relatively
easy to enforce.
Mr. Brownlee stated that one of the things the Council should remember about the 3,500 pound trip limit was
the idea effort in the various areas. There are a reasonably few number of people that have to travel a long
distance to obtain the fish. Coastal Georgia to Key West are simply not similar enough to compare. The
n m b a of 125 fish per trip would not impact a high percentage of people. The overall idea had been to have
everyone be able to catch fish throughout the range. He felt that the geographic situations and population
differencesof the Carolinas and Key West should speak for themselves. Mr. Green stated to that point, the
residents of MonroeIDadeCounties give up all of the resource and it does not afffect the residents north. They
.would not suffer any of the consequences in the conservation efforts in this stock. Mr. Brownlee felt the
reason f a tbbnoinitially was because the fishermen of southeast Florida were not landing any
fish, and nquested more restrictive limits. Mr. Minton felt the Council might be better served to further
research the issue and have the two committees meet to arrive at a solution. Mr. Minton J I I O V ~to defer
2.6.4.2.2 to Joint Mackerel Committee Meeting.
Mr. Lessard requested to make a stipulation to the motion: at the time this issue be readdressed that the
records of the amount of fish that were landed in northern Florida. Mr. Minton concurred that he would
prefer to have historical landings as opposed to quotas that may be prejudiced based on management. Mr.
Horn reiterated for the Council to keep in mind that the final limits should be more evenly distributed
throughout the enti& Florida region.
Motion carried by consensus to defer 2.6.4.2.2 to Joint Mackerel Committee Meeting.
Mr. Rokrts preferred that the Council Committee meet prior to the joint committee meeting. Mr. Brownlee
stated that the SAFMC had worked with the fishermen of the east coast of Florida.and went through
extensive public hearings. They had not received objection to the proposed 3,500 pound limit for the
northern regions. The objection to the 3,500 pounds came solely from the MCCF.
Mr. Swingle stated that his interpretation of the framework procedure was even though this item may have
been approved by the SAFMC (for their stock under their procedures) did not mean the Council had
concurred or made a decision. Mr. McLemore reiterated there was a pending framework submission from
the SAFMC.He believed the SAFMC's position was to adopt the Council's position unless the framework
for this measure was approved. Then SAFMC would have liked to drop this issue out of the amendment.
There was a further restriction under the framework, and that was that any of the measures under the
h e w o r k had to be for the purpose of keeping the user group within this allocation; the Council may have
had a little more flexibility $ a planned amendment context. Mr. Kimrnel offered that NMFS's goal was to
have the two councils come together and agree on a trip limit.
Mr. Williams reviewed2.7.1.1: separate ABC for Gulf group zones. Both the SAFMC Committee and the
d
Council Committee were in agreement to accept the alternative for no change. Mr. Williams ~ o v e on
behalfof the committee to accept Preferred Alternative 2.7.1.1: Delete from Section 12.6.1.1[A)(3) of
the framework procedure the provision to provide separate ABC ranges for eastern and western
groups of Gulf king mackerel when the stock assessment panel obtains sufficient data to do so.
Motion rarried by consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.7.2.1: request for additional information from the Stock Assessment
Panel. Both the SAFMC committee and the Council committee were in agreement to accept the alternative
for no change. The alternative 2.7.2.1 was: "modify FMP section 12.6.1.1(a)(3) to provide that the stock
assessment panel address (additions underlined): 3. Condition of-the stock(s) or groups of fish within each
stock which could be managed separately. For each stock this should include but not be limited to:
a. Fishing mortality rate relative to
,,F and Fa, & well as F, spR&m ,, and F4,
b.O-D
S
(SPR).
c. Abundance relative to an adequate spawning biomass.
.
d. Trends in recruitment.
e. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) which will result in long-term yield as near MSY as possible.
f. Calculation of catch ratios based on catch statistics using procedures defined in the FMP as
,
.
modifid
g.
&mi&
of currentof Atlantic and Gulf mieratorv eroup king mackerel in the mixing- zone for
I'
Mr. Williams moved on behalf of the committee to adopt alternative 2.7.2.1:
Request additional
information from the Stock Assessment Panel.
Mr. Minton requested for clarification of alternative 2.7.2.1 and as it related to Mr. Gregory's testimony of
the target of 20 percent SPR Mr. ~ i l i i a m clarified
s
that was in reference to the overfishing defmition of
,
which would be addressed in section alternative 2.7.3. Motion carried hy consensus, to adopt alternative
2.7.2.1: Request additional information from the Stock Assessment Panel.
Mr. Williams reviewedalternative 2.7.3: revise the overfishingdefinition. The SAFMC proposed a motion
to defer to joint cmmittee meeting. The Council Committees must agree upon the overfishing level but may
to defer 2.7.3 definition of overfishing to the joint
have Mkrent tatget (OY) levels. Mr. Williams
mackerel committee meeting.
Mr. King asked if the Council was going to instruct the committees what the overfishing definition should
be. Mr. Williams felt direction from Council would be appropriate. The discussions concluded that everyone
was in agreement that 20 percent SPR was desired for the definition of over-fishing. The only issue in debate
was what the Council set as OY. Mr. King felt the Council carried the mandate to maintain 20 percent SPR
as the overfishing definition with a 30 percent target for the recovery of the stock. He urged the Council
committee to f d y represent the Council's position at the joint committee meeting. Mr. Williams replied
that implicit to the two committees getting together, there would have to be some negotiation. Mr. King
stressed that he wanted the committee's position to be in support of the Council's desires.
Mr. Horn questioned if the committee was given full authority to decide for the Council if the Council did
not make a decision on a specific issue. Mr. Williams clarified that any issue would be readdressed at a later
date by the Council with the joint committee's recommendation. Dr. Roberts reiterated the Council would
be taking final action in May. He advised if the Council members felt strongly enough on the issue, they
might want to make a motion and not direct it to the committee. Mr. King felt if the overfishing definition
was going to be discussed with the condition to arbitrally go against the best scientific data, then he would
like to remove the overfishing definition from the joint mackerel committee meeting.
Mr. King &red a s-te
motim that if the definition of overfishing was to be decided by arbitrary
interpretation of scientific data, it should be removed from consideration by the joint mackerel
committee and referred back to the Council.
Mr. McLemore advised that (for the FMP to work) the Council and the SAFMC had to-agree on the
ovedishing definition. The councils were jointly managing the stocks. The amendment was constructed that
both Councils must agree on the overfishing definition. The committee could not bind the Council on the
issue. He advised the Council to hear the recommendations of the committee meeting prior to determining
what action to take. It would be appropriate for the Council to provide guidance to the committee.
Dr. Shipp believed that there was a consensus of the Council that the overfishingdefinition be 20 percent
SPR The committee would go foward knowing the commitment to that number. The Council-asa whole
had not decided on a target goal. He felt it was appropriate that the Council to send the issue to the
committee to negotiate and determine the appropriate target. Mr. Green questioned if it were appropriate
for the Council to give the committee negotiation rights. Mr. Swingle responded that no committee could
act on behalf of the Council without the recommendation of the Council to do so. The Courrcil committee
would negotiatein good faith, and come up with a consensus with the SAFMC. Each council would judge
that negotiation as to whether it was acceptable to them, and then take final action. Mr. Green viewed that
to be a reasonable approach.
Mr. King stated that he previously had attended a joint committee meeting with the SAFMC when the same
ismwas discussed, and felt that there was not progress made toward acceptance of the goal of 20 percent
.
SPR He would have liked the committee to determine "if the definition of overfishing was to be decided by
arbitrary interpretation of scientific data, it should be removed from consideration by the joint mackerel
d t t e e and referred back to the Council." The committee could make a recommendation and then have
that recommendation referred back to Council. He felt that because the Council and the SAFMC had a joint
FMP it bound them to have the same overfishing definition on both stock. Mr. McLemore stated that this
amendment did not present any alternative for separate overfishing definitions. Mr. King felt that if both
Councils cwld not agree then he could not see an alternative. Mr. McLemore clarified that the Councils did
have the authority but had chosen not to use it in this amendment. Mr. Williams felt it was well known that
the Council was supporting the 20 percent SPR as the definition of over-fishing. At the same time, if the
SAFMC were to direct their committee to support 30 percent and refused to negotiate, the overfishing
defmition would stay at 30 percent (as originally stated in the amendment). Scientific data had been available
to support the 20 percent SPR, however it would be self-defeating to tell the committee that they had no
authority to debate or negotiate on behalf of the Council.
