North Carolina Fishing Reports

reelfishaholic

I have written a letter for S. Atlantic members to copy and paste. Send it in before 5pm today 5/16. Sign your name at the bottom before sending.

E-mail address to send it to is

SGAmend16@safmc.net

Show your support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear S. Atlantic Council Members,

First, I would like to state that the purpose of my comments are just to address concerns that we have with the data used for decisions on the management of the fisheries in our region. It seems that for too long the subject of the proposed "problem" isn't always defined prior to a "solution" being derived. Public meeting inputs have the attitude that the decision has already been made. As a fishermen, I would be more than happy to supply data as would many of the fishermen I know, if you would educate us on what you need for information and assistance.

Just finding out about these meetings is hard enough, try getting on the SAFMC website and finding SEDAR 10 REPORT or Magnuson Stevens Scoping document and reading the entire thing along with understanding it is another issue altogether.

Too long have fisherman been pitted against each other, both commercial and recreational, in an attempt to, in my opinion, redirect focus on the issue at hand. Any form of accountability on the council's part for the decisions made on our behalf as fisherman, doesn't seem to exist. Decisions are made that do not seem to have both the fish stock and fisherman's best interest at heart. Politics appear to also be playing a huge role in the decisions made on our behalf and do at times, seem detrimental to the cause.

The council's actions are speedy mechanisms to put increased restrictions on a fishery, yet there are no such speedy mechanisms to decrease restrictions should any fishery’s biomass indeed increase to healthier levels, or have new data to contradict the imposing limits. We hear how it needs to produce results over a long time period such as 10 years to be accurate. Please don't site here how we can now catch more porgy. That is a sad example on the council's part at best. Historically, regulations don't give back but become more conservative in restrictions.

These viewpoints are directed towards Amendment 16 yet hold true of all others that are being reviewed at present.

As I have read extensive amounts of information including SEDAR 10 along with information from the SAFMC, etc. I have a couple of points that I would like to bring up.

From the SAMFC website and I quote

Lack of basic management data on many of the species still remains the major obstacle to successful management.
MRFSS surveys have been proven unreliable. What changes in the last 10 years have been changed to upgrade the survey system? MRFSS is usually a year or two behind in estimating this trend, so my main concerns are about over-regulation that may not be warranted.
MARMAP surveys on "random hard bottoms" are the basis of most surveys done. We are talking about reef fish, fish that look for live bottom and structure to make their home.
Data collections from things like "Chevron traps" were inconclusive due to such low catch rates and classified as "indeterminable and inaccurate" after 27 years yet older data is still used to calculate present trends.
Why are things like wave heights, sea surface temps, surface currents, hurricane impacts, DO, salinity, wind speed, wind direction, etc not included in present studies?
Why are issues like water quality and pollution along with protecting our juvenile fish using our estuaries for growth not addressed or protected? We can pay a hog farmer or tobacco farmer not to raise their crop yet we don't address the shrimping bycatch that is drastically affecting our fish stock? Please don't tell me how great the "bycatch" gear is doing in the shrimping industry, the bycatch being shoveled overboard looks like a snow storm floating on the water coming from a shrimper. I understand they have to make a living, however, subsidizes their income for the percentage necessary and stop letting them trawl on the inside and watch how well our fisheries rebound.
I am concerned on how "overly conservative" the council seems to be in their calculations and proposed regulations. Below are some of the areas that if corrected to more realistic parameters, would take us out of the "overfishing" category that the grouper and snapper species are presently assessed as.

