Pages: 1-241

ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
ADVISORY PANEL

September 30, 2003
at
Holiday Inn Express
8777 Georgia Avenue
Silver Springs, Maryland 20910

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

INDEX

TOPIC PAGE

GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS 3

PRESENTATION
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ 6
CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS 34

REPORT ON PUBLIC COMMENTS
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ 53

COMMENTS FROM PANEL MEMBERS
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS 90

PUBLIC COMMENTS
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS 194

9:38 a.m.
___________________________
GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Good
morning all. There are a few places still here at
the table. I know it's a little bit cozier over
here than the big room, but because we were -- I
guess for the first time in several years, at least
three or four, meeting separately as the HMS Panel,
without joint session with the Bill Fish Panel. We
thought we could get away with a little bit smaller
room and use some of the extra funds for better
snacks over there. So, help yourselves.
We have a rather restricted agenda
today. We tried to alert folks to that. So, that
they -- they realized that it was going to a -- a
shark's oriented, sharks only meeting today. And,
we'll be going through a -- a presentation of the
Amendment 1 that had been circulated to everybody.
Summary of comments received to date and then we'll
-- we'll break for lunch and then go on to the AP
Discussion. And then, have some public comment at
the end.
We had originally envisioned that
today would be the close of the comment period, but
due to our visitation from Isabel, we had to
reschedule two of the public hearings. I'll be in
Manteo tomorrow night with Chris Rilling, and then,
Pawleys Island on Thursday night. So, the comment
period has been extended through Friday of five p.m.
I've been asked by one of the panel
members here, just to have a brief moment of
reflection for Wayne Lee, who was with us at our
last meeting, and always was a -- a very insightful
and helpful person at these meetings. And, I tend
to think he's probably watching our deliberations
right now. So, we'll take a -- a moment here and --
and see if he can give us some inspiration.
(Brief pause.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Thanks for you're concern there, and as I said,
we'll -- we'll miss him at these deliberations. I
was enjoyed, not only speaking with him, not only
from the table, but in the sidebars. He always
seemed to have a -- an issue to yank my arm away
into the -- the side room and -- and talk about
something.
As I said, we have a -- a pretty
structured agenda. I -- I guess I'll entertain any
comments on the agenda, but again we want it to be
focused. It is a one-day meeting, and I wanted to
get everybody in and out, and back to their -- their
day job, so to speak. But, are there any comments
or concerns about the agenda, the way we've set it
up?
Hearing no objections, we'll -- we'll
right into the business. I guess there are still a
few places around the table if there's any AP
members who are in the gallery in the back, want to
come up, but you might get just as good a view of
the presentation from the back there.
So, Jack Dunnigan said he might stop
by. Everybody was really kind of busy. I know Bill
Hogarth has been traveling a lot. He did say that
if he had the occasion, he would stop by as well.
And, Rebecca did send her -- her best wishes for our
deliberations. But, I think both Rebecca and Bill
have been traveling quite a bit, and Jack, himself
had come back from a NAFFO meeting last week. So,
they're, all three of those are individuals are
trying to catch up -- catch up on some -- some
business. And, if they do have the occasion to stop
by, we'll let them say a few words of -- of
inspiration to us all.
But, with that adoption of the
agenda, we'll go into a presentation of the
Amendment 1, by Karyl Brewster-Geisz You have a
handout with all the overheads that Karyl will be
going through. Some of you may have already
attended this presentation at some of the hearings,
and for those who will be in Manteo tomorrow night,
you'll get to see again there. But, we'll go
through it now. Thanks Karly.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Thanks Chris.
And, thank you every one for coming. For those of
you who don't know me; my name's Karyl Brewster-
Geisz. I'm going to remain seated so you can all
see the -- the screen and I can make sure everything
gets recorded. If you have trouble hearing me let
me know and I will speak louder.
We have several other members, who
worked on this amendment, here in the office. They
are new to HSM, so, if you haven't met them, feel
free to introduce yourself. They are Chris
Rilling, sitting over there, and Joe DeFausie, will
be helpng out with the final. So, please feel free
to talk to them. We also have copies of all the
comments we've received so far. The -- the written
comments for everybody to look at. They're over on
the table along with extra documents incase you
forgot your EIS or the rule. So, feel free to get
up at anytime to look at through them.
Regarding this presentation, this is
the presentation we've given to all the councils and
at all -- all the public hearings. It takes me 30
to 45 minutes to get through it. I would like to
ask that you restrict any comments to questions and
clarifications about the alternatives. We do have
the whole afternoon for -- for comments on what
we're doing. So, if you need clarification, please
speak up.
Given that, I will move on. We're
talking about Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP and the
purpose of this amendment is to revise the Shark
Management Measures based on two new stock
assessments for Large Coastal Sharks or LCS and
Small Coastal Sharks, SCS. We are trying to
consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act, rebuild and
prevent over fishing of Atlantic Sharks.
We are also hoping to clarify the
issuance of Exempted Fishing Permits or EFPs, for
public display purposes. That's for people to go
out and collect sharks and a few of them collect
tunas for aquariums.
There are no measures specifically
proposed to address Pelagic Sharks in this proposed
rule in Amendment 1, but because all shark
management is interrelated, some of these management
measures will effect what happens in the Pelagic
Shark fishery.
We're hoping to get any comments we
can on Amendment 1 and the proposed rule. And,
we'll take all of the comments back. Look at them.
See what we can come up with and develop the final
rule.
This is sort of a draft outline of
what the process is. Last November, we issued the
notice of intent. That we were going to do the
environmental impact statement for Amendment 1. In
January, we released an issues options paper and we
held, I think, seven different scooping meetings and
an advisory panel meeting through January, February,
and March. We then released the draft environmental
impact statement or an Amendment 1 and the proposed
rule. That happened on August 1st. The comment
period on the DEIS is actually -- the DEIS itself
closed last week, but the comment period on
Amendment 1 and the proposed rule closes on Friday.
The DEIS is actually handled through EPI -- EPA. We
hope to have the final EIS out in mid November. The
final rule published by the end of the year, and
some of the measures effective beginning January 1.
So, we are on a very tight time line to get this
done.
As all of you know, we issued the
final HMS FMP back in 1999, for sharks. That
included a limited access system. We had -- we
split the Large Coastal group and the Ridgeback and
the Non-ridgeback, and reduced the commercial quota.
We set-up new recreational bag limits, with a
minimum size for that.
We were sued numerous times on the
HMS FMP for sharks specifically. We were sued by
two commercial groups. One related to large coastal
and small coastal, one related to the Pelagic Shark
quotas. We were also sued by the recreational
fishing community on the minimum size and bag
limits.
We had the courts issued in favor of
us for the Pelagic Sharks and the recreational
fishery, and we settled the commercial lawsuit with
SOFA regarding the large coastals and the small
coastals.
As part of that settlement agreement,
we agreed to maintain the 1997 quota levels pending
a peer review of the 1998 Stock Assessment. Based
on that settlement agreement, we issued an emergency
rule. And in November of 2001, we got the results
of the peer review of the 1998 Large Coastal Stock
Assessment.
The results were not positive and
based on the peer review, we determined that we
could not use the 1998 stock assessment as a basis
for management.
Needless to say, since the entire FMP
was based on the 1998 Stock Assessment for Large
Coastal Sharks, we had to go back to the drawing
board. We maintained the 1997 quota levels under
another emergency rule in 2002 while we developed
and conducted stock assessments.
We had the first stock, small coastal
stock assessment in March of 2002. That's the first
one since 1992. And then we had a new large coastal
stock assessment, that was released in October of
2002. Based on those stock assessments, we went
forward with a third emergency rule pending
completion of this amendment.
So, this emergency rule is what their
-- what the fishery is being managed under right
now. It established the quotas based on average
landing over the past couple of years. Added --
added to a reduced, according to the results of the
stock assessments. It established a small coastal
quota. It continued to suspend the large coastal
commercial minimum size. And, it implemented quota
accounting for dead discards and State landings
after Federal closure.
So, we've had a lot going on. We're
now in the final steps, we hope, with this
amendment. So, what did the Large Coastal and Small
Coastal Stock Assessments say?
They are actually pretty positive. I
think. For large coastals, we found out that the
complex is still overfished and over fishing is
still occurring. But, we had some good news in the
fact that, Sandbar Sharks are not overfished
although overfishing is occurring. And, Black-
tipped Sharks are completely rebuilt and overfishing
is not occurring. So, that's some positive news in
amongst the -- the bad, that we're still over
fished.
This stock assessment was peer
reviewed. The peer review results came back in
December of 2002, and they were -- they were pretty
positive, saying that the stock assessment and the
models were based on sound science.
The Small Coastal Stock Assessment
was also fairly positive, that the complex as a
whole, Bonnet Head, Sharp Nose and Black Nose are
all not overfished. And, overfishing is not
occurring. But we did have some bad news in that,
in the fact that, Fine Tooth Sharks overfishing is
occurring.
And for those of you who are unclear,
overfished is when the biomass is too low. There
aren't enough sharks. Overfishing is when the
fishing mortality is too high and that could reduce
the biomass. So, if overfishing is occurring, we do
need to reduce that fishing mortality.
Taking a look at the results of the
stock assessment, the results of the 1998 Stock
Assessment Peer Review, we decided we needed to go
back and take a look at the rebuilding timeframe.
This is -- it seems easy enough but it is an
important concept, because this is what sets the
timeframe on all the other management measures that
we chose. We needed to make sure that we could
rebuild sharks within this timeframe.
The 1999 HMS FMP, we established a
Ridgeback Large Coastal rebuilding timeframe of 39
years and a Non-ridgeback Large Coastal rebuilding
timeframe at 30 years. These were based on the
results of the Sandbar and Black Tip Stock
Assessment portions of the 1998 Stock Assessment.
And as I said before, we determined that we can't
use that stock assessment.
So, we needed the change. And, we
also decided based on the new results of the stock
assessment for Sandbar and Black Tip, that they are
no longer overfished. That they were no longer
appropriate to use as proxies for the rest of the
complex. Because the rest of the complex is
considered overfished and these species are not.
Based on the guidelines in National
Standard 1, that says, we can go from the time that
it would take for no fishing, for the time that it
would take for the fishery to rebuild under no
fishing plus the mean generation time. We came up
with a rebuilding time frame of 27 year. And, we
think we have approximately a 70% chance of
rebuilding Large Coastal Sharks within that 27
years.
So, based on that we came up with all
these management measures and that's where I'm
starting to head into now. For there are a whole
bunch of these so, bare with me.
Large Coastal Sharks. We decided to
tale a look at the classification of them. From
1993 through 2002, we basically had one aggregate,
Large Coastal Sharks.
In the 1999 FMP, we tried to split
them into Ridgeback, which were Sandbar Sharks, and
Non-ridgeback, based on Black Tipped Sharks. That
action, actually, didn't go -- wasn't implemented
until this current year, under the current emergency
rule. So, we -- we looked at several different
possibilities. Keeping the no action, which was
separating between the Ridgeback and Non-Ridgeback,
but different closure dates. Keeping those
groupings but having the same closure date.
Reaggregating the Large Coastal Sharks or looking at
a more species specific grouping. One for Black
Tip, one for Sandbar, and one for the -- the rest of
the -- the species.
We decided to go forward with the
aggregate large coastal group for several different
reasons. When we went forward with the groupings,
this past year in the emergency rule. We got
complaints from pretty much everyone. The
fishermen, the recreational fishermen, the
environmentalists, all basically saying, are you
crazy? What are you doing having different closure
dates for these species? We catch them all at the
same time. We're going to be discarding sharks
dead. Which is why we looked at A2, which was
having the same closure date. But, we decided under
that classification, you basically would have a
situation where fishermen were not allowed the
opportunity to catch a particular quota. And that
quota would keep increasing. And, we would have the
same possibility under A4 as we would under the no
action alternative.
Quota Administration. Basically at
the moment, we have semi-annual seasons. January
through June, and July through December. And we
have no regional quotas. So, once the fishery is
closed, it closes for everyone on the same date.
Since the original FMP, people have
wanted to look at some sort of rolling closure, or
trimester seasons, or quarterly seasons, in order to
account for different pupping seasons throughout the
coast. So, we looked at this, and we decided on
regional quotas and trimester seasons.
And this next slide shows what we'd
be looking at for the regions. For GOM, stands for
Gulf of Mexico, that includes the western part of
Florida. South Atlantic is East Florida, Caribbean,
up through North Carolina. And, North Atlantic, or
NA, is Virginia up.
And, these percent estimates are
based on the average landings from the past few
years. So, the -- the Large Coastal Shark would be
mainly in the Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic.