Dr. Roberts reviewed the minutes of the January Council meeting where the Council had approved the
minutes ofthe Joint Mackerel Cothittee Meeting. He noted the Council Mackerel Management Committee
had been directed meet with the SAFMC Mackerel Management Committee prior to the February meeting
to address the definition of the overfishing. and the threshold fishing level. He felt the Council may .
unintentionally be drifting away from that original intent. Mr. Brokvnlee believed that the threshold of the
target should have been'specified. He felt if numbers were given to the SAFMC to be worked with then a
compromise could be obtained. Dr. Roberts clarified that the SAFMC did not have an objection to the 20
percent SPR, it was the target and threshold levels that were of concern. Mr. Brownlee advised that speaking
for himself he did agree, however, he would not speak for the SAFMC as a whole.
Substitute motion withdraws.
Mr. Horn felt the overfishing definition should remain at 20 percent SPR with a target (OY) level at 30
percent SPR Mr. Homgffered a substitute motion for the overfishing definition to be 20 percent SPR
and the OY to be 30 percent SPR
Mr. Swingle indicated the threshold figure of the SAFMC (which had been new) was intended a s an
overfishing level on which the fishery would automatically be closed at 15 percent SPR Mr. King questioned
Mr. McLemore as to the definition of the target threshold and whether that definition would be understood
by fishermen. Mr. McLemore was uncomfortable with the term "negotiation" being used in the process. He
fecogruzed the practicalities and the realities of how the Councils would arrive at a certain common point in
their deliberations. Whatever the decision, both of the committees needed to be certain that the final
conclusion was supported by the best available scientific information. If what was in this document indicates
one threshold and the science indicated another, then there should be a good explanation as to why. The term
"threshold" had been presented to mean different things. The Council needed to define their interpretation
threshold. The SAFMC had presented a threshold, an overfishing definition and a target, which were three
different kvdsat which different things happened. At the threshold level, which was below overfishing, the
~herywouktelost.At the overfishing definition level there would be a constructive rebuilding plan. The
target would attempt to attain a higher SPR There could be some inconsistences as the Councils contemplate
those concepts the Couxkcil looked at a single overfishing definition for all of these stocks combined instead
of breaking it down by stock. Uniformity was needed.
Mr. Minton did not feel the Council needed to officially vote on the overfishingdefinition of 20 percent SPR
Rather the committeeshould be given a suggested SPR target. Mr. King clarified the target was a negotiable
issue where the overfishing was not. Mr. Minton felt the target was the only issue that the Council needed
to vote on Dr. Robe& noted that leaving the overfishing definition of 20 percent SPR would be harmless.
Mr. Horn reiterated that leaving the overfishing definition of 20 percent SPR would exclude all questions
regarding the Council's position. Mr. McLemore asked how OY currently specified fdr this fishery. Mr.
Atran replied that OY was clarified as maximum sustainable yield (approximately 35 percent SPR). Mr.
McLemore stated the FMP contained the SPR and under the requirements of the act, if the proposed action
would change that the Council would need to include an analysis as to why and how they arrived at OY. Mr.
King questioned if that would be addressed in the negotiating process at the committee meeting in order to
Mr. McLemore advised the Council to be aware of all of the ramifications. Mr.
build the rational re@
Horn believed that OY was not specifically a number, rather a group target, based on the economic social
considerations which would change over time. He questioned if OY had developed to be represented by a
number. Mr. Swingle advised that historically the Council determined long-term OY was equivalent to MSY,
but used TAC as the annual expression of OY. He indicated, however, that if the Council had used a
threshold level of 15 percent SPR then they would have had to close the fishery in 1986 when the ABC range
of 0 to 2.3 MP was set. The question that needed to be resolved was whether it would have been better to
set TAC at a low level and allow both the recreational and commercial sectors to continue to participate in
that fishery as it was being restored or to close the fishery. An economic impact would have been much
greater under a closure. That would be important to keep in mind when negotiating over a threshold level
for the entire coastal pelagic complex. Mr. Williams inquired as to how many assessments were done that
were not fishery dependent and what would happen if the fishery was closed entirely. Mr. Swingle replied
the Virtual Population Assessment (VPA) was fishery dependent. Mr. Williams noted they would have to
develop a new type of assessment.
Mr. Kimrnel pointed out that NMFS commented on the amendment in terms of the fishing definition. They
recommended that the 20 percent level was the best scientitic information for the overfishing. They
recogmid that each council may have had different options for their target level (based on their rational for
OY). It was noted that the threshold level was optional; it was not mandated by the 602 guidelines. When
NMFS presented this comment to the SAFMC there did seem to be an indication that they would move
toward a 20 percent SPR for their fishing over-level. Mr. Brownlee agreed this would be possible. The
SAFMC still needed to view Dr. Mace's presentation at the next meeting. He knew that his committee, if not
the SAFMC,would like to see either a target number or a better explanation of what the Council's OY was
based on. Dr. Shipp stated that he was uncomfortable in using the term "OY" rather than "target". The
reason for this was that OY was fraught with a lot of difficulties. By definition OY and SPR could not be
the same. He would like to use the term "target". Mr. Horn pointed out that the Council used OY instead
of target in their deliberations and discussions. He felt target and OY were the same. The Council had been
told to tie the "OY" to a measurable number of SPR. Mr. Swingle attributed that was the criticism of reef
fish and why it was left at OY. Mr. Horn presented that was the reasoning behind the verbiage of his motion.
Mr. Minton objected to the use of "OY". Mr. Horn reiterated that all of the information presented to him had
been on "OF.
motion carried 12 to 3, with Mr. Minton abstaining, for the overfishing
defiiition to be 20 percent SPR and the OY to be 30 percent SPR.
Mr. Williaau reviewed alternative 2.7.4.1: provide for review of stock assessment panel report. The
SAFMC Committee changes were editorial to reflect committee's intent.. The Council must agree upon
wording. Mr. Williams m v e d on behalf of the committee to defer 2.7.4.1 to joint mackerel committee
meeting. Motion carried by consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.7.5.1: seasonal framework items. Both the SAFMC and the Council
Committees agreed to delete fishing year. Mr. Williams moved on behalf of the committee to delete item
(c) from section 2.7.5.1. Motion carried by consensus.
Mr. Wiams reviewedalternative 2.7.6.1: Council responsibility for regulating migratory groups. Both the
SAFMC and the Council committees had agreed for no change. Mr. Williams moved on behalf of the
committee to adopt preferred alternative 2.7.6.1 preferred alternative: Section 12.6.1.1 (d) is further
modified to provide that the SAFMC is to set regulations within the commercial sub allocation for the
northern area of the Eastern Zone (Dade through Volusia Counties, Florida) for the commercial
fishery for Gulf group king mackerel as follows: Paragraph 2: Recommendations with respect to the
Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel will be the responsibility of the South Atlantic Council,
and those for the Gulf groups of king and Spanish mackerel will be the responsibility of the Gulf
Council. Except that the SAFMC will have responsibility to set vessel trip limits, closed seasons or
areas, or gear restrictions for the northern area of the Eastern zone (Dade through Volusia Counties,
Florida) for the commercial fishery for Gulf group king mackerel. This report shall be submitted by
such date as may be specified by the Councils.
Mr. Collins questioned if the SAFMC would be in charge of what the Council did. Mr. Williams clarified
that the Council would set TAC for the Gulf group. By law there had been a fraction of that TAC that was
apportioned to the southeast coast of Florida (in the wintertime). For that portion of Gulf group king
mackerel the SAFMC would set trip limits, closed season, closed areas, and gear restrictions in that area for
the portion in the&jurisdiction, fiom Dade County to Volusia County during the winter months. The
SAFMC would negotiate with their fishermen.
Motion carried By gonsensu. Mr. Collins objected to the preferred alternative.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.7.7.1: seasonal adjustment review period. SAFMC Committee
proposed a motion to delete the time frame reference. The Council needed to address changes by SAFMC.