I am concerned that F (fishing mortality; the percentage of the population that dies each year from fishing) is overstated partly because it is based on

1. Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) estimates of landings and discards, which have been declared unreliable and even ‘fatally flawed’ and

2. An overstated recreational release mortality of 25%.

Recreational fisheries Release mortality is presently assumed to be 25%, SEDAR 10 workshop stated Improved estimates of post-release mortality were obtained through tag release and caging methods (Burns et al. 2002; Overton and Zabawski 2003; McGovern et al.2005). Using these methods, mean mortality rates were estimated to be 21.2% (Overton and Zabawski 2003), 23% over a variety of depths (McGovern et al. 2005).
Commercial fisheries Release mortality is presently assumed to be 40%.
Your reasoning behind the proposed legislation is that the FMSY is below the F (Fish Mortality) factor, the FMSY has remained below the F (Fish Mortality) factor since 1983 in the S. Atlantic. With the council willing to error on the side of "conservative numbers and factors" is it any wonder this is the trend? Now take a look at our stocks. Have we decimated our biomass? No. Clearly real world numbers aren't being used to guage accurate regulation.

How can the Magnuson Stevens Act expect you to make changes within 1 year of notification if the council states that it takes 3-8 years to schedule and complete a stock assessment? For that matter, why, if notified that a stock is in "trouble", aren't the data compiled between the last stock assessment and the present date of the notifications, reviewed to determine if an issue really exists at the present notification time period prior to taking action?

According to your own data workshops, spawning stock biomass increased after 1999 corresponding to implementation of the 24 inch minimum size limit. Fishing mortality has been decreasing since 1992 yet the gag grouper lifespan has just been raised to 26 yrs to 30 years. The life expectancy factor has been raised recently which is also affecting the formula into an "overfishing" status.

50% of maturity is 3 years and 25.5 inches. Why don't we increase the minimum size limit to 26". It has proven effective for the size increase in 1999 to 24".

Fishing mortality in 2004 was estimated as 0.31, extremely conservative against 2007 projected mortality.

Why is the fishing mortality rate for 2007 not being used? Obviously the fishing pressure has reduced since 2004 yet the OPPORTUNITY to fish hasn't been reduced which I think is very important and not usually taken into account when new regulations are proposed.

The council can redo the entire Vermillion Snapper stock assessment due to concerns of accuracy and possible "gross negligence" of the last assessment with updated data, yet I am told by the council that the 2004 data used in SEDAR 10 for grouper won't be updated until 2011? Are you kidding me? With the impact that fuel has alone on the frequency of fishing trips which has been declining since 2004, why can we not use current data and revisit the workshop to determine if the present proposed measures are necessary?

How can there be underfunding on the federal or local level to interpret the data that is taken every year but not incorporated or used due to lack of resources and man power as stated by the council with 3-8 years between stock assessments?

Why are the conclusions and recommendations from the data and review workshops which are and from the SEDAR programs not incorporated into the councils decisions on a "less cautionary or overly conservative" approach?

SEDAR 10 biologists recommended changing the MSST, SSB, M, F, MFMT and alike, in one form or another due to "overly conservative" concerns.

MSST, currently defined by the South Atlantic Council as (1-M)BMSY, is very close to BMSY because age-averaged natural mortality rate, M, is estimated as 0.14. It was recommended to change the M and wasn't done. It was stated that "the stock is not overfished and is not projected to become overfished."

Given the uncertainties in the assessment, the biomass would be expected or could possibly, fall below MSST with a relatively high frequency even if the true biomass were close to BMSY. In Sedar 10 the Review Workshop stated that the current definition of MSST may be overly conservative and recommends an operational definition of MSST of 5 million pounds. Yet it is still the factor of 6.8 million pounds was used.

The MFMT factor is also showing signs of being overly conservative. Why the council feels the need to error on EXTREME caution I don't understand.

Then Natural Mortality Rate formula was calculated using the Hoenig 1983 program. A program which has flaws due to the fact that the estimate of maximum age required by Hoenig's method assumes that the age determination technique being employed is unbiased. Validating this assumption is often difficult for the older, more difficult-to-age individuals but can be accomplished by using a variety of techniques ranging from marking to analysis of radioactive isotopes (Lai et al., 1996). The estimate of longevity is also dependent on sample size and previous fishing history, which by the way we don't have sound, accurate data on according to the councils own admission.
Hoenig (1983) showed that maximum age tends to increase slowly with increasing sample size but longevity has probably declined from historical levels because of fishing. A small sample size for age determination, underaging, and previous exploitation would all result in an overestimate of M with Hoenig's method. Although compared to other methods, we still have an issue with accurate data and excessively cautionary management.
Maybe we don't increase the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) as aggressively using such precautionary regulation. The 2004 stock assessment model projections show the stock becoming overfished in 2007.