Whereas, the Small Coastal Sharks most of the quota
goes to the South Atlantic region.
We also needed some way of looking at
how we calculate what the quotas are. In the 1999
HMS FMP, the quotas were set in stone. Basically
proposed certain limits and that's what they are.
We then went and looked at two
different ways of calculating the quota, where if we
get a new stock assessment, we can go back to this
method, every time. We don't have to go through an
amendment to change the quota. We would go through
normal rule making process.
We decided to go with maximum
sustainable yield basis. Basically what this is, is
a stock assessment gives us an estimate of maximum
sustainable yield. Based on the results of the
stock assessment, we either reduce that by 25% to
come up with optimum yield, or we reduce it by the
amount suggested in the stock assessment to come up
with optimum yield. For example, Large Coastal
Sharks, they suggested we reduce it by 50% to come
up with optimum yield. We didn't actually do that,
because we were doing all the other measures. But,
we -- we reduced it by 40%. But, that's the main
idea of how we come up with what we would consider a
totally allowable catch.
We then partition that total
allowable catch into three pieces of the pie, if you
will. Commercial landings, which include the State
landings; recreational landings, and dead discards.
So, the commercial quota would be that commercial
landings piece of the pie.
We also looked at a landings basis.
Which are similar to what we did in the current
emergency rule. Where we had used the average
landings over the past few years, and then based on
the results of the stock assessment, either reduced
those average landings to come up with the quota or
increase the average landings. In this case, the
dead discards for the landings basis would continue
to come off of that -- that quota level. Whereas
then under MSY, the dead discards has already been
taken out before we get the quota level.
And this table, I will stand up for
this. Shows the combination of the classification
and the classification going across and the -- the
basis for the quota coming along. And, as you can
see, we come up with a low level of 816, based on
the HMS FMP, up to a high of 3200 metric tons.
Based on species specific and an MSY basis. And,
this is the one that we chose, right in the middle
of the table. The two combinations of 1109 for
large coastals and small coastals of 454.
Moving on, we also needed -- decided
we needed to look at the minimum size issue. In the
'99 FMP, we implemented a minimum size of four and a
half feet for Ridgeback or Sandbar, Large Coastal
Sharks. That was never implemented due to
litigation and then in the emergency rules.
We also looked at different
alternatives, including five feet for Large Coastal
Sharks, which is based on the full size and maturity
for Sandbars. That's the size at which all Sandbars
are mature. Five feet for Ridgeback and four and a
half for Non-ridgeback. The four and a half being
the size of maturity for Black Tip Sharks. Looking
at four and a half for Non-ridgeback in the Atlantic
and four feet for Non-ridgeback in the Gulf of
Mexico, because some scientists have found that the
-- the size of maturity changes between those two
regions for Black Tip Sharks, or a minimum size for
over fished species only.
We went forward with no minimum size,
because we felt that that -- that a minimum size can
increase discards. And, we were going forward with
a proposed time area. The time area I will get to
later on. We were hoping that the timed area would
take care of a lot of the protection of the
juveniles, which is just what the stock assessment
asked us to do.
We also went back and looked at the
recreational management measures we had in place.
Currently, we have one shark any species, per
vessel, per trip. With the exception of one
Atlantic Sharp Nose per person, per trip. We are
proposing those limitations with -- with the
addition of one Bonnet Head per person, per trip.
And that's because this -- the Small Coastal Sharks,
the Bonnet Heads, are not overfished and we feel
that they are relatively easy to identify. We also
considered adding in one Pelagic Shark per person,
per trip, and adding an allowance for angling people
in tournaments, or people who have charter head boat
permits.
We decided against the -- the Pelagic
and the angling, just because we do not have a
current Pelagic Shark stock assessment. So, we
don't know what exactly that would do at this point.
ICCAT is conducting a Pelagic Shark stock assessment
next year, for several different species. So, we
may be able to do something at that point.
We considered trying to come up with
a recreational limit that's consistent with all the
State measures. But as -- if you take a look at
Appendix 3, you'll quickly realize that all the
States have different recreational limits. We
looked at catch and release only, which would mean
recreational fishermen could not keep any sharks.
And decided that wasn't really consistent with the
stock assessments. And we also looked at no
retention limit, which would mean they could keep
whatever sharks they caught. Also not consistent
with the stock assessments. So, we proposed the --
the current limit with one Bonnet Head.
Similarly, we have a size limit of
four and a half feet for all sharks, with the
exception of Atlantic Sharp Nose. And, we are
proposing having no size limit for Bonnet Heads as
well. Bonnet Heads are not usually caught at four
and a half feet, which is why we would have no size
limit. The other size limits we looked at were
similar to the ones we looked at for the commercial
fishing.
Currently, we -- any authorized gear
type can be used to go out recreational fishing for
sharks. This is not true of other HMS fisheries,
such as the Tuna fishery or Billfish, where you can
use only hand line, and rod and reel. So, basically
anyone who goes out with a gillnet, who has a
recreational angling permit could land sharks. And,
we were thinking that may be we should be
consistent, so we were proposing allowing only hand
line, and rod and reel in the recreational fishery.
Deep water and other sharks. These
sharks are the Lantern Sharks, Cat Sharks. Their
not normally caught in HMS fisheries. They were
added into the management unit in 1999 only to
protect them from finning. To close that finning
loop hole. In 2002, the National No Finning
Prohibition Act went into effect. So, we don't
think that we need to have them in our management
unit to protect them from finning. There are no
other management measures on these species. They're
not generally caught in our fisheries. It's usually
bycatch and some other fisheries such as the troll
fisheries and it's -- they're rare event species.
We would continue to collect data on them if we need
to, but we are proposing to remove them from the
management unit.
Prohibited species. This has been a
big issue since we first put five species on the
list in 1997. The original five species were White,
Basking, Big Eye Sand Tiger, Sand Tiger, and Whale.
In 1999, we added 14 more species to that group.
Including Duskies, Long Fin Mako,-- I'm drawing a
blank, but I know -- I know the other ones as well.
We looked at adding Fine Toothed
Sharks, because we did have some requests, because
of their overfishing status. We looked at removing
Dusky Sharks, which a lot of the -- the fishermen
have asked us to do, because they do continue to
catch Dusky Sharks. We looked at including deep
water and other species. And basically after
looking at all of these, we decided the best thing
for us to do is to sit down and come up with some
sort of mechanism to add or remove species from this
list.
So, we're proposing a mechanism where
if species meet two of four criteria, they could be
added to the list and if they only meet one of the
criteria, we could take them off the list. The
criteria having sufficient biological information
that indicates a decline in the species. For
example, some of the species are listed as
candidates under ESA including Dusky, Night, and
Sand Tiger.
Also looked at whether or not they
are rarely caught in HMS fisheries, or if they are
often caught as bycatch in other species -- other
fisheries, excuse me. And for some reason I always
run with the fourth one.
The fourth one is the look alike
issue. If the species happens to look like another
species on the prohibited species list, we could
consider putting them on. Once again they would
have to meet two of those criteria, for this -- this
mechanism that we're proposing.
Bycatch. Under both Magnuson-Stevens
National Standard 9, and under ESA, we do need to
reduce bycatch. Not only bycatch of sharks but also
bycatch of protected species and other species.
Currently we have in the gillnet
fishery, gillnet checks, where the fishermen have to
check their net every two hours and release any
protected species. They have the Large Whale Take
Reduction Team measures, such as the closed area off
of the East Coast of Florida. They need to have
observers 100% of the time during Right Whale caving
season, and 50% of the time during the rest of the
year.
For the bottom longline fishermen,
all they have to do is post the Sea Turtle handling
and release guidelines in their wheelhouse. You can
get those guidelines off the web. We have laminated
copies that we've mailed out numerous times to
bottom longline and Pelagic longline fishermen.
We looked at closing the shark
gillnet fishery. And, this fishery is acting in the
-- the large whale closed area occasionally with
100% observer coverage. It also has Sea Turtle and
marine mammal bycatch. Instead of closing the
fishery, we are proposing to allow strike net only.
Strike net is basically a gillnet,
that instead of letting it drift attached to the
vessel, they try to go around a school of sharks,
like a purse seine; only there's no purse at the
bottom. This method has almost no bycatch at all
and is over 90% of the targeted shark species.
We are also proposing a VMS
requirement for those gillnet vessels that use
strike net during the -- the Right Whale calving
season. I say who use strike net because if we go
forward with the strike net only method, they would
not be allowed to use drift net. And VMS 4 vessels
near the proposed time area of closure. Which I
believe is coming up on the next slide. And I say
near, it would be between 32 and 38 degrees, which
is a big border area around the time area closure.
We are proposing that the bottom
longline fishermen have the same requirements as the
Pelagic longline fishermen of the non-stainless
steel corrodible hooks, release equipment, and
moving one nautical mile after an interaction with a
marine mammal or Sea Turtle. The only difference
is, we are also proposing dehooking devices, which
are not currently required on the Pelagic longline
fishery. But, are being tested in the Northeast
Distant Experiment.
We looked at limiting the length of
the bottom longline and limiting the soak time, and
using corrodible circle hooks for both the main line
and the -- the soak time length. We decided that
that, (A) Is hard to enforce, and (B) Would have
sever safety implications for fishermen out there.
These stainless steel circle hooks,
we felt we didn't really have enough data, but
thought that a lot of the fishermen already are
using circle hooks. So, we would keep looking into
that one.
We also thought about what we're
calling, No Discards rule. This would mean any
shark that a commercial fisherman caught would have
to be kept. This made elimination on the permanent
species list as Rusty pointed out in one of his
comments. That would mean we would have to change
the No Fillet Sea rule, because some of the sharks
are just too big to fit into the hold. We did not
go forward with that at this time.
We also looked at a workshop, a
required workshops for commercial and recreational
fishermen. That they would need to go to in order
to learn how to release Sea turtles and marine
mammals, learn more about the regulations. Hear --
we could hear from the commercial fishermen what's
going on. We did not go forward at this time with
that, just because we felt this would be an added
economic expense, particularly for commercial
fishermen with everything else we were adding and
proposing in this rule.
The Time Area Closure. I know this
is dear to a lot of people's hearts. We looked at
several different options. No closure, which is
what we have right now. A time area closure for,
mainly for Sandbar and Dusky Sharks off of South
Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, from January
through July. And that would be for bottom longline
fishermen only. And we looked at -- potential of
time area closures for all shark nursery and pupping
areas based on essential fish habitat
identifications.
This is a map showing where the
current closures are and what we're proposing. All
of these are closures for Pelagic longline
fishermen. And, the -- the marked off area in red
is what we're proposing for bottom longline
fishermen. And once again, that's January through
July.
It's about -- it's over 28,000 square
nautical miles. So, there's a -- a large area. That
area off of North Carolina, happens to include
essential fish habitat for Dusky and Sandbar Sharks,
and is one of the only habitat areas of particular
concerns, for Sandbar Sharks or for any sharks in
Federal waters. Basically, sharks go to that area
as a wintering ground. The juveniles that were born
in the summer before, or several summers before, go
to that area during the winter season.
Looking at observer data, 85% of the
Dusky Sharks that have been observed caught, have
been caught in that area. 92% have been neonates or
juveniles. And, as I'm sure any commercial
fisherman can tell you, most Dusky Sharks once
caught are dead. 80% of them are dead when caught.
And, Dusky Sharks are also candidate for ESA.
66% of observed Sandbar catches are
in that area. Of those 66%, 54% are neonates and
juveniles. Outside the closed area only 7% of the
catch is juveniles. There have been no neonates
caught. So, that's why we're proposing that -- that
particular closed area.
Essential Fish Habitat. Every five
years, we are required to go back and look at
essential fish habitat. Our big five-year review
will actually be happening next year in Amendment 2.
Which we've already announced that we're doing.
But, in addition to that, if we get new information
on the status of the stocks or new information in
general, we're supposed to update our essential fish
habitat. So, we are doing that for five species of
sharks, Fine Tooth, Dusky, Sandbar, Black Tip, and
Nurse Sharks, because we have new information or new
-- or changes in the status of those stocks.
We looked at maintaining the current
essential fish habitat identifications. We looked
at identifying EFH based on the entire range of the
species. Which would be hard to do and for the most
part would mean the entire EEZ for some of these
species. We looked at identifying EFH based on
those habitats necessary for spawning, feeding,
breeding, and growth to maturity. And, looked at
identifying EFH based on the status of the stock.