Mr. Kimmel offered that NMFS (also) recommended to delete the time frame reference. Mr. King clarified
that NMFS did not want to be committed to a time frame for answering a request from the Council through
a regulatory amendment. Mr. Kimmel advised that NMFS's response to have changes to mandate a specific
review period for a regulatory amendment were not defined in the Magnuson Act. NMFS must respond
within a reasonable period, otherwise its behavior may appear arbitrary. Mr. McLemore queried what the
result would be if NMFS failed to meet the deadline. The proposed language would also bind the Council
to a time hme in which to agree. Mr. King noted that there should be a way NMFS, through a memorandum
of understanding, would not put the Council wider pressure. He pointed out the Council would have to face
the fishermen when the actions (that they had full intent to act upon) were never acted upon. He requested
what NMFS would do to keep this fiom recurring. Mr. Kimmel replied the SAFMC recognized that as they
are responsible and they would take action as quickly as possible. They recommended that the Regional
Director review the framework actions over a period of time and report back to the SAFMC. This would
provide a rccordofhow long it would take to go through regulatory actions. He was unaware of what would
happen afterthatrept A &rt had been requested from the Regional Director. Mr. King felt the Council
w o d d w a n t this
~ issue
~ with the SAFMC. He did not feel like this was an appropriate action for
an issue that aff'ected so many other people. In reauthorization, he hoped NMFS would move toward
recognizing the Council's requests.
Mr. Swingle stated that both the House and Senate versions of the amendments to the Magnuson Act
asentially put regulatory amendmentson the same basis as plan amendments. They would have to be acted
upon after the start of the review period within 140 days. The same requirement applied to the plan
amendments. Mr. McLemore advised that regulatory amendments typically had been implemented prior t6
the 140 day deadline. Other legal requirements and obligation would not change based on this time-frame
-fi
by the Council. It could even be viewed as an additional administrative burden. Dr. Shipp
moved that the Council concur with the SAFMC Committee position to delete the time frame
reference section for alternative 2.7.7.1 to state: If the RD concurs that the Council's
recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan, the National Standards, and
other applicable law, he shall implement the regulations by proposed and final rules in the Federal
Register prior to the appropriate fishing year or such dates as may be agreed upon with the Councils.
Motioncarriedby~onsensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed alternative 2.7.8.1: framework actions authorized by the Regional Director. Both
the SAFMC Committee and the Council Committee agreed to delete "(item 6i) fishing year" from alternative
2.7.8.1. Mr. Williams movedon behalfof the committee for alternative 2.7.8.1 to state: The remainder
(other than the first paragraph) of Section 12.6.1.1(9 is revised as follows (changes underlined):
Appropriate regulatory changes which may be implemented by the Regional Director by proposed
and final rules in the Federal Register are:
1. A d j h e n t of the point estimates of MSY for cobia, for Spanish mackerel within a range of 15.7
million pounds to 19.7 million pounds, and for king mackerel within a range of 21.9 million
pounds to 35.2 million pounds. m s t m e n t of the overfishine. level for kin^ and S ~ a n i s h
mackerels
2. Setting total allowable catches (TACs) for each stock or migratory group of fish which should be
managed separately, as identified in the FMP provided:
a. No TAC may exceed the best point estimate of MSY by more than 10 percent.
b. No TAC may exceed the upper range of ABC if it results in overfishing as defined in Section
12.6.1.1, a.4.
c. Downward adjustments of TAC of any amount are allowed in order to protect the stock and
prevent ovefishing.
d. Reductions or increases in allocations as a result of changes in the TAC are to be as equitable
as may be practical utilizing similar percentage changes to allocations for participants in a
..
fishery.
rtrarrge);
3. Adjusting user group allocations in response to changes in TACs according to the formula
specified in the FMP.
..
4.
.
..
.. . ..
*
5. The a-nkh
mackerel between recreational and commercial-fisherme~
the framework alter -ratson I of c h a w in the social and/or econ o r n ~ ~
Such a l l o ~m m
e
r t h m a ten ~ e r c e n t
r's a1lo~'on.Chanves mav be im~several vears
$0 reach a desired ggj& but must be assessed each vear relative to c h a w in TAC and socid
or -ce
to either sector of the fishervlsee o ~ t i o n2.7.5.u
6. Modifying (or implementing for a particular species):
a. quotas Jincluding zero a u h &
b. trip limits
c. bag limits (including zero bay limits)
..
d. minimum sizes
e. re-all~ca-tionof Atlantic group Spanish mackerel bv no more than 10 percent Der vear t~
commercial or recreational sector,
gear restriction (ranging from modifving current re~ulationsto a complete ~ r o h i b i t i ~ ~ )
g. permit requirements, or
h. seasodarea closure (inchdin? s ~ a w n i nclosure)
~
onal Director to close anv fisherv. .e.. revert anv w ~ m rtot zerq
and close and reanv commercial fisherv. once a auota.has been established through
the
procedure described above and such auota has been tilled. When such action is necessarv. the
&gi
r 'I
f.
..
Mr. Horn questioned why "fishing year" had been deleted from the amendment. Mr. Williams stated that the
fishing year had tremendous effects on allocation. Motion carried consensu.
Mr. Williams reviewed section 2.8.1: optimum yeld. The SAFMC Committee supported alternative 2.8.1.1,
W e the Council Committee supported preferred alternative 2.8.1.2, both of which referenced change to the
verbiage of Section 12.5.1.1 in Draft Mackerel Amendment 8. The SAFMC Committee proposed a motion
to defer to Joint Committee meeting. Mr. Williams moved to defer further action on section 2.8.1 to joint
mackerel committee. Motion carried by consensus.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Ovem'ew to Amendment 8for Coastal Pelagics FMP (Attachment 2), Frequency
of assessment panel report, Action 25, Section 12.6.1.1(B). The SAFMC Committee preferred the.wording
to be: "The Panel will prepare a written report with its recommendations for submission to the Councils &
by such date as may be specified by the Councils. The report will contain the scientific basis for their
recommendations and indicate the degree of reliability which the Council should place on the recommended
stock divisions, levels of catch and options for non quota controls of catch." The Council Committee
preferred the wording to be: "The Panel will prepare a written report with its recommendations for
submission to the Councils jn alternate (even numbered) vears by such date as may be specified by the
Councils. The report will contain the scientific basis for their recommendations and indicate the degree of
reliability which the Council should place on the recommended stock divisions, levels of catch and options
for non quota controls of catch."
Both the SAFMC Committee and the Council Committee must agree upon wording. Mr. Williams moved
on behalfof the committee to defer SAFMC Action No. 25 to the Joint Mackerel Committee meeting.
Motioncarn'edbconsensus.
In reviewing whether all alternatives had been addressed, there was slight concern to readdress preferred
alternative 2.5.2.3: charter king mackerel permit moratorium (Gulf only). The preferred alternative 2.5.2.3
stated: "A moratorium of up to 5 years from the control date of October 16, 1995 is established on the
issuance of
of Mexico c o a l ?el& charter vessel permits. During the moratorium no new charter
vessel pgmits arc to be issued. The charter vessel permit applies to both charter vessels and headboas in
the fm-hirc fishing business." Both the SAFMC committee and the Council committee agreed to delete this
from the amendment. Mr. Williams moved on behalf of the committee to delete preferred alternative
23.2.3 from Mackerel Amendment 8. Motion carried hy consensus.
Mr. Minton moved to reconsider Council action on 2.5.2: permit moratorium. Mr. Minton felt the
Council should express to the fishermen the rationale for removing this section fiom Draft Mackerel
Amendment 8. The data showed there had been confusion in the industry as to whether there should have
been a pdmoratorium. He felt the permit moratorium preferred alternative should be worded differently
for the fishermen to know it could be addressed at a later date once more data was obtained. The basic
premise for initially establishing the permit was still in existence. Mr. Williams recalled that Mr. Minton
made tbe original motionto delete preferred alternative 2.5.2.3. Mr. Minton acknowledged and felt it would
be appropriate to reclarify his position. Dr. Roberts believed that most fishermen had already obtained a
permit
LCDR Johnson assured the Council that the Coast Guard would definitely be checking for the permits from
the fishermen, as long as the requirement remained on the books. Mr. Osburn suggested that the Council
consider requesting a briehg each year fiom NMFS on the number of permits by state for each of the permit
categories. It could even be as part of the Newsletter to advise fishermen that it was a continued requirement.
Mr. Horn supported Mr. Minton; there was a need for identification of the user group. Mr. Horn requested
Mr. Nugent to reclar@ why there were so many fishermen in Texas who had not obtained a permit, if in fact
there was ample discussion on the subject. Mr. Nugent replied that many fishermen did not get the permits
because at the public hearings it was given the impression to be a mute point. He felt that if the Council
would establish a fm projected date then he, the Coast Guard, and others could have made a strong effort
to inform the fishennen, and give those fishermen the opportunity to obtain the permits. Dr. Roberts stated
that date proposed would be October 16. He recalled public testimony reflected if the Council proceeded to
continue with the moratorium and a period of time prior to the implementation should be given. The control
date was the issue at hand rather than the moratorium. He suggested that separating the issues may have
allowed the alternative 2.5.2.3 to be reconsidered. Mr. Horn felt it was important to keep the alternative in
the plan to remind the fishermen this was an important issue. He reminded that it was a law for mackerel
fishermen to have a permit.