Greg Waugh states on 5/8/2008 that "the stock isn't overfished due to present reduction fishing pressure, attributed to several factors such as fuel costs." He also cited that "the assessment wouldn't be redone due to funding and scheduling issues and would be revisited in 2011."

It is an natural assumption with the current economic situation and petroleum driven influence on our daily lives that there has been a significant decline in fishing pressure on all fishing stocks yet the council seem reluctant to revisit the issue since they already have time and effort invested into them and have decided to "stick" to their original conclusions.

Maybe we use data more current than 2004 and realize that the 37% reduction that you are calling for has already in part been addressed due to the cost of fuel and expenses that are incurred for offshore fishing. The Magnuson Stevens Act states that the new regulations need to implemented by 2010. That gives the council plenty of time to do a stock review with less conservative numbers as recommended in the SEDAR 10 program.

Maybe the council shouldn't use such a precautionary approach to regulation on data that they admit isn't as accurate or current to date as it should be.

I believe that if current, data were used along with the above mentioned conservative factors corrected, the councils need for new legislation may not be necessary after all.

How about in the alternatives offer for the public to pick from the economic impact for the entire S. Atlantic recreational impact with a 4 month closure will only attribute to a total of $ 1,032,000. An example is the entire state of NC will only have an impact of $ 37,000. That is ridiculous. That equates to 37 trips at a charter price of $ 1,000. The impact is for the "for hire" sector which is lumped in with the recreational sector as a whole. There is no account for the true recreational sector such as recreational food, fuel, hotel, shopping, tackle, boat maintenance etc. For a 4 month NC closure, $ 37,000, REALLY?

We would like to see the gag assessment redone. There are too many uncertainties and inconsistencies to move forward with an assessment that will affect such a large fishery.

- The Gulf of Mexico Grouper assessment has been reviewed due to some of the same questions. There were many corrections and this was done in less than 6 month time frame.

Fishing effort is significantly reduced and is not taken into account when calculating future estimates as it should be.

Economic impact and true fishing pressure of both recreational and commercial fishing is grossly inaccurate.

If after a review it is necessary to reduce harvest, only modest bag limit decreases or modest size limit increases should be considered acceptable if in fact a problem exists.

I am sure that the Council want to make sound decisions. The economic and social devastation wrought by these proposed Gag regulations comes at a time when effort is significantly declining (I feel permanently) due to exorbitant fuel prices. These current proposals are based on overly precautionary thresholds which compound to create the false sense of an unhealthy fishery, when in fact the fishery could be quite healthy.

Is it any wonder that the individuals that you are governing are not satisfied with the proposed solutions when they seem to have a better handle on the fish stock, behavioral patterns, abundance and realistic solutions and are not heard by you?

I urge the Council to:

1. Review the Natural Mortality Rate of Gag
2. Review and adjust the overly precautionary estimates
3. Provide the numbers for and consider as an alternative a 26” Gag minium size limit (20% or more reduction in rec landings alone) as the FIRST tool applied to the fishery.
4. Invite Dr. Trevor Kenchington to the SSC and Council meeting in June. Dr. Kenchington has extensive knowledge of both the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic fisheries and could prove an excellent resource in the interpretation of current data parameters.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to voice my concerns.

Best Regards,
_________________
Fishing the NC coast as much as possible.


Create an Account		Home · ReefCast · WaveCast · Supermap · Tide Charts · NC Radar · Solunar · Account · Photo Gallery · Videos · Forums · Recipes · Classified Ads