If it's a rebuilt stock, it may not
need all of the essential fish habitat, all of that
-- that area so we could decrease some of the
essential fish habitat. Whereas if it was an --
overfished stock, we would want to increase it to
make sure that it has as much area as possible in
order to -- to rebuild. Basically, we looked a
combination of L3 and L4, to identify them. The
maps are in Chapter 10 for the -- the draft EIS. If
you want to see what -- what changed and what we're
actually proposing.
Exempted Fishing Permits. Some of
you know that we do have a 60 metric ton whole
weight quota for exempted fishing permits, mainly
for display. And basically, the only thing that we
are proposing to do is change the name from Exempted
Fishing Permit For Display Purposes to a Display
Purpose. There's Display Permit. That's all we're
doing. So, if somebody wanted to collect sharks
instead of getting Exempted Fishing Permit, they
would get a Display Permit. And this facilitates
their ability to collect some of the species of
sharks for aquariums. A lot of them like Sand Tiger
Sharks are prohibited, but do really well in
aquariums. So, that's why we allow them to continue
to collect.
Those are all the measures we're
proposing. There are a lot of them, as I said. I
changed it on this slide, the comment period ends on
October 3rd. I think in the handout it still says
September 30th. We are accepting comments still on
the proposed rule and Amendment 1.
As I said, the DEIS, itself, if you
have any comments on the -- the document, not what
it contains, that comment period is closed. That
closed last week. And the PRA comment period is also
closed already.
And any comments on the rule, itself,
or any comments if you know a council, commission,
anybody is doing a rule that you think might have
impacts on what we're doing, please let us know.
And send comments to Chris. And as I said before,
Chris Rillings and Joe DeFausie are here. They will
be helping out on the final, or you can talk to me.
Thanks.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Thank you Carol. On our agenda, we had scheduled a
break at 10:45. If there are any questions at this
point with respect to clarification of the measures
that were presented, I know it was quite a
presentation.
It's a -- a very intricate -- the proposal in
dealing with all the aspects of shark management
from quotas, and allocations, and commercial,
recreational, essential fish habitat. It's -- it's
all in there. It's a obviously a plan amendment
trying to be a very comprehensive approach toward
shark management.
I guess for those who haven't been
following shark management for the last several
years, well since the first plan was issued under
the secretarial authority in 1993, it -- it has had
a -- a history of emergency rules. Particularly in
the last three to four years. And I know that's
been confusing for some folks to try to follow and
keep up with what the agency's doing. Obviously
that was driven largely by litigation concerns.
But, this is our first attempt in many years to kind
of pull it all together, take a comprehensive look
at shark management based on new improved and peer
reviewed shark stock assessments.
So, we can take a few minutes now, if
there's any questions from a -- a clarification
prospective on the -- on the matters presented.
But, we'd like to have a discussion after lunch with
respect to your reaction to the proposals, any
suggestions for alternatives, or any feedback or
insight as to impact. These are positive or
negative of the proposals.
So, how about we'll just go for
another 15 or 20 minutes for clarification purposes
and then we'll take a break. And then, we'll go
over the comments received to date. So, you can get
a flavor for what feed back we've already gotten at
several public hearings and -- and council meetings.
I did see at least one hand for
clarification. We have Bob Pride and then Bob
McAuliffe.
BOB PRIDE: I had to wait for Carol
to take a bite of her bagel before I started asking
her questions. All right, you mentioned the
criteria for adding and removing species from the
prohibited list. I wrote down sufficient biological
information, look alike, and then I got confused
about the rare and infrequent. Are they separate?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Yes. They are
separate.
BOB PRIDE: Okay.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: One is, it's
rarely caught in HMS fisheries. And the other is,
bycatch and other fisheries.
BOB PRIDE: Oh, good. Thank you
kindly.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Uh-huh.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Bob
McAuliffe.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Oh. I need to -- for
-- for my own clarification to know how -- what NFMS
is doing relates to what the States are doing? Are
they together, or are the separate? Do you have a
State's permitting the take of shark commercially
during Federal closed seasons and vice a versa? I
don't have that clear in my own mind.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Our
regulations apply to anyone with a Federal permit
wherever they're fishing. If they're fishing in
Federal waters or if they're fishing in State
waters. They have to comply with it.
Then the States can do what ever they
want. We do not tell them what to do. A lot of
them have tried to close at the same time we do.
Some States have discovered loopholes in their
regulations after looking at our amendment, where
fishermen have been fishing right outside State
waters and landing in State waters. So, we are
working with them to try to figure out any loopholes
and whether it's something that we have to address
or whether the State needs to address it. So --
BOB MCAULIFFE: Those -- those major
loopholes do exist.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Some of them
do exist.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Just a
-- a follow-up on that. What we have tried to do in
our -- in our comprehensive approach would be, take
account, of course we do recognize State's rights
and if a State wishes to pursue the fishery in a
different way from -- from the Federal management
program, we'll try to take account for that. In
setting the quota, and -- and deducting State
landings, as we have proposed. And actually have
done in the latest emergency rules. Is deducting
State landings against that -- that Federal quota to
compensate for it. So, we do try to work
collaboratively, cooperatively with the States, but
to take account of any discrepancies.
So, I wouldn't like to leave the
impression that we recognize that there is
loopholes, so to speak, in the Federal management
program and that we're -- we're -- we're oblivious
to them. You know we -- we do examine the
situation. We do try to work with the States and if
we feel that -- that it warrants some corrections,
so to speak, to the Federal program to compensate.
We -- we will take that step.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: I also want to
point out that, I think it's Appendix 3 in the EIS,
has the table with all the State regulations in
there, and for the most part, the wording was taken
straight out of the -- the State's regulations. So,
if you're confused about the wording, that's -- we
could be too.
BOB MCAULIFFE: (No microphone,
inaudible) -- (VI doesn't abide by what HMS says)
MERRY CAMHI: I don't know if this is
the time, but Carol, is it -- is there an
opportunity to at some point today, to talk about
what you mean by trying to coordinate with the
States. How far have you gone? How are you working
with FNSC? What exactly is being done in terms of
looking at, like essential fish habit and protecting
nursing -- nursery habitat within State waters?
Something that, I know -- I know you guys are
constantly do -- talking to them, but where is the
plan of action to actually coordinate the current
regulations that are being proposed, with what the
States are doing? To make sure that there are no
new loopholes will develop.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: I
think we should probably reserve that discussion for
this afternoon. We do have several representatives
of -- of various States with us and I think we can
have a -- a more informed discussion of that after
lunch.
JOHN DEAN: Chris, this is something
-- along those same lines, and I can't be here for
the full afternoon. But, I was -- I would be
interested in light of that comment, when you look
at the proposed time area closures, and -- and you
split South Carolina, and I assume that's for
technical reasons. We're constantly have the issue
raised about enforcement. And, this certainly could
create an enforcement issue for South Carolina.
And, I really apologize; I'm not as tight on the --
the plan as possible.
But, what kind of review? How is the
review for enforcement issues relative to these
proposals? How is that review conducted and what's
the feedback from enforcement agencies, that is not
just a NMFS, but also Coast Guard and State
agencies? And I -- if that's something for this
afternoon, you know, I'd like to have it on the
table.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Enforcement,
NFMS enforcement does review our rules, our proposed
rules and works closely with us for the final rules
to make sure what we put in there is enforceable.
As far as the time area closure, we are proposing
VMS on those -- those vessels. And that's our main
reason of -- or main ability of how we're going to
enforce the closure.
It will not -- and by including VMS, vessels
that are -- are fishing outside the closed area
would be able to transit the closed area and
actually land within North Carolina, if they wanted
to. They would just have to show that their fishing
signatures on VMS were outside that closed area.
So, the Coast Guard and States are
always welcome to comment during the public comment
period on the enforceability of the regulations. I
don't know if that answers your question.
IRBY BASCO: Now, thank you Chris.
All right just one quick question. Define, may be
KARYL can define the handline, and when it's
recreational measures, where it says allow only hand
line, and rod and reel. Define hand line.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well,
typically what we've defined it as -- in the Tuna
fishery, as well as the Swordfish fishery, and we
would be hereby extending it to the Shark fisheries
as -- as a line retrieved by hand, not rod and reel.
That is limited to no more than two hooks. So, it's
not a -- we had a discussion with Nelson yesterday
about a so-called mini longline. It's definitely
not intended to be a mini longline. It is again, a
line of a certain length retrieved by hand and --
and no more than two hooks.
So, it is common in -- in several
fisheries as a, I don't know, it's probably not the
best term to use, but I've heard it referred to on
occasion at public hearings as -- as a poor man's
Rod and Reel, so to speak. But, you know, low
investment in the -- but still effective as -- as a
fishing gear.
IRBY BASCO: Okay, but no other gear
other than that, you're talking about is what's
you're proposing. Okay, thank you.
BOB HUETER: Just a clarification on
the prohibited species criteria. I understand the
four criteria. Looking at the Federal register
notice, which I think reflects what's in the
amendment; it says that, based on these criteria,
species could be added to the list, or could be
removed from the list.
And, I think what concerns me is that
word could. Where does -- where does could become
must, or -- I mean, I -- it seems -- explain to me
how these criteria then, are going to be used to
objectively make these -- make these decisions. If
you have that amount of wiggle room in the -- in the
guidelines.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: That is a -- a
question we've gotten at a -- a number of the public
hearings, and some of the written comments. How
exactly would we be implementing it? And, how
exactly would it happen? Would we go though the
list every year, all the shark species? It is open
for ideas. The way I think most of us envision it
is, people would petition us to add or remove
species. And, we would then look at -- at their
request and go through a formal rule making process,
proposed and final rule to see if we've added them.
That's why it's a -- a could and not
a must.
KEN HINMAN: Carol, at the beginning
you set out a timetable for implementation or a
proposed timetable. And I want to make sure I heard
right. Did you say that you hope to have at least
some of the regulations in effect by January? Is
that what I heard?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Yes. We would
have -- our plan is to have the rule, final and
effective by January 1. But, not all the
regulations would be implemented right away. And
some things, like if we went final with the time
area closure, that's a big deal. And, that would
start January 1, if we had that effective January 1.
We -- we would not do that to the fishermen.
There are some regulations that we
have to have in place under the settlement
agreement. And, that would include the commercial
quota. So, that would be something that we would
start right away.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yes.
Normally under Administrative Procedures Act, we
would have a 30 day delay in effectiveness. But, we
try to be mindful of what it takes for folks to come
to compliance, and on occasion, if it relieves a
restriction, sometimes we waive that -- or we seek
waiver for that delayed effectiveness. On other
occasions, as we had done with the time area closure
rule off the East Coast of Florida, would be to give
sufficient lead -- lead time for folks to adjust to
the -- the new regulation, before it becomes
effective.
Any other questions or comments?
Henry, anything?
HENRY ANSLEY: Karyl, I just wonder,
you said something about Federally permitted vessels
in State waters, if there's a closure, they're
covered by -- they'd still have to adhere to that
closure?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Anyone who has
a Federal Shark Permit, has to adhere by Federal
regulations, even if they're fishing in State
waters. So, if the Federal fishery is closed, and
they have a Federal permit, they have to stop
fishing for sharks.
HENRY ANSLEY: Okay. And, one more.
Could you -- you said something about Display
Permitted System. You said it's basically just to
change name to facilitate it?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: It -- it would
clarify for us and anyone who asked the question, of
why we issue an Exempted Fishing Permit. Instead of
just saying, we issued 12 Exempted Fishing Permits,
some of them were for scientific research and some
of them were for display. We could say we issued
nine Display Permits and three Exempted Fishing
Permits for research. That's --
HENRY ANSLEY: Would the -- would the
procedures be --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: The procedure
would not change.
HENRY ANSLEY: Okay. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: And --
and that's basically a -- a way to try to turn the
tables. Particularly because of the requirements of
the aquaria and the collectors, with respect to the
species that might otherwise be prohibited, or
during a closed season, collections that would take
place during a closed season. We have managed it,
sort of by exemption, over the last several years,
in that we would authorize through an Exempted
Fishing Permits.
And, given the continuing nature of that public
display sector, we thought that perhaps a more
affirmative way of -- of dealing with this, in terms
of rules, regulations and -- and you know,
essentially nomenclature. That it is an -- an
affirmative action that we are taking on a
continuing basis. So, rather than calling it an
exemption that we would continue to do, we'll just
sort of change the name and -- and classify it as a
Display Permit.
But, largely the same procedures
would apply as a request for certain species during
certain times. Some indication of how they would be
collected, and -- and reporting and record keeping.
Merry Camhi.
MERRY CAMHI: I just want to get some
clarification on what you're doing for protected
species. Other than what you're doing on -- with
the gillnets, to reduce some of the bycatch
interactions with protected species. Is there
anything else being done for sea turtles, sea birds,
marine mammals?