Mr. Minton suggested if a date were to be set, then the date should be prior to the Coast Guard's
implementation of making checking for the permits; the fishermen should have already had the permits. Mr.
Horn
d s t i t u t e motion to adopt alternative 2.5.2.4: status quo - no moratorium on coastal
pelagic charter permits (become the preferred alternative). Substitute motion carried.
a
Mr. Williams reviewed 2.5.6: modify permit requirements. Both the SAFMC Committee and the Council
Committee agreed to delete "alternative 2.5.6.1: modify the permit application to obtain additional social
and economic information such as species and migratory group sought, number of persons on the vessel, etc."
Mr. Williams moved on behalfof the committee to delete 2.5.6.1 from Mackerel Amendment 8. Motion
carried.
Due to technical dillidties this portion of testimony was not audible. Public record indicated:
Mr. Wilfiams &that Council send letter, Tab C, No. 10 to Dr. Kemmerer requesting emergency
action to change the overfishing criterion to 20 percent SPR.
Mr. Collins: yes
Dr. Fisher: yes Mr. Green: yes
Mr. Horn: yes
Ms. Foote: yes
Dr. Kimmel: no
Mr. King: yes
Mr. Lessard: yes
Mr. Martin: absent
Mr. Minton: yes
Mr. Osburn: yes
Mr. Williams: yes
Dr. Shipp: yes
Mr. Wallin: yes
Mr. Woods: yes
Dr. Roberts: yes
w r i e d 14 to 1, that Council send letter, Tab C, No. 10 to Dr. Kemmerer requesting
emergency action to change the overtishing criterion to 20 percent SPR.
Personnel Committee R e ~ o d
The Council met in closed session and selected Dr. Richard Leard for the position of Senior Fishery
Biologist.
MEETING RECESSED AT 5 3 0 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 8:30 A.M. ON THURSDAY,
MARCH 14,1996.
eef Fish Management Committee R e p o e
Mr. Horn presented the Reef Fish Management Committee report on Reef Fish Amendment 13:. Public
hearing comments and letters, and SSC comments were reviewed. No members of the red snapper AP
returned any comments. Dr. Kernmerer stated the Regional Office and Science Center had no critical or
substantive comments, just some editorial suggestions. Mr. Kimmel noted that no comments had been
received ftom NMFS headquarters, and reserved the right to introduce those comments if they become
available later. Mr. Horn m o v d on behalf of the Committee's recommendation by unanimous voice
vote, that the Council adopt the Proposed Alternative: Extend the duration of the red snapper
endorsement system until Amendment 8 (red snapper ITQ system) was implemented or until it was
replaced by an alternate plan to limit access to the'commercial red snapper fishery. If either of these
options was not possible, then the endorsement system would terminate on December 31, 1997.
Motion ~ r r i e d with
,
Dr. Kimmel abstaining.
-
Mr. Horn moved on behalf of the Committee's recommendation by a unanimous voice vote, that
Amendment 13 be submitted to NMFS for review and implementation.
Mr. Collins: yes
Dr. Fishes. yes
Mr.
yes
Mr. H o r n yes
Ms. Footc: yes
Dr. Kimmel: abstain
Mr. King: yes
Mr. Lessard: yes
Bpll
Mr. Martin: absent
Mr. Minton: absent
Mr. Osburn: yes
Mr. Williams: yes
Dr. Shipp: yes
Mr. Wallin: yes
Mr. Woods:yes
Dr. Roberts: yes
W carried 13,with 1 abstaining.
Mr. Horn discussed committee action on the Addendum to Red Snapper TAC Regulatory Amendment (split
season): Alternatives and rationale in the addendum to the TAC Regulatory Amendment were reviewed by
committee. NMFS considered the Council's action to be a withdrawal and resubmittal of the Regulatory
Amendment The original Regulatory Amendment did not contain a provision for a split season because
when it was approved in September because the Council expected the ITQ system to be in place by April 1.
Andy Kernmeref estimated that an October I opening under the amendment would last for 3- to 4-weeks.
Mr. Horn moved on behalf of the Committee recommendation, that the Council adopt the Proposed
Alternative: Establish a split season for the 1996 commercial red snapper quota. The commercial
season will open on February 1 and will close on the date when 3.06 million pounds of red snapper
are projected to be harvested. The season will reopen on October 1 for the remainder of the quota
above 3.06 million pounds plus any unharvested part of the 3.06 million pounds that resulted from
a premature closure.
Mr. Horn related that it was brought to his attention by Mr. Atran that the Council may have wanted to
amend motion to include 1997 (as well as 1996)if for some reason the endorsement system needed to be
extended to December 1, 1997.
Mr Horn moved to amend the motion to state (change underlined) :Establish a split season for the 1996
and 1997 commerciai red snapper quota. The commercial season will open on February 1 and will
close on the date when 3.06 million pounds of red snapper are projected to be harvested. The season
will reopen on October 1 for the remainder of the quota above 3.06 million pounds plus any
unharvested part of the 3.06 million pounds that resulted from a premature closure.
Mr. Swingle noted that if the ITQ system were replaced by the license limitation system then would no
longer exist. Mr. Horn concurred and added it was a precaution if the license limitation system was not
implemented. Mr. Miton stated that public testimony included concerns on the opening date because of
weather conditions. The fishennen seemed to prefer a September opening. He felt it was critical to utilize
their advise to the best advantage possible.
Mr. Minton gffered a substitute motion to state (change underlined) :Establish a split season for the
1996 and 1997 commercial red snapper quota. The commercial season will open on February 1 and
will close on the date when 3.06 million pounds of red snapper are projected to be harvested. The
season will reopen on SeDtember 1 for the remainder of the quota above 3.06 million pounds plus any
unharvested part of the 3.06 million pounds that resulted from a premature closure.
Mr. H m reiterated his previous testimony that from a marketing standpoint, September was one of the two
worst months ofthe year for fish. He did not feel there was an extreme difference in the weather conditions
f?om Septanber to October. He requested that Mr. Collins and Mr. King to give their opinions. Mr. Collins
stated that theweather was reasonably the same for the end of October and September. For August through
September there would be reasonable weather with the exceptions of the hurricanes. He recommended the
seasonto reopenan September IS. Mr. King noted that historic red snapper fishermen stopped fishing the
long trips on the schooners after the month October. This should indicate weather condition of the later
months. He agreed with Mr. Collins proposed date of September IS to reopen the season. Mr. Osburn
indicated the fishermen generally want to fish with the good weather and the'good market. They generally
have preferred the good market; he also supported the September 15 date. Mr. Minton felt the September
15 date was a good compromise date. Mr. Horn yithdrew amended motion.
.
Mr. Minton amended the substitute motion to state (change underlined) :Establish a split season for
the 1996and 1997 commercial red snapper quota. The commercial season will open on February 1
and will close on the date when 3.06 million pounds of red snapper are projected to be harvested. T h e
season will reopen on September 15 for the remainder of the quota above 3.06 million pounds plus
any unharvested part of the 3.06 million pounds that resulted from a premature closure. Motion
carn'ed.
Mr. Horn moved on behalf of the Committee, that the Regulatory Amendment and Addendum be
submitted to NMFS for review and implementation.
Mr. Minton preferred a roll call vote to have been taken.
Mr. Collins: yes
Dr. Fisher: yes
Mr. Green: yes
Mr. Horn: yes
Ms. F e t e : yes
Dr. Kemmerer: yes
Mr. King: yes
Mr. Lessard: yes
Roll call
,
Mr. Martin: absent
Mr. Minton: yes
Mr. Osburn: yes
Mr. Williams: yes
Dr. Shipp: yes
Mr. Wallin: yes
Mr. Woods: yes
Dr. Roberts: yes
acarried unamiously.