I -- I didn't see anything. I saw a
brief discussion of it, but I didn't know if you --
if there were any particular regulations that would
address that being proposed.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Well, I -- you
bought up the gillnets. We'd be going for strike
net. We also have the proposal of the release
equipment and moving one nautical mile. Those have
been pretty effective in reducing mortality, and
interactions if you take the -- the one nautical
mile.
And, sea birds has -- there've been
one -- one pelican observed in both the gillnet and
the bottom longline fisheries since they've started.
So, sea birds is not a problem that we see in our
fishery.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Any more questions for clarification? Then we'll
move to a -- a -- up, we've got Rusty and then Bob
McAuliffe.
RUSTY HUDSON: From my clarification
on -- in the telephone book on Chapter 4, Page 85.
You have a picture of the Dusky Shark catches from
'94 though 2003, and it appears that a lot of these
Dusky catchers are outside of what we would call 100
fathom curve. As well as, you know, the
predominates are inside. So, does that mean you are
combining observer programs results to tally this?
Because, you know, I just don't see a whole lot of
guys at bottom longline out there in seven, eight
hundred foot fishing on the bottom.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: For the
proposed time area closure. That is looking at
observer data.
RUSTY HUDSON: (Inaudible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: It's looking
at the bottom longline observer data.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Still working on this
State/Federal thing. If our fishermen choose to
just fish under State regulations, they would have
to be actually apprehended in Federal waters in
order to be in violation or prosecuted in violation
of taking sharks in a closed season or closed area?
What I'm looking at is it, most of
our fishermen do not have Federal license, but they
are in Federal waters.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: As far as I
know, yes.
BOB MCAULIFFE: And we have no closed
seasons, so basically. We're saying in the
Caribbean, you can take them all year round with no
restriction. Unless there's something in that
you've figured out how to get around that?
In other words, if -- if a Federal
agent comes in and finds fishermen selling
prohibited shark, --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: And they don't
--
BOB MCAULIFFE: -- there's no way he
can -- he can apprehend or prosecute. Which is a
situation that we have run into.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Uh-huh.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Again, to me that
looks like a big loophole, and it shouldn't be
there.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well,
certainly -- certainly if the -- fishing in Federal
waters without a permit, that would be a violation.
To the extent that the State regulations are more
lenient, or -- or less -- less restrictive, then it
would become an enforcement issue dockside, if there
was no evidence that the -- the sharks were taken in
-- Federal waters.
But if -- if they are Federally
permitted, there is the permit condition as Karyl
spoke of, that requires that the Federal rules be
observed regardless of whether they are fishing in
State of Federal waters.
BOB MCAULIFFE: So, they would be
better off not having a Federal permit.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
Depends on the -- where they can conduct the
majority of that activities. If they're entirely
within the State jurisdiction, then that's -- that's
fine. And, we can continue to work with the State.
And, as I said, if -- if it does present a problem
for the shark -- Federal Shark Management Program we
would try to compensate for it in out Federal rules.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Well, what I'm trying
to say is, you need to put more effort into that
portion of it.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Uh-huh
Well, we do have some of our enforcement agents and
Coast Guard here. So, may be during the break, you
can discuss some -- some methods. I -- I know
they've worked over the last several years on
several joint enforcement agreements with the
various States and that -- that is facilitated a lot
getting -- getting some enforcement presence out.
Virdin Brown.
VIRDIN BROWN: Just one quick follow-
up comment, I guess. Your last comment took care of
part of it, but it should be noted that for Puerto
Rico, the State waters or territorial waters is much
greater than most States. It goes out to 10 miles
and most of their fishing is done within that
territorial limit. And, you know, while the State
or territorial laws may be different, I think
there's a need for coordination to ensure that we
don't have people fishing outside of what you really
intend to do in the management measure.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Gail
Johnson, welcome. We -- we saw you arrive. Thanks
for finding a place at the table.
GAIL JOHNSON: We had bird problems
with our plane, but anyway, real quick question. I
should know, a shore based fishing trip seems like a
contradiction in terms, but is that somebody on a
wharf? What -- what is that? It's in -- in here
somewhere. Page 322.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: I don't have
it right in front of me, but shore based would --
would probably be somebody, yeah, on a -- on a dock.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
Normally that would be a situation where State rules
would apply. If it was somebody with a commercial
permit, however, they would have to observe the
Federal rules, even if they were fishing from shore.
We don't have that same permit
condition that would apply to the new HMS
recreational permit. So, it doesn't present the
same -- the same conundrum for the fisherman. But
basically, a -- a Federally limited access permitted
individual would have to observe the State or the
Federal rules regardless of -- of where they fish.
But normally, if it's a recreational situation,
shore based, the State regulations would apply.
Okay. How about we take a 15, 20-
minute break. And then, we'll come back and we'll
summarize the comments that we received to date.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: And remember
that there are the written comments are over on the
table if you want to take a look.
(Break.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Folks, we'll get started so we can break on -- on
time for lunch. Normally what we try to do is
schedule the Advisory Panel Meetings at the very end
of the comment period. So, the panel members,
themselves will have the -- the full benefit of --
of all the comments received. We have summarized,
as Karyl said, and have made available to you folks,
all the -- the comments, written comments, and --
and summaries of public hearings to this point.
But, because of Isabel, we -- we
still have two public hearings to go and we'll --
we'll be taking comments through Friday.
If history is our guide, we can
expect to load a lot of paper in the fax machine on
Friday, because a lot of stuff does tend to come in
on -- on the -- on final day of -- of a comment
period.
But, just for the benefit of -- of
the panel, Karyl will review. She has distributed a
-- a brief summary of comments received, again the
more detailed binders are over here on the table.
We'll review these prior to our lunch break, and
then after lunch break, we'll take comments and
observations from the panel of a more substantive
nature than we've been able to get into this
morning.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Hi again.
We're here to -- to go through just a brief summary
of what we've seen from the public comments. What
you have in front of you is a draft. Not all the --
the team members have gone through the comments.
So, there may have been comments that have been
missed in the written ones. So, if you happen to
notice that, and you can't find it, you know, feel
free to give us a call and say, hey, it looks like
you didn't remember this paragraph on this
particular comment. And, we will be sure to include
it if it was forgotten.
The document in front of you, I tried
to keep the same format as the proposed rule. In
terms of the -- the issues that people were
commenting on. And, then there's the addition of
the shark quota general comments, because a lot of
people have commented just on the level of the
sharks quota, not necessarily on the two
alternatives that arrived at the -- at the quota.
As section on the stock assessment, and the status
of the stocks. A section on just the economic
impacts, because we do get a lot of comments. This
will put me out of business. This would be great.
This would cause much of an economic impact. And,
those are all in that Economic Impact Section.
And, the just general comments on
whether or not we're doing a great job or an awful
job. So, I will just go through it. I thought
about doing a Power Point presentation and decided a
summary of a summary just seemed awful silly.
So, I -- I tried to go through and
I'll try to highlight some of the ones that really
stood out for me, but feel free to jump in if you
don't understand one of the comments. Or if you
have a comment to add to it, but for the most part,
let's try to restrict the comments to the afternoon
session.
Rebuilding timeframe, we haven't
gotten too many comments on the timeframe so far.
The comments we received were, you know, we should
prohibit fishing for 20 years. Confidence in the
rebuilding figure is low. And, we should have had
another set of management options with a higher
probability of success.
I wonder if there's a page down.
It's not going. I'll just work on the -- the
WordPerfect on the screen, if you have a specific
question, I'll go to that -- that comment.
Otherwise, we'll just work from the -- the paper
version if that's all right.
Classification. We haven't received
too many comments other than, it's great that you're
reaggregating them, or it's not so great that you're
reaggregating them.
Quota Administration. For the most
part, we got a lot of economic comments. As
particularly on the trimester proposal. We did get
some comments that we shouldn't do the regional,
because of the administration regions. A lot of
people were concerned about how we're going enforce
the regional approach. And, a lot of people felt
that the percentages were incorrect due to improper
identification and reporting for the regional
quotas.
Shark Quota Basis. We've actually
only gotten one comment that addresses the shark
quota basis. Whether that's because nobody
understands it or because we did a great job coming
up with something. I'm not quite certain.
Minimum Size Restrictions. We got a
range of comments on those. Saying we shouldn't
have a minimum size all the way up to the minimum
size should be 15 feet. We had a comment that they
would support a no minimum size for commercial
fishery if we had a time area closure that protects
juveniles of all species, not just the -- the
Sandbar and Dusky, that we're looking at for the
proposal.
The Quota. We received a large
range, once again. Saying that we should be reduce
or eliminate the commercial quota. We should reduce
it by 700%. Lowest overall quotas to ensure
sustainable levels for all species and protect
juveniles.
(Brief comments - no microphone.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: There -- there
are some people who are concerned about why U.S.
fishermen are limited to their shark catches as
opposed to Mexican -- Mexican fishermen, who can
catch any amount. Recreational Retention Limit.
The same thing. We've received a range. One shark
of any species per trip. And that any additional
catch reductions should come from the commercial
end, not from the recreational end, because the
recreational fishermen have been complying with the
1999 FMP regulations. Whereas the commercial
fishermen have not been.
Minimum Size Restrictions. Concern
that there's so many recreational fishermen that
there's -- that the magnitude of mortality from them
is probably pretty high, and that we should maintain
the -- the current minimum size. And, encourage
proper release techniques for the recreational
sector.
Authorized Gear Types for the
Recreational Fishery. We had support for that. We
also had a comment, that we need to have a provision
that would allow disabled anglers, who cannot hold
the rod and reel to be able to fish and that, I
guess, some of the Atlantic States have a
recreational gillnet fishery. And, they're worried
that limiting it to rod and reel, and hand line
would have an impact on that recreational gillnet
fishery.
(Brief comment -- not audible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: What States?
UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: That -- we got
that comment from the Mid-Atlantic Council. And, I
know we've done some research into what States, but
I can't remember off the top of my head.
UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: The Gear
Restrictions is another section where we've gotten a
lot of comments that are under the economic section.
But going in we did have some comments on banning
the drift gillnet and allowing strike net. Some of
the interesting ones are: No observations if the
gear type is accurate.
And also, comments that we should not
eliminate a viable fishery that has reliable
observer science behind it. So obviously, there's
some disagreement as to whether or not the observers
are doing a good job on the gillnet fishery.
Concern about marine mammals, Sea
Turtles, Red Drum, and the -- the gillnet fishery.
The State of Georgia would still
request 100% observer coverage, even if it's limited
to strike net gear.
Fishermen, who don't understand why
States are banning both longlines and gillnets, and
why are we suggesting to ban gillnets and to allow
them to use longline. Comments that making it
strike net only fishery would supersede actions by
the Large Whale Take Reduction Team and the Bottle
Nose Dolphin Plan.
Interesting comment from my -- my
perspective was that these Sharp Nosed Sharks can
only be caught with a drift gillnet and that strike
net gear only catches Large Coastal Sharks in the
winter. That they don't catch Large Coastal Sharks
in the summer.
Fishermen, gillnet fishermen who says
that they've adapted their gear using corks to keep
the -- the gear high in the water and allow any Sea
Turtles that are caught to survive. And that the
ones that are catching dead Sea Turtles are actually
ones who are, what their calling rouge vessels, who
really aren't in the fishery, but come down every
once in a while to fish.
For VMS. Some of the gillnet
fishermen have told us that they would prefer to
have observers to the VMS. Fishermen have told us
that if we do implement VMS, that we should hold the
operators, not the vessel owners responsible for any
violations. Because the owner doesn't have any say
in what the operator does.
And also that the VMS should be
phased in to reduce any negative impacts for the
fishermen. Potentially using an adaptation the
Coast Guard is using this for Homeland Security
instead of VMS.
For the other gear restrictions,
generally, most people seem to support the
alternatives we proposed for the ecological
benefits, but some of them are noting that these are
-- these measures are hard to enforce. People are
saying that the -- the non-stainless steel
corrodible hooks should be readily accepted by the
industry, and most vessels already use the hooks.
That moving one nautical mile
shouldn't be a hardship because most vessels already
move more than one mile after hauling their gear.
There were -- there was support for
the -- the recreational and commercial workshops.
That people thought that theses would be a really
good educational forum and a lot of good things
could come out of them.
Once again, concerned that fishermen
are looking over into Cuba and the Bahamas, and
seeing fishermen kill Sea Turtles. And, why is the
U.S. trying so hard to protect Sea Turtles?
That we may want to consider a
variation of the -- the no discard proposal, well,
it's not a proposal, but it was an alternative.