Mr. Horn presented the Reef Fish Management Committee report on Reef Fish Amendment 14 (fish traps
and framework procedure modifications): Mr Swingle had reviewed the alternatives and rationale for
Amendment 14. Mr. Williams asked that an additional fish trap workshop similar to the one held on
Monday, March 13, 1996, be scheduled for the Florida Big Bend area before the next Council meeting and
before approval of the amendment for public hearings. He noted that fish trapping in the Big Bend and
Panhandle area was a fairly new development, since 1992. He felt that Amendment 14 would bestow longterm benefits on some people that, once implemented, would be difficult to change in the fbture. Mr
Williams felt that holding this additional workshop would not result in any loss of time, and that the Council
needed to get as much public input as possible before implementing this type of limited entry program. Mr.
Horn felt that, since there were already three public hearings proposed for north Florida, there was no need
for an additional workshop. Dr. Kemmerer suggested that this would put an unfair burden on fish trappers,
who would feel obligated to attend every one of the meetings. Mr. Simpson suggested that if the whole Reef
Fish Committee met for the workshop, they could formulate their recommendations for the Council at the
workshop. Mr. Swingle noted that, if the workshop was approved, it would be scheduled before the May
Council meeting,and the public hearings would be scheduled between the May and July Council meetings.
Mr. Hom moved on behalf of the Committee, that the Reef Fish Committee hold a workshop in the Big
Bend a r e s (Wakulla/Crawfordville) to consider the provisions of Amendment 14,
Mr. Williams offed he did not feel it a necessity that the whole Committee attend. It was only important
that the workshop be held so local people could voice their position. Mr. Horn felt that although it was
viewed as a workshop, it would still be viewed as a public hearing by the public. Due to the limited number
of iish trappers, they would be out numbered. He felt if the Council were to support the workshop, it would
be importaut for the committee to go. Mr. Green advised that the location where the meeting would be held
would determine the number of fish trappers who would attend. He felt the Council needed to hold the
meeting where the public would have more access to attend. Dr. Roberts requested clarification from Mr.
Horn ifhe objected& the word "committee" being in the motion, or to the process itself. Mr. Horn objected
to the process based on the fact the Council had only allowed 3 public hearings for approximately 2,500
fishermento participate. Mr. Green felt if it were handled as a workshop the amendment could be adjusted
fiom the workshop input. Once it went to public comment the parameters would already set. Mr. Osburn
felt the ReefFish Committee needed to have public input prior to spending additional time going through the
amendment.
Mr. Osbum amended the motion (changes underlined), that representatives of the Reef Fish Committee
hold a workshop in the Big Bend area (Wakulla/Crawfordville) to consider the provisions of
Amendment 14.
Mr. Wiams related there not only was recreational objection, but also commercial objection to traps in the
Big Bend area. He supported Mr. Osburn's amended motion. Mr. King requested the workshop have
presentations andlor material to educate the public on trap fishing. He supported having a workshop only
if it were in the format of a workshop and not a public hearing. Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Wallin concurred
with Mr. King. An agenda for the meeting was suggested. Mr. Horn questioned the intent of the verbiage
"repmintatives." Dr. Roberts related it was simply to state members of the Committee would attend without
suggesting it would be a'comrnittee meeting. Mr. Minton clarified that if a membe; wanted to attend, he
would be allowed to. Dr. Roberts agreed, stipulating that person had to be a member of the Reef Fish
Committee.
Mr. Kimmel noted that the Committee and the Council would prefer to have NMFS participation in the
workshop. He requestedthat Council and the Reef Fish Chairman meet with NMFS and provide a specific
m a m e d h o n for the information needed, so that NMFS could present the appropriate information at that
workshop. Mr. Swingle stated the technical personnel from the center should present the results of the
characterization study as had been done for the Council. Mr. Kimmel noted that NMFS usually preferred
to have a formal request as to what information should be presented. Dr. Roberts felt that the idea of a
workshop was to present information to the people who would ultimately be participating in some type of
public deliberation or hearing. The tone of this workshop should present information and receive reaction
to that information. Amended motion carried with two persons in opposition
Section 6.4 (Modifjlmg the Fish Trap Endorsement Moratorium). Dr. Kemmerer presented the following
numbers regarding fishermen who would be affected under Alternative l(a). Of the 52 individuals who
qualie for a one time fish trap endorsement transfer:
24 have a currently active reef fish permit
6 have an expired permit but are within the one year period when they can renew it. Thus, there are 30 potential additional qualifiers for permanent endorsements in additional to current
endomamthddas. In addition, 20 other individuals had permits that have been expired for more than one
year, but could obtain a pennit by transfer. Two of the 52 individuals have obtained a fish trap endorsement
under the one time transfer provision, and a third was close to getting an endorsement.
Mr. Osburn asked what the optimum number of fish traps would be under a limited system. Dr. Lamberte
responded that it was dif%cJt to determine an optimum number of traps because traps target several species
and optimum yield was based on single species. Mr. Atran suggested that a possible way of looking at the
optimum number of traps might be to consider that, in the 1995 grouper fishery, roughly 100 trap fishermen
harvested about 10 percent of the grouper quota. Thus, each additional trap fisherman might be expected
to inthe grouper catch by about 0.1 percent of the quota until the quota was filled. After which time
any W e r increase in traps would result in the same amount of catch being distributed among a larger
number of fishermen: Mr. Green disagreed with Mr. Atran's suggestion. He felt that the fishery was already
catching all the grouper available to be caught, and additional trap fishermen would only reallocate the
existing catch to the non-traditional trap fishery and away from other more traditional commercial and
recreational fishennen.
There were no further comments on Sections 6.4 through 6.8, except on Section 6.7. 'Council staff was
Alternative, to clarifL the discussion which indicated that the endorsement would
asked, under the Pro&
be issued to the vessel owner, but if the operator's income was used to qualify for the reef fish permit. The
qualifying operator must be on board when that vessel was fishing.
Section 7.0 (Fish Trap Area Prohibitions). Mr. Horn stated that he felt that regulating by prohibition was
not the way to manage fisheries, and that there was not enough information to support an area prohibition.
He noted that there are active fishermen in the proposed prohibited area and felt that if the Council could
have self-policing, the alternative for area prohibition would be unnecessary.
NMFS Special Agent Mac Fuss was asked by Dr. Kemmerer to attend to the meeting to answer questions
about enforcement problems. Mr. Fuss has been working in the Keys for two years, and felt that fish trap
enforcement was one of the most frustrating issues. To catch violators, enforcement had to see the violator
settingthe traps. NMFS did not have enough agents to be on the water full-time, and they primarily worked
through investigahons. Mr. Fuss stated that in the two years he had been in the Keys he had not received any
information fiom fish trappers, contrary to statements made by fish trappers a t the public workshop that they
are willing to come forward with information. Information on vessel names, documentation numbers, areas
and time where illegal fish traps are being used would be helpful, and these could be anonymous tips.
Mr. Lessard noted that many of the violators were not licensed, and questioned how eliminating the licensed
fishennen would eliminate the illegal fishermen. Mr. Livingston, NMFS enforcement, noted that another
problem with catching violators was that the violators are using spotters, which makes it much more difficult
to catch violatom in the act Mr. Osbum asked if prohibiting traps from an area would make trap regulations
more enforceable. He noted that some trappers take trap materials out to sea and construct the traps at sea.
Agent Fuss responded that a prohibition would make tending laws easier to enforce and would make it more
diflicult for violators to get their traps out to the area. Mr. Goins suggested that if enforcement agents drove
around the docks and learned where fishennen stored their traps, they would recognize when traps were
missing while the fisherman was there and could question the fisherman about the location of his trap.
Mr. Osburn noted that a seasonal closure currently exists on Riley's Hump. He suggested a year round
closure of Riley's Hunt to improve enforceability. Mr. Horn felt that this would be creating a no-fishing zone.
Mr. Swiuglenoted that the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) had proposed a 100 square
mile no-fishing zone just north of Riley's Hump. (Riley's Hump was approximately 20 square miles.) Mr.
Williamsmtcdthat no fishing zones had been very controversial in this area. Mr. Kimmel stated that Riley's
Hump wasveay diverse biologically. Mr. Horn moved on behalf of the Committee, that an alternative
(not preferred) be added to Section 7 to prohibit all fishing on Riley's Hump year round. Motion
carried, with Mr. Kimmel abstaining.
Mr. Lessard presented a proposal to modify the allowance for a fisherman to tend another fishermen's trap
with written authorization. The modification would pennit verbal authorization to be given for a specific
removal of fish traps. (Copies were handed out to the Council.) Mr. Lessard's intent was to remove a
loophole that allows individuals to leave their traps in the water. Dr. Kemmerer felt that Mr. Lessard's
proposal was rnorer&trictive than status quo, and if implemented, it would require a plan amendment. Mr.