Time Area Closures in general, a lot
of people seemed to want. Time area closures of
some sort in -- in the fishery, because it would
reduce bycatch and potentially protect juvenile
sharks.
Specific comments to the actual
proposed time area closure includes, that North
Carolina Fishermen are being treated unfairly. That
a lot of the fishermen there have reported that
they're not catching a significant number of pupping
females. That most of the -- based on their fin
data, that they're catching older sharks, not the
juveniles, and that they don't see any pregnant
females after mid-July.
A lot of concern that observers are
mis-identifying the Dusky Sharks. Nursery grounds
are in near shore areas not out in the area that
we're proposing to close. Proposed close time is
absurd. That it should be starting in April and not
January 1st.
If the area is closed, landings
should not be allowed in States adjacent to the
area, no matter where the fish is harvested.
Obviously an enforcement concern there.
Concern that the time area closure
will push vessels into other areas, such as the area
off of the Florida East Coast.
Deep Water and Other Sharks. We
pretty much got just a couple comments on those.
One for and one against the proposed removal from
the management unit.
Prohibited Species. A lot of people
feel very deeply about the prohibited species.
Whether they should be removed or added. So, there
was support for pretty much everything. But there
did seem to be a lot of support for the mechanism,
but confusion, as we discussed before, over how the
mechanism would actually be implemented, and what
would happen.
EFPs. We pretty much got a range on
those from supporting what we're proposing, to not
issuing any more permits at all. Increasing the
fines for EFPs.
We also asked for comments and are
continuing to ask for Amendment 2 on other
clarifications and ways of improving the EFP system.
So, we did get some comments on that. Such as
letting -- NFMS should let that a public know what
final decisions we've made regards to Exempted
Fishing Permits and what the environmental impacts
are of that.
EFH Update. We haven't gotten too
many comments on that. We got one from the EPA and
one from other -- one other person. EPA asking us
to take a look at the other fishery practices on
Shark EFH. And the other comment, suggesting that
we should be basing EFH on the entire range of the
species and that would include some of the -- the
areas for Sandbar Shark that are not included right
now as EFH. And, maybe work with Mexico and Cuba to
include their waters in Essential Fish Habitat.
The Stock Assessments and the status
of the stocks. There's still a lot of uncertainty
and, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say
disbelief, but I can't think of another word. And
what the stock assessment is saying and what the
data is being used.
Basically, a lot of people are saying
that we need more -- more data, better data. That
the -- a lot of concern why Black Top -- Black Tip
Sharks were overfished in 1998 and now we're saying
that they're rebuilt. Misunderstanding over why a
species can be over -- can have overfishing
occurring, but not be overfished.
Comments based from the -- the peer
report that came out, saying that sharks are in real
bad shape and that NOAA fisheries can't be trusted
when it says that Sandbar Sharks are no longer
overfished.
Comments on the Menhaden Fishery and
Shark bycatch. Concerned that we're not including
enough bycatch in the stock assessment. Basically
just a lot of concern over the -- the data that's
being used.
Economic Impacts. Huge range on
these. From, we shouldn't be focusing on economic
or even considering economic impacts at all. We
should just be focusing on the probability of
extinction of sharks.
To, that we're putting people out of
business and we shouldn't be proposing things that
put things out of business -- put fishermen out of
business.
Current quotas are good and the
overall fishery's improving. NOAA fisheries should
leave well enough alone. Regional quotas and
estimates of catches are flawed and will put North
Atlantic fishermen out of business.
The Trimester. We got a lot from
saying that they can't support the trimester season,
because it would hurt the market. The -- the
grocers new a large period of time in order to -- to
set the market and figure out what's happening. To,
fishermen who really like the trimester approach
because it would keep the market open more
throughout the year, and allow them to expand the
time period.
Concern that having a trimester
approach would mean that they'd have to change their
gear types three times a year to fishermen who said,
that's not a problem, because they use the same type
of gear throughout the year. So, they're not going
to be switching it.
The -- the banning of the -- the
gillnet. That even the strike net fishermen would
go out of business because they wouldn't be able to
fish using strike net once the -- the winter fishery
is over.
The time area closure, of course,
that's comments that that will put fishermen out of
business.
Concern that VMS is expensive and a
violation of privacy. And whether or not NOAA
fisheries is going to pay for it.
Comments that the -- the fuel to move
one nautical mile is not significant.
That the fishing techniques to
retrieve fishing gear will save fishermen money,
because they won't have to replace any lost gear.
And that the techniques that they learned to -- to
take the hooks out and everything, will actually
increase their ability to retrieve the gear. That
if they're using the release equipment properly,
that they could basically, start marketing their
fish as Sea Turtle friendly.
Regarding the workshops. There's and
idea that maybe private sector gear technologist or
NGOs could help pay for fishermen to attend the
workshops.
Comment that NOAA fisheries needs to
be patient with the shark fishing community and
minimize the potential for socio-economic impacts
until further efforts to stabilize the fleet through
better analysis, fishing quotas, buy back programs
become more progressed. And that we shouldn't hurry
to put people out of business. That we need to
consider individual quotas for directed fishing,
directed permit holders to reduce derby and seasonal
market gluts.
An interesting comment was, that the
SARs epidemic has hurt fin prices. I got that from
one fisherman, I don't know if it's -- if it's true
or not. I haven't heard it from anyone else.
Going into the general comments. On
EPA thought that we didn't do a great job assessing
the impacts of the NO Action Alternative. And
refers back to the semi-annual seasons. Saying that
a continued course of action, such as the semi-
annual season has been causing the fishery to
decline to an unsustainable level.
The EPA would like us to look at
whether or not a no fishing alternative is
reasonable or unreasonable. And add more tables and
diagrams. They'd like to clarify the effects of
other fisheries on the stock -- stocks and clearly
connect relevant information throughout the
document.
Some of my favorite comments,
personally, now that we've received a range of
comments regarding who is influencing the agency
decisions. Some people feel that we're -- we
settled with commercial fishing industry and for
fighting environmental groups tooth and nail to
protect commercial fish profits. And other people
feel that we're being overly influenced by the
environmentalists.
Going on about how many permits we
should have. That we should be working to reduce
the number of shark deaths. All other purposes are
secondary.
Obviously a big concern for the
commercial fisherman, I need time to prepare for
other fisheries and hire crew before notice of the
final rule and implementation.
We continue to receive comments about
where we should have held public hearings. That not
everybody could make the public hearings.
More information, NOAA fisheries has
the more money fishermen loose. We need to mail
information about the public hearings to all permit
holders. That we did a good job doing that for the
proposed rule, but we should have done it for the
scooping meetings as well.
And that NOAA fisheries should be
relaying on an observer report from 1994 through
2002 and not the -- the recent years report that we
have. Just an update on that, they are working on a
-- a full, I think, 10 year report for the observer
program. So, we hope to have that soon.
Those are pretty much what I saw
coming out of the comments and obviously the -- the
summary of all of them. This is in draft form.
Things are likely to be rephrased, changed slightly
to make them clearer, but I think pretty much
everything we -- we've gotten written is included in
here. Unless you handed it to me today.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: You might want
to clarify the one on Page 7. It says that --
(inaudible) --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Yes, you --
you saw that?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The mortality of
recreational --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: It was
supposed to be by recreational fishermen.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: That jumped
out of the page at me this morning. I was like,
whoops. I was wondering who would catch it.
UNIDENTIFIED: I don't know --
(inaudible) -- a lifeboat
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: So, if you
want any clarifications, let me know and I'll bring
it up on the screen.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay,
thank you Karyl. Just to reminder, we're not
prepared at this juncture to be responding to the
comments. We just wanted to give you a -- a sense
of the breaths and depths of comments received to
date, and we'll be taking the panel's comments after
the lunch break. But any question and
clarifications of -- of this document here? And
certainly we did intend to paraphrase it to -- to
summarize and make it a little bit more succinct for
the panel review here. But, if there's any
particular comment that you want to elaborate on or
ask about, please do so at this time before we break
for lunch.
KEN HINMAN: Yeah. Karyl, on Page 4,
the second comment under authorized gear. I just
want to clarify it and I assume it's the case that
comment came from the State of Georgia, that strike
net, gillnet, bycatch reduction has not been
adequately investigated. Is that from the State of
Georgia?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Yes.
KEN HINMAN: Maybe Henry can answer
that.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: My
understanding, that's what Susan Shipman and Henry
said at the -- the meeting in Jacksonville last
week. And I think Henry wants to refer back to it.
HENRY ANSLEY: I think if you look at
it, we're talking about strike net information in
waters off of Georgia, have not been -- the data's
limited on that. We weren't referring over all.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Right, I
haven't seen any written comments yet. So, --
HENRY ANSLEY: Well, I hadn't --
hadn't submitted it, written it --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Okay.
HENRY ANSLEY: But basically, that's
what it refers to is that the conditions are a
little different off Georgia, and that the
information on strike net gear is limited off
Georgia, in Georgia conditions.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you. Just a --
this is a comment on the comments. And -- and I'm
concerned with respect to our ability as a council
to participate in this, in the formal sense. We
received a request from y'all to be put on out
agenda for the June meeting for the very last
minute. And, we did rearrange the agenda and
included you, and then, that -- you canceled out on
that. And that would have, I think, been this
presentation. Is that right, Karyl? Basically?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: We were
actually scheduled to talk to the South Atlantic
last -- last week, but Isabel --
JOHN DEAN: I'm going to get there.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Okay.
JOHN DEAN: All right.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: We had
actually requested to be put on the council meetings
when we sent out the predraft back in April. So --
JOHN DEAN: Then you requested again
to be on the agenda. We put you on the agenda for
the September meeting for this presentation to
council, and then we had to reschedule because we
had a visit from Isabel. And learned after the
fact, in fact that, you'd scheduled a public hearing
at another location in South Carolina on the same
night as we had a council activity scheduled on the
agenda. But, that was not communicated to us as a
council. Of course, since we had to cancel the
meeting, now you've scheduled a public hearing for
this next, for this Thursday evening and comments
close on Friday. And we will not have a council
meeting until after the closure of the period.
So, our council is pretty careful
about following the rules of having full council and
the committee and the full council act before we
send letters. And, this is really taken us out of
the play, to a great extent. Maybe that's my fault
as a chairman of the HMS committee, that I haven't
been more aggressive internally, but it -- it has
been a problem with communications. And, I just
would like to know is there any way that we can
provide comment at a future date, because we're not
going to be able to do it by Friday.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Well, we are
trying to work to improve our communication. We
have tried very hard to get to all of the council
meetings that we can. The Caribbean, we were not
able to, their meeting was scheduled much sooner
than we were able to -- to make it. We tried to get
it on last moment and we're told we shouldn't
because it does not give people enough time to make
it. We did try the South Atlantic earlier and then
this last one with Isabel coming was just bad timing
on the hurricane part.
With the tight timeline that we're
under, we needed to -- to set the end of the comment
period. As we did extend it in order to reschedule
those two meetings that we canceled.
I -- I don't know what to tell you,
other than the fact that we have been working to
provide people in the South Atlantic Council copies
of --
(Tape Change)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Consider them
after the end of the comment period, but you're
welcome to submit comments as a council.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well,
it's -- it's not that -- that we couldn't consider
them. We can always consider any input at any point
in time, but the purpose of having a defined comment
period is to -- to get on with it. And obviously
with this management program, we need to get
something in place to supplant the emergency rule
which is expires at the end of the year.
So, to the extent that the council can
deliberate and -- and comment as soon as possible,
we'd certainly accept the -- the comments and -- and
consider them as -- as best we can given -- given
the timeframe.
It is very difficult, I understand your concern
and we'll try to be more mindful of communications
with the councils in the future. But, the HMS
situation dictates that we have five councils to
deal with and we do consult the -- the schedule
frequently to see when they're meeting and
somethings -- sometimes we -- we can't always
accommodate as much as we would like.
Even trying to schedule an Advisory Panel
meetings is -- is often very difficult. Since so
many of the councils are -- are -- have their
meetings planned so far out in advance that by the
time we -- we get our act together, with things to
present, we're sort of scrambling to try to find --
find a window of opportunity. But, we will attempt
to endeavor to do better in terms of communication.
Bea, did you clarify what you needed?
And then I had Irby, and then Bob decided he does
have something to say. So, we'll get back to him.
IRBY BASCO: Okay, thank you, Chris.
On Page 10, the -- on the comments about the
Menhaden fishery, the Gulf of Mexico Fishers
Management Council has a concern, I guess you might
say, about -- about the bycatch on the Menhaden
fishery. There's -- I know there's a -- there's
some information in the document about it.