Hom suggested that Mr. Lessard work with NOAA Counsel and NMFS enforcement to work out language
to accomplish the intent and present it to the full Council. Mr. Horn questioned Mr. Lesssird for the outcome
of that meeting. Mr. Lessard replied they had decided to allow the prosecutors in those cases develop an
exact wording which would be the most enforceable.
Mr. Minton suggested the following motion to address enforcement concerns, and establish intent to notify
NOAA enforcement that trap violations were severe violations that should be dealt with by sanctions rather
than only fines. Mr. Horn moved on behalf of the Committee, that staff be directed to include in the
document strong language that "as a condition of the trap permit" permittees agree to follow federal
rules. The Council feels that violations involving setting traps in closed areas, tending, and traps
without escape panels should be dealt with most severely, including sanctions against the trap permit
or permits in other fisheries, set up in a progressive manner (i.e., 3 months, 6 months, and forfeiture
of permit).
Mr. Shipp recommended an editorial technicality to change the i.e. to e.g. Mr. Shipp amended the
(changes underlined), that staff be directed to include in the document strong language that "as a
condition of the trap permit" permittees agree to follow federal rules. The Council feels that
violations involving setting traps in closed areas, tending, and traps without escape panels should be
dealt with most severely, including sanctions against the trap permit or permits in other fisheries, set
3 months, 6 months, and forfeiture of permit).
up in a progressive manner (a,
Mr. Horn felt the Council should not encourage sanctions; there were already enough state and federal
regulations. NOAA General Counsel already put strict fines on commercial fishermen. When people violate
the law, their fines are higher than the cost of doing business. The Council should strictly deal with
management issues. He did not support the motion. Dr. Roberts felt the Committee motion essentially
supported the same viewpoint. Mr. Horn felt the Council should encourage the enforcement and obtaining
the fines once the law had been broken, however; he felt the Council should not be involved in deciding what
that enforcement penalty should be. Also, he was opposed to the Council reviewing this on a specific fishery,
and felt if the Council so chose to be involved then it should address penalties universally for all of the
fisheries. Dr. Roberts felt there were some extenuating circumstances involving fish traps. The fish trappers
have obtained a lot of public attention, and the existence of the fishery may be of concern unless the
attention were drawn to the penalty system. This was not punitive against the trap fishermen, rather
something that could benefit them.
Mr. Minton stated there were sanctions in other fisheries. He believed the fishermen would have preferred
the Council to put the message in writing that the fishermen were encouraged to comply with the ruled. He
recalled that legal counsel had advised fishermen were subject to sanctions but counsel needed the direction
in applying them. It was his opinion that if a violator was caught, then he should have the strictest
enf-crrercised
upon him to send a message out to other violators. He supported sanctions in every
Weay. m.Mhtm advised it would be received by the enforcement attorneys, who had the discretion and
responsibility for setting penalities, as the Council's priorities. The penalty schedule was already in place
to provide for progressively increasing sanctions. They were not intended to be punitive; civil penalties and
enforcement remedies were all intended to be a deterrent. If someone had a federal permit hey would be
subject to the federal rules whether they agreed upon them or not. Mr. Green appreciated the intent, however,
he believed this to be a "feel good" motion. Over a brief period of time the fishery had dramatically
expanded Rules in the Key West area were not king enforced. Unless a way existed to regulate this fishery,
by manpower or other design, it would be a fishety that the Council could not have any control over,
Mr. Lessard stated tbat he normally would believe this type of action to be discriminatory, however, in this
case he felt it was necessary for that fishery. The sanctions were suggested in directing the general counsel
how to address this issue. He disagreed with Mr. Green that it had become a larger fishery, because there
were only 109 licensed individuals. A cap existed on the amount of people who could fish. There was a
stress zone of which had been monitored by a plane to catch violators. He felt there should be a workshop
to educate the public as to the intent of the Council, that if an individual did violate the law, then this would
be the action the Council would recommend. Mr. Osburn asked Mr. McLemore if there was provision for
the forfeiture of permits. Mr. McLernore advised that all of the regulations that implement any FMP referred
to the 50 CFR, Port 620 regulations which provide for permit sanctions.
Amended motion carried, that staff be directed to include in the document strong language that "as
a condition of the trap permit" permittees agree to follow federal rules. The Council feels that
violations involving setting traps in closed areas, tending, and traps without escape panels should be
dealt with most severely, including sanctions against the trap permit or permits in other fisheries, set
up in a progressive manner (e.g., 3 months, 6 months, and forfeiture of permit).
Mr. Atran noted that the Law ~nforcementAdvisory Panel would meet the following week, and he would
bring this suggestion before the AP. Mr. Horn also suggested the AP recommend having enforcement
officers work with fishermen who indicated a willingness to help.
Mr. Williams questioned if everyone understood that once the new language was available it would be
i n c o p & in to the amendment. Mr. Swingle concurred; he stated the verbiage would be necessary for the
revision of regulations but questioned if it needed to be included in the amendment. Mr. McLemore advised
if it were an adjustment to the existing requirement it may need to be in the amendment. The enforcement
attorney should also be involved in the final wording. Mr. Horn questioned as to what the time frame was
needed to incorporate the verbiage. Mr. Swingle stated it would depend upon if there would be any additional
changes made after the upcoming workshop.
Section 8.0 (TAC Framework Procedure Modifications). Dr. Kernmerer noted that the reason for having this
proposal was because of questions raised last November as to whether the RD has authority to reopen a
prematurely closed season. This proposal clarified that authority.
Dr. Roberts reviewedthe proposed alternative (page 27) from the amendment and preferred the verbiage of
l'allocationl' be "quota" Mr. McLemore advised he did not see a difference in the way the word was used.
The allocation was not being adjusted, it was the season in which the allocation would be applied. Dr.
Roberts agreed.
Section 9.0 (Transferabilityof Reef Fish Commercial Permits). No changes were suggested.
Section 10.5(Public, Private and Public Costs). Mr. Minton questioned why enforcement costs were listed
as zero. Mr.Livingston responded that one or two additional uniformed officers would be useful. The
average axsofa tmi50rmed officer was $80,000 per year, but at that time enforcement was only looking at
a d d i t i d enfhours for existing officers to spend on fish trap issues.as part of their overall duties.
There would be no additional overall total cost for those officers to conduct their duties.
Section 14.0 (Public Hearing Locations). Mr. Swingle noted that there did not appear to be any trap
endorsement holders in the Madeira Beach area, and that proposed location could possibly be deleted. Mr.
Horn noted that final action was scheduled for Tampa and suggested eliminating Madeira Beach. The
Council agreed tothis recommendation by consensus.
•
ion Committee Repoa
Dr. Fisher presented the Habitat Protection Committee Report: The Joint Habitat Protection Advisory Panel
sponsored a workshop on shrimp aquaculture/mariculture at Brownsville, Texas at the .termination of the
January Council meeting.
An overview of this industry was presented by representatives fiom Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
and the industry. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Committee (TNRCC), EPA and Core of
Engineers (COE) presented the perspective of their regulatory agencies. Representatives of each of the Gulf
states, NMFS and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) addressed the concerns of these natural
resource agencies. Specificdisease problems within the industry and containment techniques in the industry
were also addressed.
The above joint committee formulated two recommendations to be fonvarded to the Council Habitat
Protection Committee. The first recommendation dealt with specific identified problems as they have
developed and exist within the industry in Texas:
The use of exotic species with the certainty that some would escape into local.ecosystems.
Introduction of pathogens and parasites from the above cultures species.
Inadequate control of total suspended solids in efluent streams.
Inadequatemethodologies to control odors, insects, etc., from facilities for localized drawdown during
harvest periods.
Inadequate siting criterion for aquaculturelmaricultureinstallation.
Elimination of noise producing devices to avert birds from the culture ponds.
The Joint Panel further recommended to the Council Habitat Protection Committee the following:
A. Urged Gulfstates not to issue any permit for aquaculturelmaricul~eoperations until the related issues
bulletized above had been resolved.
B. Urged EPA to expeditiously bring all aquaculture/mariculture operations into compliance.with all the
PoIIutianXkharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Programs including adequate monitoring and
proper enfbrcement, with primary emphasis on coastal operations.
C. Urged Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)to re-evaluate their waste water
discharge stand& and surface water quality standards for aquaculture/mariculture operations with
special emphasis on TSS, BOD and nutrient loading and consider the Arroyo Colorado River and the
Lower Laguna Madre as one body of receiving water, i.e. ecosystem approach.