But at our HMS meeting that we --
before the council meeting, when we convened an HMS,
we made a comment about -- one of the council
members about it. But then, we had some of the
Menhaden people show up, and to kind of explain
their situation. And then at the council meeting,
the same amount of people from Menhaden fisheries,
there's only two Menhaden fisheries I think, but one
real concern was in the Gulf of Mexico.
But any rate, so finally, what the
council has done is had -- have Doctor Condry, who
has written a recent paper about the Menhaden
fishery, to come to the council, our next meeting,
November. And, but our council does have a concern
about this. We have a -- we'd like to be able to --
to see if -- how great the information is and a lot
of things like that. But any rate, we -- that's one
of the comments, I want of kind of expound on that
to know that y'all that the Gulf Council is
concerned.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
We -- we did receive a copy of a rather lengthy
response to the Gulf Council concern from the Gulf
States Commission. I don't know if you've seen
that, we can certainly make a copy of that available
to you.
But, the Gulf States Commission,
having been privy to the -- the comments and
concerns raised at -- at the council meeting, did
take it upon themselves to respond. It was a rather
lengthy response. I believe it was over 10 pages.
And, it did go into some details, summarizing past
historical studies on the observed take rates. And
the Menhaden, looking at the -- the fish pumps and -
- and the excluding devices that have been used in
recent in --in recent years.
So, we can certainly get a -- a copy
of that response to you. To summarize it, several
weeks ago that I read it. But basically, the
contention was that the bycatch problem for,
particularly for juvenile large coastals had largely
been solved through excluding type devices. And
that -- that amount had not been effectively
excluded was, I guess you could say, I don't want to
paraphrase the letters since I don't have in front
of me. Insignificant relative to commercial end and
-- and recreational catches in the Gulf of Mexico.
But, we'll get a copy of that letter
to you. I can't recall whether the letter was
written to the council or was it written to us?
UNIDENTIFIED: I think it was --
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: It was written
to Nancy Thompson.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Nancy
Thompson, okay. So, it was written to Nancy
Thompson, because I guess the council had requested
some input from the Southeast Science Center for
their meeting.
IRBY BASCO: To that point I've read
about a 10 page letter from Gulf Station Marine --
you know they came to us at our HMS meeting up -- AP
meeting. And, it -- but it -- there were some --
there's some newer things out that, you know, in
Condry that -- that, you know, kind of didn't
exactly contradict that thing, but I kind of makes
you wonder. And so, this is our concern, but what
we have, but in -- in globe that it's, you know,
it's everything like we say in our document. And,
what they say.
And, we-- we just like to have a -- a
some of the council members expressed a concern
because they did not have access to a certain phase
there of the Menhaden operations. You know, like
you just couldn't walk on the dock. Well, may be
it's insurance or safety reasons, but the -- the
Menhaden fishery seem to be, how can I say it?
Defensive, in both cases and I -- if they don't need
to be, well fine.
So, we're just looking into it. And, we're
hoping that it's just like our document says. But,
if it's not, I think it needs to be addressed.
Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yeah,
I -- I don't want to leave everybody with the
impression that we're taking the letter on -- on
face value. I'm -- I'm not even trying to suggest
that the -- the letter doesn't have any -- any basis
in fact. But, we have just summarized it, so to
speak, here; and we will be taking more detailed
look at the studies sited and -- and try to
determine whether we think a problem exists that
needs to be addressed.
Arguably, this would be one of the
situations where it will take coordination with the
States, since the fishery's predominately in -- in
waters of -- under State jurisdiction. But we will
consider the comments on both sides of the issues at
length in our final deliberations and we'll have a
formal response in the final -- the final plan.
I had Bob Pride, Rusty and then Merry.
BOB PRIDE: Thank you, Chris. John
(inaudible) something to mind that I might want
share with everyone. The Mid-Atlantic Council has a
long history with sharks. They used to the lead
council for the plan a hundred years ago before --
before HMS was formed.
So, what we were able to do was to go
back and look at -- look at our record on sharks and
comment based on what we'd already issued opinions
on. So, we went back to our formal record and --
and -- and were able to issue a comment letter based
upon our -- our existing positions.
However, there are some new things
that we have not been able to discuss as a council.
And, what I would like to ask HSM to do is to look
at those meeting dates. When -- when you make a
presentation to us, we need to be able to have
another meeting before the end of the comment
period. You know, that's -- that would, of course,
that's about a 60 day cycle for us. And, I think
other councils have different cycles. So, I can
appreciate how hard it is for you Chris, but really
give that a lot of consideration.
If the councils are to be involved,
they need to have a presentation from HMS, or the
materials delivered to them, or whatever the formal
process is. And then, have another meeting. So,
the committees can work in the interim. Okay, and
that's how what we've done.
And, our -- Carol, the other thing I
wanted to ask is, when you go through these comments
and you have absolutely conflicting opinions that
are about 50-50, does that just kind of just negate
those comments?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: No. I -- one
of the things we pointed out before in Advisory
Panel member -- meetings, the -- the comments
themselves, we don't take a -- a running tally.
Well, we got five votes for and six against, so
we're going to go against. And, we're looking at
the -- the actual quality of the comment. Are they
saying that we shouldn't have a minimum size because
of really good reasons, or they just saying no
minimum size because they don't want a minimum size.
You know, if -- if they explain why it is. And
that's really what we want -- want to see and what
we're really trying to aim for. But, if five people
say no minimum size and six don't, then, that
doesn't mean it's -- it's a don't.
BOB PRIDE: (No microphone, not
audible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Yes.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: To
that point, what I personally like to -- to see in -
- in terms of comments is alternatives. Have we
correctly assessed the impacts and -- and if not,
give us some more information. If there are
alternatives that would be less restrictive but
equally effective. That's in my view, a better
comment than, I don't like what you proposed.
Rusty and then Merry Camhi.
RUSTY HUDSON: On the Doctor Condry
report on the Menhaden bycatch, we incorporated that
into the Shark Evaluation Workshop Assessment last
year. That 10,000 animals plus are generally
neonates and juveniles.
Unfortunately at some point in the
process, somebody multiplied them by an adult size
shark. And, that's the only conflict we had with
that, except for the fact that Doctor Condry only
participated in observing the Menhaden fleet in Gulf
of Mexico for two years in '94 and '95, and then he
used estimates to go forward.
And we even brought up the estimates
and went backwards, at the Shark Evaluation
Workshop. So, we have 20 something years of
Menhaden bycatch there. And, we also had the data
with the regards to -- or the information in regards
to the excluding devices and stuff like that. We
would like to see, you know, just how much reduction
of the mortality has occurred.
But, to think that we're not, and
haven't considered the Menhaden bycatch is not true.
We've -- it actually figured just like the Mexican
catch, and like the other things, into our
assessment last year.
MERRY CAMHI: I just want
clarification that if you -- you're planning to look
at this letter from, this 10 page letter and the
look and then at this point you will determine what
kind of additional provisions you might apply in
this amendment? So, that it would be enacted for
the 2004 fishing season?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: The letter --
I'm sorry Chris. The -- the letter actually was not
a comment on what's actually proposed. So, it's not
summarized in these comments. What the letter was,
was basically an entire history of all the research
that's been done on the Menhaden fishery and what
sharks have been caught. So, that information we
will be going through and including as appropriate
in the EIS. And if we feel there are additional
management measures need or suggested by it, then
that would be included, probably in the Amendment 2.
MERRY CAMHI: Okay, so, it would not
be until the next amendment. And, one of the
questions I have is, that we have been talking about
this Menhaden bycatch for a very long time and we
don't see anything here in terms of what the options
are, might be if indeed this is a -- plays out that
this is a still a significant source of bycatch.
Which we -- until we see the data, we -- we assume
it is. What do you have in mind? Is there -- has
there any kind of strategy, or any kind of plan but
in place that would work with the States, and work
with the fishery in order to help reduce this
bycatch?
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well,
we certainly will work with the States. The way the
Federal program works, is that we will try to
account for all sources of mortality. So, if there
is a significant source of mortality in the Menhaden
fishery, that is outside the scope of our Federal
management plan, we try to compensate for that in
setting the commercial quotas. And, work with the -
- the States and the Gulf States Commission to try
to reduce that mortality.
Obviously if -- if we can work
effectively with the States and the commission to
reduce that source of mortality, then we can relax,
so to speak, the Federal program. But we will
continue the dialog with the Gulf States Commission.
I guess we will request comment from -- from Nancy
Thompson and Southeast Center, with respect to the -
- the letter, as to what research might be
recommended and how we can work with the States to
get better access to that -- that fishery and get
some -- some observations.
Any other comments? Bob Hueter, I'm sorry
about that.
BOB HUETER: Okay, first I just
wanted to second what Rusty said about the -- the
Menhaden fishery that -- that if you look in your
phone book, on Page 375, the -- the landings across
the board, you see what -- what -- how we have been,
as he said, considering insignificant in the -- in
the Shark Evaluation Workshop of 25,000 sharks per -
- per year. And, the commercial landings are just
under 100,000. So, that's -- that's a quarter of
the number of animals that are -- that are brought
in the commercial directed fishery. And, about a
little bit under 15% of total landings. So, if
something has changed in that fishery, then we need
to connect with the -- the people in the Gulf that
are reporting this information, because it's not
getting to the -- to the assessment workshop.
The other question I had is that, in
the past the aquarium industry and marine collectors
have been very outspoken on the -- the permitting
process. In the -- in these comments, are they --
do they seem to be fairly satisfied with the changes
that are being made, or what? Or have you not
received comments yet from them?
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: I don't
remember seeing any comments from the aquarium
people, but since all we're doing really is a name
change, I wouldn't think there'd be too much for
them to comment on. And that none of the procedures
are changing. It's just the name change. But, as I
said I don't remember seeing any comment from them.
BOB HUETER: All right. Have the
issues that were -- seemed to be kind of difficult a
year or two ago about the process of -- of getting
permits and the tagging of the animals, and all
that. Has those been fairly resolved?
We as a -- as a -- as a Advisory
Panel member, I've gotten copies of letters, you
know, letter upon letter from -- from members of the
-- the aquarium industry crying the blues about how
difficult these -- these provisions have been. Has
-- has that been resolved?
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Well,
that was actually a separate rule making. That we
did take comment on and in fact it was a very well
attended meeting we had down at the Orlando, what --
what was the theme park, we were down there? There
were so many of them in Orlando, I guess it was Sea
World, or something that -- it was very well
attended by all the major public aquaria in the
States.
We are in the process of finalizing
that rule. That rule itself was addressing more of
the reporting and record keeping aspects of it.
Although, we did have some provisions in that for
tagging. We have proposed the use of the passive
integrator transponder tags. There was a lot of
concern expressed that those tags have not been
proven reliable in sharks. So, that we should
continue to offer the option of the -- the ribbon
tags as well.
We are in the process of finalizing
that rule. But as Karyl said, in -- in this
amendment it was just a -- a switch between an
exempted fishing procedure to a more affirmative
display procedure here. So, between the two of
them, we will address several of the concerns that
have been raised on the whole collection for public
display issue, between those two actions.
RUSTY HUDSON: On clarification, Bob
was correct, on 375 of course was the 25,100 animals
and of course you'll see the difference that if you
multiply that times an average adult weight verses
an average juvenile or neonate weight, it makes for
a bigger difference when it's used. But, you can
see 20 years of 25,100 animals solid and that's all
based on that '94/'95 work that Condry did, plus
what we could incorporate, as far as using logic and
some of the people we spoke with. So basically, I -
- it would be nice to see if it's cleaned up a
little bit with the -- with the ejecting devices and
stuff.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Any
other comments about comments. Then I suggest we
break for lunch. Be back here at one o'clock and
then we'll be prepared to take comments of a
substantive and quality nature from the Advisory
Panel.
(Lunch Break 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
COMMENTS FROM PANEL MEMBERS
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
This point of our agenda, we invite comments from
the panel members, with respect to the material
presented this morning on the proposed rule and the
proposed plan amendment. Again, we're looking for
substantive input, quality input from the panel.
That's why you've all been nominated and appointed,
because of your experience with the -- the
respective fisheries, the interest groups, the
regions you represent. And, we look forward to a
discussion. At some point we'll take a -- a quick
break. And then, we'll open it up for public
comment. I see there's several members of the
public that are with us today.
So at this juncture, we'll just
continue in our usual fashion. I guess we'll just
be a little bit more organized this afternoon and
we'll go around the table. I guess we'll start on
my left hand side. If people want to pass, you can
pass, and we'll just go through, around several
times. Back and forth if we need to. Get as much
conversation as we can this afternoon while we're
together. Glen.