D. Urged the Corps of Engineers to include an analysis of the TSS/BOD/nutrient loading issues from
aquacuIture/mariculture operations into their Section 216 study process as it relates to the Arroyo
Colorado Riveiand Lower Laguna Madre.
.
E. Urged tbt Texas Department of Health and other agencies involved with regulating landfills (primarily
those that receive seafood processing wastes) to evaluate their standards as they relate to viruses and
other diseases of marine organisms.
F. Urged all state and federal agencies to review, update and coordinate their siting requirements for
aquaculture/maricultureoperations, especially those in the coastal areas.
G. In keeping with the notions forwarded by the Ad Hoc Communications Committee, provide technical
briefings, public comments, recommendations of the Advisory Panel and all resultant Council
correspondence on the aquaculturelmariculture issue to the Texas Senate Interim Aquaculture
Committee, resource agencies in the five Gulf states, Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission and all Atlantic Coast Fisheries Management Councils.
H. Urged the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to seek authority for regulation of the culture of aquatic
orgksms including exotic species, diseases, parasites, viruses, etc.
This recommendation was submitted to the Council Habitat Protection Committee which opined that these
were issues largely outside of the purview of the Council's jurisdiction, i.e. within states jurisdiction.
Dr. Fisher moved on behalf of the Committee's recommendation, that this item be tabled until the
Council has developed a more definitive aquaculture/mariculture policy.
Dr. Fisher stated the rationale for this recommendation was that it had been was primarily a state issue. Mr.
Minton cautioned states and the Council in setting up specific guidelines in a developing industry. Mr.
Collins questioned if the issue was tabled would each state do what would be required. Dr. Fisher
recommended continuing to the next motion to alleviate some confusion. Motion krn~orarilyjabled.
Dr. Fisher m v e d on behalf of the Committee's recommendation, that the establish an
aquaculture/mariculture policy review panel composed of members from each Gulf state, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and chaired by the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission. The charge to the panel should be to develop proposed revisions of the current
Councii's policy for review and future implementation.
It was the feeling of the Council Habitat Committee that most habitat issues have and would arise in waters
of representative states. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, under the able direction of Mr.
Simpson, represented the proper agency to formulate these policies. Upon receipt of their dacument the
Habitat Committee could respond and address offshore operations in the EEZ.
Mr. Collins questioned if anythng happened in the habitat of a state that state would handle the problem.
The only thing the Habitat Committee would handle would deal with problems that were in the EEZ. Dr.
Fisher clarified that the majority of the problems with the habitat issues would arise in state.waters. They
needed to establish a policy that would consider state issues as well as the EEZ.
Mr. King (as the maker of the motion) stated that knowing if reauthorization, of the Magnuson Act went
through, the Council would be identifjlng critical habitat for all of the species for which the Council had an
FMP.Then it would be usem to have Council policy be relative to these mariculture issues. Mr. Fjetland
agreed, but first the Council needed to identifjl what the concerns and reasons were, and then define the
policy.
M o t h carried with Mr. Collins opposed, that the GMFMC establish an aquaculture/mariculture
policy review panel composed of members from each Gulf state, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and chaired by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. The
charge to the panel should be to develop proposed revisions of the current Council's policy for review
and future implementation.
In anticipation that the motion would pass, Mr. Simpson distributed a listing of the Habitat Protection
Committeemembers of the GSMFC. Mr. S+gle asked what the procedural was for selecting the members
of each state and the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS. Mr. Simpson felt that group had already been
established and if the Council wanted to endorse those members. Mr. Fjetland felt that Mr. Simpson's
committee would be a good starting point. He hoped that disease and escape issues would be covered as well.
Mi. Fruge concurred. He also would like the Council to provide input and discretion for who would be
appointed to the committee. Mr. Collins.believed that for every state had a potential for a problem in the
aquaculture area.
Mr. King felt the Council should allow the appropriate time to obtain the people needed while also attempting
to address the immediate solution to present day problems in aquaculture. He felt these problems were not
being addressed in a timely manner. He questioned Mr. Osburn how those issues could be addressed. There
was not a clear and timely solution at that time; the Council could recommend as to the directioain which
actions should be taken Mr. Collins stated that he was not against the proposal if it were enacted correctly.
Dr. Mcnwain added that perhaps an in-house committee should be formed to review the issues of particular
concern, such as disease. One of the weaknesses of the policy was that it was very broad. Dr. Roberts stated
that the committee motion to table was not accepted by the Council.
Mr. King questioned as to what would be done with the concerns of A - H. Dr. Fisher stated the motion from
the committee had been to table. Mr. King hoped that Mr. Hoogland would review and define those issues
(A - H)and select those which could and should be addressed immediately. Mr. King moved that Council
give Dr. Fisher and Mr. Hoogland the authorization to address recommendations A H in the Habitat
Protection Committee Report to the appropriate responsible agency listed in the report. Motion
carried.
-
In the committee deliberation it was observed that NMFS had not responded to a request for extended
funding to complete the fishery component of the marsh management study initiated by the National
Biological Service (NBS) in Louisiana Dr. Fisher moved on behalf of the Committee's recommendation,
that NMFS respond to this request for further funding.
The Galveston Laboratory collected data from the study area but had no funds to analyze the material
collected Mr. Swingle suggested that NMFS may not have responded because finding was not available
in that ihcd yea^ Mr. King felt the Council would simply be endorsing the system. Mr. Kimmel did not for
see a problem in sending aletter. Motion carried.
Dr. Fisher added, as a matter of information, the Habitat Protection Committee hosted two presentations at
this meetingof the committee. Mr. Robin Lewis discussed Florida Bay and the issues of fresh water inflow
and Mr. Sargent reported on a recent study of boat impact on seagrass communities.
d Hoc Commyllications Committee R e ~ o d
Mr. Simpson presented the Ad Hoc Communications Committee Report: The Committee reviewed
information on attendance and percentage of persons testifying at public hearings under Tab M, No. 3. In
general attendance had been low, as well as persons testifying. In certain instances, such as live rock
hearings, attendance and testimony levels were very high suggesting the importance of the issue to persons
affected was the principal factor affecting these levels. Mr. Minton pointed out that in many instances
persons a£fected depended on association spokesperson to represent them and attendance figures were
misleading as these persons may represent hundreds of fishery participants. He suggested staff re-examine
the records to indicate the number of such association spokesperson testifjhg. Mr. King felt there was a
reluctance by fishermen to attend hearings when the Council had already selected their proposed alternatives,
since they felt the Council was unlikely to change their positions of these alternatives. This resulted in
discussions whether the Council should indicate the proposed alternatives or just submit all alternatives for
public comment, with some members supporting each option.
There was some discussion of the Council purchasing the computer hardware to allow staff to prepare more
effective 35 mrn slides to summarize public hearing documents. Mr. Atran indicated this cost would be fairly
reasonable.
The committee reviewed suggestions by AP members on improving communications under Tab M, No. 4,
which suggested some activities already beingacted upon by staff, such as updating mailing lists. Mr.
Minton suggested rather than states updating lists of seafood dealers that it may be more effective to provide
lists of all dealers and mail them a notice inquiring if they wanted to be included on news release and
newsletter lists. He also suggested that state directors indicate the newspaper reporters to whom staff should
direct news releases.
The Committee discussed preparation of a Council video that would describe the Council plan approval and
Magnuson Act processes. They decided to table that action until the Magnuson Act had been amended. Dr.
Kernmerer suggested the Council request NMFS develop such a video on a national basis with an option to
add a trailer specific to the Council. Mr. Woods suggested such a video should be included on the Internet.
Mr. Atran provided the Committee with a discussion of the issues related to setting up an Internet system.
-TheCommittee reviewed the current level of Council cost (minus staff time cost) associated with the 1995
communications activities under Tab M, No. 6. Total costs were $32,000.
Mr. Simpson moved on behalf of the Committee, that the Council obtain a 1-800 toll free number on
a trial basis. This would make it easier for persons to request information and material from the
Council. The estimated cost would be $40 monthly plus 12 cents per minute.
handling the calls at a full time rate. Mr.
Mr. Wallin questioned if the Council would need a staff
Swinglerqlied it was not anticipated to need a 111time staff person initially, however, over a period of time
it was a possibility. Mr. Osbum noted that some people may just call rather than utilizing the sources already
available to them, such as mailings. He hoped the Council would consider of the labor cost as well as the
equipment expenses. Dr. Kimrnel suggested a voice mail system might alleviate some of the staff time
involved. Dr. Roberts understood it was a means for people to contact and obtain information, not to
necessarily speak with staff members. His interest would be in marketing it as a means of receiving
information. Mr. Simpson felt it should be used for both purposes when appropriate. Mr. Woods felt it
should be done in a definitive time frame. Dr. Roberts recalled that it was estimated by the Ad Hoc
Committee it would be completed by the November meeting. Mr. Simpson stated that he did not recall a
specific time frame, however, it would not be allowed it to become excessive. Mr. Horn felt that Council
staff could monitor and give a report, without having a specific time frame. Motion carried, that the
Council obtain a 1-800 toll free number on a trial basis. This would make it easier for persons to
request information and material from the Council. The estimated cost would be $40 monthly plus
12 cents per minute.
The Committee deferred to the next meeting the issue of setting up a panel of journalists to advise on the
communications system.
-
ssues Related to Bvcatch Amendment
Mr. Swingle reviewed the Issues the Shrimp AP Requested be Addressed in Bycatch Amendment
(Attachment 4). In attachment, the information available to address each of the requests was examined.
Each of the issues that the Shrimp AP wanted to examine were addressed; NMFS provided updated
information for this purpose. Mr. King
that the Issues the Sl~rimpAP Requested be Addressed
in Bycatch Amendment be submitted to the Shrimp Advisory Panel requested to the Shrimp AP for
review.
Mr. Osburn questioned if it would also be appropriate to send the report to the Shrimp SSC, to alleviate the
data conflicts. Mr. Osburn moved amend motion (addition underlined) that the Issues the Shrimp
AP Requested be Addressed in Bycatch Amendment be submitted to the Shrimp Advisory Panel
requested to the Shrimp Advisory Panel, Special S h r i m ~SSC. Standing SSC. Special Reef Fish SSCA
Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel and Reef Fish Advisorv Panel for review with the information
m i l e d bv Mr. Swingk. Motion carried.
ICCAT Working group^
Mr. King presented the results of the Species Working Group Meeting. One of the issues discussed was the
directive fiom the White House to NMFS on the negotiated rule making process. This process was primarily
access the effects of trawling in the New EnglandfUpper Atlantic area. The group also discussed how to
address the concerns of ICCAT as it related to a non-complying nation. They recommendchanges to what
was known as the Infractions Committee. ICCAT had been encouraged by the World Wildlife Fund and
some of the environmental communities to address the infractions of non-contracting parties with trade
sanctions; the U. S. Department of Trade agreed to consider the enforcement measure. The group also
discussed the yellowfin tuna situation. It was understood that the effort for the yellowfin tuna should be
fi-ozento the effort of 1992. The recreational community had stated there might be an error of 300 percent
in estimates of harvest. The ICCAT SCRS had stated that worldwide yellowfin was near their MSY level.
The Billfish Working Group made recommendations directly to the commissioners. Billfish has been used
and sold throughout much of the world; it had been construed that recreational fishing of billfish had been
introdwedm a d d w i d e basis. This has made it very difficult for some of the underdeveloped nations to
recognizethe importance o f b W ICCAT tried to evaluate the status of different categories of the bluefin
tuna fishery. Bluefin tuna have angling categories, harpoon categories, pwse seine categories as well as
diffkrent types of harvesting gears. At that time, no action could be taken; however, recommendations were
being reviewed.. Published reports for review would be available in the near future.
.
. Re~oe
tatson
Mr. Green presented the SAFMC Liaison Report. In reference to Draft Mackerel Amendment 8: The
members of SAFMC were considerate and sensitive to the Council when there seemed to be a particular
umfliict. They were not hostile to the Council's proposed definition of overfishing at 20 percent SPR Dennis
Spitsberger supported the 3,500 pounds for his North Carolina constituents. They had an apparent
coo~dinatedeffoato address the bycatch issue in the shrimp fishery. They met with shrimpers and to clearly
answer questions and address gear concerns to prevent hture problems.
Dr. Kimmd refmeed the Southeast Enforcement Division Ofjice of General Counsel report (Attachment
5). Mt. McLemore advised there had been a change in the office in terms of assignments, and he expected
to come to fbhm Council meetings. The challenge to Coral Amendment 2 had been voluntarily dismissed.
The gentleman who had been challenging Coral Amendment 3 was amending his complaint to challenge
Coral Amendment 2. The litigation involving the Center for Marine Conservation and the Texas Shrimp
Association had been dismissed and there was a lengthy opinion given that favored NMFS.
LCDR Johnson referenced the report given by CDR Raines. During the last few months they have
experienced more incursions of shark boats. He gave statistics regarding the TED violations. Group efforts
would continue to enforce the border zones. Mr. Collins questioned how many boardings had been
performed. LCDR Johnson replied that during the summer they conducted approximately 800 boardings per
month (off of Texas), but over that t i e period discussed it decreased to approximately 100 per month, Mr.
Collins commented that he wanted to know the approsimate average of violators, and questioned if
compliance was high. LCDR Johnson noted that compliance was believed to be 95 percent or higher. Mr.
Minton suggested that the Council have more presentations of the same. He felt the information presented
was usem to both the Council and to the public. Mr. Green had spoken with the Coast Guard representatives
duringthe break regarding shooting at the shark boats. LCDR Johnson concurred and continued to explain
that the whole issue as a very convoluted issue since it involved international law. The Coast Guard had
worked with the Mexican Navy over the past several years and had gradually built trust with the Mexican
Navy.
Ms. Foote gave the Louisiana Director's Report: Effective February 20, Secretary Jenkins increased the
minimum size for commercially caught red snapper to 15 inches. He also named John Rouse11 as acting
Assistant Secretary of Fisheries for the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. In reference to lawsuits: A
temporary injunction was issued a few weeks prior on certain parts of the Marine Fisheries Conservation Act,
specificallya banon the weekend fishing. The injunction was not yet being enforced because the plaintiffs
had not yet posted the $50,000 bond A hearing for a permanent injunction was scheduled for May 9, 1996.
The state judge had not issued any rulings.
Mr. Minton gave the Alabama Director's Report: as reported at the previous meeting they had attempted to
develop a plan to reduce crab traps in the state waters. Regular meetings had been held with legislature and
other interested citizens; A limited entry system whereby a moratorium would be in place for five years on
the issuance of new licenses and then through attrition, hopefully, there would be a reduction in nunibers.
He was concerned that if the issue was not properly addressed it would evolve similarly to the gill net issue.
They had no pending lawsuits. The previous year they had received their sport fish restoration allocation.
-
They felt that it wris not an accurate representation of the people utilizing the marine resource, due to
denqpphics. Mr. Green added that the primary problem was with the enforcement, specifically the number
and location of crab traps in Florida Dr. Roberts questioned if the background on the deliberation regarding
crab traps were to reduce the number of crab traps because they were a navigation hazard, because they were
overcapitalized, or some of botk Mr. Minton stated it was a multi-faceted problem. Their overall goal had
been to reduce traps by possibly 50 percent of what was being utilized. With an increase in effort and seeing
smaller crabs in traps they were concerned that crabs are being harvested at too young an age. Dr. Roberts
asked who was handling the issue. Mr. Minton replied it was Mr. Tatum and himself.
Mr. Woods gave the Mississippi Director's Report: he stated that their legislature was still in session.
Pending was the issue of gill nets. A moratorium that had been placed on gill nets for a time by the
commission, and the legislature was in the process of developing legislation to give the commission the
authority to investigate liinited entry on all species and gear types. Some of the over-riding Legislation that
was originally pushing for this had diminished There had been some pressure to extend the oyster season,
although his department would not recommend that.
Mr. Sirnpson Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission gave the Director's Report: They were going to look
at the situation of disease transmission and aquaculture operations at the TCC meeting. They would also
address the amendment language 6 of the Magnuson Act as well as the regulatory changes proposed by
NMFS. Mr. Collins questioned when the meeting would be held. Mr. Simpson replied it would be held the
following week
Mr. Fjetland gave the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Report : Congress was in session and frantically working on
completing the 1996 budget prior to the end of the fiscal year. From a fishery standpoint, the budget was
lookingratherwell in the Interior Department of Budget. The National Biological Service was being moved
to the geological survey.
I
Mr. Fiuge gave the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Report: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional office would
be undergoing an organizational change as of March 3 1. They would then be divided on a geographic basis
rather than by programs. The southeast region formally transferred two fish hatcheries to the states.
There was no other business.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 A.M.
7-/6- 94
DATE