GLEN HOPKINS: Well, I've got a lot
to say. I usually don't say much. I try to be
quiet and listen. But this time area closure thing
that's something that's seriously effecting a lot of
folks and I somewhat agree with the concept, but the
way it's been applied here, it is just doesn't work
for a lot of folks.
I just want to start of with just a -
- a little story about most of the data that's
driving this. I would venture to say that I'm 80%
responsible for all the data that -- in this
program. The -- when it was voluntary, it first
started in '94. I had just gotten a new boat. I
had a jacked up crew and jacked up observer. And,
we went aboard and we were trying sets and all kind
of areas. Any -- any day we could fish, we fished.
Documented all this data. We had made over 200
longline sets. Documenting all this stuff. And,
now I feel like the biggest chump in the world,
because it's -- it's taken us data and -- and taken
a wide -- wide sweep and just trying to close down
the whole East Coast.
I care about sharks. I went to a
(inaudible). I was going to get a VMS but I decided
I wanted to be in the field more. So, I understand
a little bit about the biology and -- and all that
stuff.
While we were fishing, like I said we
were trying all different areas and we learned a lot
from doing this stuff. We learned where the small
fish were. Where the concentration of Duskies were.
And, all this data is back from '94 and '93 on. The
majority of the numbers of fish that were used to
figure out these total lengths and all -- all these
lengths frequencies and everything. When we made
the sets inside and we caught lots and lots of
little sharks, that all went to the database. Which
was good, we were documenting all this stuff.
Recent years, we've -- we've taken
what we've learned. We've passed it on to other
fishermen. And, I think if you look in the recent
years, you'll find that the -- the total lengths of
-- have increased, back to where they were
initially.
At this time, also, Duskies were open
game. You know, we'd target Duskies. We love --
love to catch Duskies. We caught a lot of Duskies,
and we could still do it today. We'd -- we'd try to
stay out of those areas. And, going along with the
small sharks, we don't target them, because it's a
lot of work. My crew would kill me. Because you
don't make that much money off of them. So, we
purposely try to avoid them.
I've done a lot of work. We've
tagged thousands of sharks. One thing we learned in
this in this was the State waters was where the
biggest concentration of small Duskies and -- and
juveniles were.
They had another guy actively pursued
North Carolina to get them to close these State
waters just for this conservation effort. We did
that and I feel like it's worked. Along with some
other States following suit.
I've got a copy from some of
Georgia's work that shows the -- the total length
main -- main fork length, back in '94 it took a
drop, during those years where experimental fishing,
and doing all this stuff. And, now in 2001, which
is last point shows, that's all the way back up to
there. Which shows that we learned from what we
were doing and -- and we're using that to increase
the size of the fish we're catching.
I'm not a speaker, so, please bear
with me. That's kind of where -- where I'm coming
from with this. I think if you look at the data in
-- because I know it came from, mostly from my
vessel, I -- I know where -- where it came from.
How it was arrived at. And, like I said, we were
doing it more of an experimental thing. And now,
that we've learned from it and now we're using what
we've learned. But, we're still being penalized for
what we did in the past. That's a main point I want
to make on -- on that.
I have a few questions about the
closure itself. Why is it just for longline
fishing? I don't want to pick on the recreational
fishermen, but if we look at Page 380, there's a
table there. Recreational Harvest Estimates, year
2001. Dusky Sharks, 5703 Dusky sharks landed.
Total for the year of 134,406. And I know there's a
size limit on there, so surely you aren't taking any
undersized sharks, I wouldn't think. But, it surely
wouldn't be taking Dusky Sharks either.
If -- if you're going to go ahead
with this closure, other that the political
ramifications, why can't -- why wouldn't you -- why
wouldn't you do it for recreational fishermen too.
5700 Duskies, my God, how many -- how many are we
catching? Nowhere near that.
Like I said, we -- we were very
adamant about getting North Carolina to close it's
State waters to fishing for the obvious reasons.
Another State just north of us, Virginia, currently
has fishing in State waters. And for one, I -- I
can't for the life of me figure out why that State,
because of some of the people that live in that
State and participate in the State, why they haven't
followed up. And, I think if you did encourage that
State to follow along, that would make a dramatic
impact too on the a -- on the small fish, especially
the Duskies.
I have a -- from the observer program
data back -- back in the years past, a few -- a few
things that I thought were very interesting. Like I
said I -- I can't stress to you the -- the fact
that, you know, when we are in these schools the
small fish, we're catching large numbers of fish.
So, there is lots of measurements. The N factor was
-- was really large. And, just one statement in the
-- the '96 observer program, particularly, this is
especially true for North Carolina as is pointed out
in this report. Nearly 99% of all fish less than
120 centimeters fork length are taken in waters less
than 10 fathoms deep.
My point is, you got this broad area,
but really your main focus should be in its near
shore waters. And -- and by closing these State
waters, it's had a huge impact, I sure. And, if you
can -- can get the rest of the States to do that it
would make a difference.
Like I said, we've learned. We don't
fish in those waters anymore. And, given that
there's another one that was a report in '94 --
'97/'98 Shark Observer Program. Given that much of
this catch inside 10 to 15 fathoms in the Atlantic
is immature fish, pregnant females, etc. Continuing
to fish a pressure initial waters by a substantial
negative impacts on the stock.
Like I say, we do not do this
anymore. We learned. We were experimenting back
then. We learned. And we're doing it.
I just can't stress to you the fact
that this -- I care about sharks more than anything.
Probably more than anybody in this room. I depend
on sharks to make my living. I also am fascinated
by sharks. That's the reason I got into it to start
with.
I've always been a conservation
minded, research minded, and right now I feel like
the biggest chump in the world for the data we
supplied has progressed this whole process probably
10 years, 8 years at least. Because of my voluntary
participation in it, and now the data's been turn --
turned against us and just a broad scale closure,
practically the entire East Coast for eight months
out of the year. The only thing we have left is
Florida and the Gulf Coast.
This going to put a lot of people out
of business, which if I was being put out of
business because there was no sharks, that would be
one thing, but I'm being put out of business
because, there are sharks, but we want, you know,
just in case we want a few more. We're seeing a
rebound and we're still going to cut -- cut our
throats, that's -- that's really hard to take. It's
not just me. I have a family to support, three
children getting ready to go to college. And, I'm -
- I have crew members that have families. I mean,
just looking at this room, let's say all you guys
are fired as of January 1st. Figure out what to do.
The rest of you are okay for a while, but we're
going to fire you all to start with. It does hit
home to me and it's a -- it's just hard to take.
I'm out in that water. I think about
shark every day of my life. I -- I've handled more
sharks. I've caught more sharks than any --
probably anybody else in this room. I know what
they do and if you can come up with a better time
area closure proposal, perhaps, you know, we could
embrace that. But, the way it is right now, you --
we got to go with the no closure, go back to the
drawing board and come up with something that's --
that's practical and is not going to effect just --
just -- just a few peoples lives, but it's important
to my life. Thanks for bearing with me.
KIM NIX: Thank you Chris. Were as I
look at this page, 952. Texas, we have it directly
a permit only five. For the past two years, we just
fall. We did not go for shark anymore, because so
many rule and regulation change. So, my people
just, you know, vanished. So, I'm going to yield my
time to the rest of you today, on that one and thank
you.
BOB MCAULIFFE: I'll pass it for now.
RANDY BLANKENSHIP: Thanks. Talking
now from State of Texas, a kind of perspective here.
We're talking earlier about State regulations and,
you know, commercial regulations within State
waters. I was just going to -- going to state where
we are in Texas. Sharks are defined as -- as a
sport fish in Texas and then therefore, can be only
taken by rod and reel, or -- or hook and line, and -
- pole and line rather. And, there's a bag limit of
one fish per person, per day.
Technically a fish could, you know, a
shark could be sold, however, the commercial
fisherman within State waters don't fish with a pole
and line, and it wouldn't be economically feasible
for him to do one fish per person, per day. So,
essentially there's no commercial fishery within
State waters and that's out to nine nautical miles.
Recreational fishery is a different
story. We do have a -- a active recreational
fishery. That operates under the -- the constraints
I just mentioned. Except we have a minimum size
limit of 24 inches for all species.
The -- what I wanted to get to, and
this is one that I -- that I commented in at the
last meeting on. Is the issue referred to in the --
the draft Amendment 1, about compliance with
recreational size and bag limits, regulations within
Federal waters? And -- and that it's -- there --
there really is not good compliance. And, you know,
there's a reason why there's not good compliance,
and that's because -- well, there's two reasons.
One is enforcement is not strong in
Federal waters for recreational fishermen, they
don't have a reason to know the regulations.
And, secondly, outreach to the
recreational fisherman is also not real strong.
And, we threw some ideas out last meeting about how
to go about fixing that. You know, I -- I
understand that, you know, there are a lot of
priorities, higher priorities regarding Federal
enforcement agents. Especially with the Coast Guard
and with the, you know, initiatives regarding
Homeland Security and all of that. However, that
still leaves us regarding shark management, in kind
of a you know, a bad situation. In lieu of being
able to greatly improve law enforcement, outreach,
hopefully, could be stepped up. And, that's what I
would encourage you to do.
A couple of ideas, and these I
mentioned before. One is to, you know, through
Internet, through web pages that NOAA has, be able
to get the word out a little more -- a little bit
better. A little more noticeably. And -- and
perhaps have links from some of those web pages to
how the migratory species regulations, Federal
regulations in general. Like for instance, from the
NOAA weather sites. The weather pages, which people
go to on a regular basis. If there was a button
there that said something about it, that might be
helpful.
Also doing something as low tech as
printing out flyers and posting them in marinas, and
tackle shops, and bait shops would also be
advantageous. And you might be able to use your Sea
Grant folks for that, or your NFMS port agents. And
I would also suggest that, just like the Texas parks
law did in helping to pass out the Billfish flyers,
that were produced this last year. We can help you
as much as we possibly can to try and get flyers out
in local bait shops and around with the Texas coast.
So anyway, there's my suggestions for you.
RUSTY HUDSON: I don't know exactly
how I want to start this because I have submitted a
13 page comment to the agency.
UNIDENTIFIED: It's supplement to the
phone book. Right?
RUSTY HUDSON: Yes. And I well, to
initially start, just run down through the industry
preferences on the 13 categories. And you can just
write that down and you'll at least have the flow
for what we're choosing.
On -- in the executive summary, every
thing is A through M, that was to be considered.
So, A4 - Species Specific. On the commercial shark
classification is something that we choose as a
priority, many years ago, to accomplish with this
management regime. We're just about there.
Last year we actually did species
specific assessment for two of the commercially,
most important commercial animals, Sandbar and Back
Tip. We've eliminated the concept of those animals
being overfished. So, that's a good start. And,
since those are the two target species out of the 22
Large Coastal Shark species that exist, the others
are generally not as routinely targeted or seen in
some cases, but as a bycatch, or may be not even
seen at all. But, I'll elaborate on those animals
later.
On the Commercial Quota
Administration. I like the idea of being able to
subdivide the years further and make for a -- a
little bit more transition for the guys to be able
to fish in times of the year when the animals are
say, migrating back to the south in October, and
stuff like that.
But, at the moment we think that it's like,
you're in too big of a hurry to kind of shift
things. So, I'm saying, not yet. Let's just stay
with B1 and B2, which would keep us with the
regional -- would keep us with one quota, and would
give us a bi-annual season. It's a no action
approach.
So, we would like to stay with that
for a little while until we can see how everything
evolves. We've got a buy back program that's a -- a
year and something before it's completion. Before
it's even submitted to Congress, it may be a way to
eliminate some of the excess. Active effort is
possibly also to change some of the laden efforts
potential of cranking up.
In category for Commercial Quota
Basis. We agree with the preferred alternative of
MSY. This is something we've been seeking for many
years in the science of sharks. And, I think that's
made a big difference. And when you put the
combination of A4 with C2, it generates roughly a
three and a half million pound quota for Sandbar, a
3.3 million pound quota for Black Tips, and roughly
a quarter million pounds for all 20 large coastal
species that are on that list.
Now the problem is that those other
20 species have never been individually assessed.
Not one of them. And, some of them will never be
assessed because of radical data problems. Because
either they're just not enough of that particular
animal in the entire world, much less in the U.S. to
ever, you know, get enough data on.
Commercial Minimum Size. We also
agree with D2 preferred alternative of the
government. And the reason was rather simple. When
it was originally established in '99, the Sandbar
Shark was used as the proxy for the other legal to
catch Ridgebacks, which were only two. Tiger shark
and Silky Shark.
The difference in where the dorsal
fin orients on a Silky and a Tiger, is more to the
rear than a Sandbar. So, technically if you catch
the same size Tiger and Silky, that's alive as a
Sandbar. And, you dress it out. All of a sudden,
you've made a criminal out of our fishermen, because
that interdorsal ridge measurement will not be
correct for Silky and a Tiger. And it became an
illegal fish, if it was the same size at the minimum
size live.
For Recreational Retention Limits.
We had supported back in '99 the idea of staying
with one shark per vessel, per trip instead of going
to zero. The commercial industry was on record for
that. The Sharp Nose per person, per trip is easy
to see because they're very common shark.
The Bonnet Head was also one that we
agreed with. It being allowed with no minimum size.
The reason -- and -- well, I should say allowing the
Bonnet Head, but it has no minimum size involved
like the Shape Nose.
And we get to F2 recreational minimum
size. We do like the idea of staying with that for
one simple reason. Two thirds of your recreational
caught shark are usually caught in State waters.
And, roughly two thirds of them are either juvenile
large coastals, or else their small coastals. And a
lot of the recreational component can't really tell
the difference between certain species unless, you
know, it's got a black tip, it's a Black Tip, no
matter if it's a small Dusky, a Bull Shark, or
whatever. You know it's got black on the underside.
So, we're staying with that preferred alternative of
the government.
G2 for Recreational Authorized Gear.
I do know that there are some people that
recreationally use cast nets, sting nets, stuff like
that, along the Mid-Atlantic coast and I believe
that with sharks it would not really be a good thing
to have them fishing nets in State waters and be
catching a lot of juveniles again. So, we like the
idea, the hand line, rod and reel because at least
you can do a live release. We like the idea of
removing the hook using tools and stuff, and that
way. So, that's a further though.
H2 for the Deep Water and Other
Sharks. To remove it from the management category,
but to still collect information. That's a
preferred alternative. We also support that. The
very last shark on the list was the Smooth Dog Fish,
though I believe and I think that is a little more
commonly seen than some of the other deep water
sharks. So, you might want to consider gathering a
little more information on that species, but I
didn't elaborate in my comment on that.
Prohibited Species. I was dead set
against the 14 or actually the originally going to
be 15 shark expansion back in '99. But, we got them
to keep the Blue Shark off of there. But, at the
same time you added on to five sharks that we did
support in '97 for it being a prohibited species
category. Because of the fact of the nature of
those animals, they weren't commercially important
to us, basically. And so, those five, we still
agree with keeping them there. Whale Shark, Basking
Shark, Great White, Big Eye Sand Tiger, and Sand
Tiger.
But, with I2 being our -- our choice,
we do like the idea of the criteria part for I6.
Although, I still look at the criteria and I still
wrestle with it, because there really wasn't a good
enough criteria for putting them on the list in the
first place. So, you got that expansion taken --
having already took place when we were against it
and it's caused a lot of regulatory dead discards of
Duskies and some other animals. And, it's just
would be better to have the commercial guys utilize
that instead of, you know, just throwing it away.
And then you get better science also. Because then
there's a monitoring of that composition.
So, we would like to take the caveat
of the criteria from I6 and apply it to I2. Now I'm
being realistic. I know that you all probably won't
remove any of those animals and it's a shame.
Because several of them need to be off of that list.
Just an example, without even going to the large
coastal and small coastal.
The Caribbean Sharp Nose, one of the
most common sharks in the Caribbean. And virtually
even the scientists can't tell the difference
between that and Atlantic Sharp Nose. So, how is
that ever going to get enforced? And that's making
almost all the Virgin Island guys down there who
probably do catch Caribbean Sharp Nose, become
criminals, by the legal definition of identifying
that animal. Whether you have to do a vertebrae
thing or whatever in order to tell the difference
between it and a -- and an Atlantic.
On Gear Restrictions. We support J1,
J5, J8, parts of J4, which is a VMS whose definitely
applies to the shark gillnet fleet and that is
something that we've been in discussions for a
couple year with both the Large Whale Take Reduction
Team members, and now lately in the evolving
Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team.
We would like to see VMS replace the
100% coverage -- observer coverage -- but we know
that we can't have observers all the time. There's
not enough money to do that. There's not enough
time probably to do that. So, the idea of having
the VMS is suitable with the owners of those boats.
And yet, you're wanting to put VMS on a small sector
of people that you're getting ready to economically
impact on the shark bottom longline guys in the Mid-
Atlantic area. And it's going to cost them several
thousand dollars and automatically you're taking off
maybe 50% or something, impacting them in a year. I
don't even know if you've done the analysis yet, but
the guys in Mid-Atlantic, like Glen, Dewey and stuff
like that. How much are they going to loose in this
first year of operation? $50,000 off of their gross
business and then you're going to have spend five or
ten thousand dollars for equipment, and VMS, and dip
nets, and dehookers, and everything else. It's not
-- it's just not really analyzed right for the
impact.
And I'll go into further details on
each of those categories. And we move on into --
and I did have a caveat about J7 also. We know it's
not realistic to bring in every shark, but the idea
of being able to utilize some of those sharks that
we're having by law, throw away would be much nicer.
Because then you have better science and we have
better utilization. We feel like there's less
waste. Less bycatch issue. It's a secondary
harvest, if you wish to say.
On Time Area Closures. We chose K1.
We don't want the time area closure the way it's
described. It is going to severely, economically
impact those boys that fish anywhere between New
Jersey and Georgia. And, it's -- it's just not
right.
With a scaled down version of K2,
time area closure, we potentially, like Glen said,
could support that. Being that, we would like to
see Virginia get on board with their State waters.
Those fellows up there have 7500 pound trip limits.
We're still abiding by 4,000 pound trip limit, from
what I understand. There may be a lot of juvenile
Sandbar sharks that are showing up as small coastal
sharks. And, your North Atlantic group up there,
just because they're small and all of a sudden they
become a small coastal. One might need to look into
that a little bit more.
But the closure, I do not believe
needs to exceed 15 fathoms of depth, but I put 20
fathoms in my comment. The idea is, is that if
you're able to get the main players, the guys that
would be harvesting for food, outside that area.
You'll reduce the numbers of animals that are
juvenile that would potentially be dead when they
came up after an 8 hour, or 10 hour soak time. And
that, I would like to see you all work with the
industry people that are mostly impacted. You know,
to somehow evolve that. There -- there's no point
in having things closed all the way out to -- to 200
fathoms or where ever. It -- it's just way too
deep, too far for baby Sandbars and baby Duskies.
And so, that's the way we feel about that.
We chose L2 for Essential Fish
Habitat. And, our reason is rather simple. The
animals that are most important to us, things like
Sandbar, Black Tip, Dusky, Tiger, Silky, if you look
at the 1990 NOAA technical under the Mexican report
there. You'll find that there's huge numbers of all
those animals landed by those fishermen down there.
It's the same stock of animals that we have.
So, essentially whether it's a
nursery ground or whether it's a sub-adult, or
whether it's an adult, there is some part of that
range that's necessary for us to incorporate when
we're in the science workshops. Because the
workshop is where we're going to really get out
analysis done. It's where we're going to really
have the academics, environmentalists, any
recreationals the might show up and the commercial,
to actually work together.
Last year was probably a better year
than I'd seen in any of the previous Shark
Evaluation Workshops. I was really up beat about it
in that sense. And, the only problem was is that
there was a lack of transparency and we submitted a
letter, we being the environmentalist, and
academicals, and commercial, to the agency about the
having a workshop again in the summer of 2004. So,
that we could purposely start looking at some of
these other Large Coastal Sharks besides Sandbar and
Black Tip.
And, we feel that we need to stay on
pace for that two year sight. I know the court
stuff and everything else, but it's on a four year
delay from the '98 to the 2002. But, the big
difference with the '98 was, it was a closed
population approach. Now, it's an open population
approach. Age structure. We're getting a lot of
better demographics in there. There's a lot to be
happy about as to how the agency has handled this.
They've -- they've come a long ways.
On M2, Exempted Fishing Permits. I
chose M2. And the idea -- and that's the preferred
alternative of the -- to create a display permitting
system. But, I have a further addition to that. I
would like you to follow the animal until the death
of the animal. No matter how many times it's been
resold. Especially if it's a prohibited specie like
a Sand Tiger, which happens to be a real popular
animal for them to want to go out and catch and put
into Sea World, and wherever.
The reason that I'm saying this is
that, when they're going out and also getting
Sandbars, and Duskies, and Bull Sharks, and other
stuff, and they're putting them into those aquarium
conditions. Especially if they either start out
small, neonates, or juveniles, or even if they're a
full-grown animal. And let's say they give birth
while they're in the aquarium and stuff. That's
other information that we can carry to the Shark
Evaluation Workshop, and lay beside the wild caught
demographics. And be able to have a chance at --
at, you know, getting a realistic handle on stuff.
I mentioned earlier today, I was
looking at sharks of the world by the FAO, and I saw
where Dusky was referenced as averaging about six
years to maturity around the world in most places.
Yet, we're at 17 years here. We've tripled the age
of maturity and I hate to think that we're doing
something like what was attempted at to be done with
Sandbar Shark in '94, when it went from the normal,
what we always called eight to thirteen years in our
mind for Sandbar. And then, they turn around and
try to do 29-year maturity, and that's just wrong.
You know, and that leaves Jack out up in '96 and
said, yeah, that one animal that, you know, was most
depended on in that one report was probably loused
up by the tetracycline packing.
And going to an extreme in
demographics is a way of building a lot of
conservation into the modeling. It truly is. And,
we need to have a better debate about all that.
And, that's back to where we submitted the letter.
We did not get to participate in the actual
assessment. We got to participate in the reviewing
the data that went into the assessment. We never
got to sit down for a day or two, even though we
requested it immediately after the workshop and
again earlier this year, to be part of that process
instead of it being -- kind of like a sunshine law
thing, let's say. But, you're not under that
obligation. It would just be a -- a more fair way
to deal with the steak holders. Because out of
everyone that's involved, it doesn't matter if it's
recreational, academics, environmentalist, or
government people, none of you take the hit on your
wallet. The commercial does every time. And, again
we feel like there's this big target hung on their
back, put us out of business, we're the bad guys,
and that seems to be everybody's in a rush to get us
out of business. And, it's a shame.
You know, it seems like after 10
years of management, we're -- we could be using our
fishery as an example to the rest of the world,
where I guess there's about a half a dozen nations
that have a real serious shark management going, out
of 125 nations that involve themselves in sharks
somehow. I would be great to be able to see our
government use our industry as an example on how to
best manage. We'd love to see you get the Mexicans
on board with us. And, we'd like to see their
scientists at the workshop some time. Because they
have a lot of data, and they have a huge catch of
the same sharks. And, that's important to us.
Something that Glen brought up about
avoiding small sharks, on Page -- Chapter 3, Page
11. Depending on the Burgos Morgan 2003 Time
Series, which is a very short time series of
analysis. It's only from 2000 to 2002. But, it
looks like they've reduced the interaction down to
Duskies, down to one and a half percent of the
catch. That's pretty good. And, I'd say that,
well, 80% of that's supposed to be dead, but so,
that becomes a regulatory discard. But, the fact
is, that the guys are trying to avoid them based on
the latest observer data. But we still know that
guys like Glen, and Dewey, and others, have been
historical participants. Their time on the water
goes back before we started delimited access
program, July 1st, 1999. Goes back into when we had
the management plan starting. And, they have a lot
of history, a lot of involvement, and we'd like to
be able to see a lot more mix of that expertise.
So, that -- I told Greg and Heather,
the other day, that many of us in the commercial
fishing don't feel like we can really talk at -- to
any of you and get a straight answer because, maybe
it's not politically correct to give us a straight
answer. And so, we feel like if we tell you
something, it worries you and then you got to get on
and huddle up and see, you know, what -- what to
think about what we said.
But meanwhile, we're sitting here,
sure, waiting sometimes for months to get an answer
on certain things. We just learned recently that we
can't change the shark fin ratio to carcass. And
yet, if a guy catches nothing but adult Sandbars,
you're going to be a criminal, because you're going
to have a six percent ratio just with primary fins,
not counting secondary fins, off of that same
animal. You could take all eight vents, but we're
taking the four and yet, we're still potentially
criminalizing the fleet. And some things like that,
how do we go about changing all that.
It's like the trip limits. We were
hoping trip limits could get raised and yet, that
got took off the table from the time we did the
issues and options paper. And, here we are also
dealing with Amendment 2 coming up and we still
haven't got the issues and options paper and all
that. And we're supposed to have some comments
submitted by I guess November 30th, and then follow
up with whatever comes next for Amendment 2.
You know, we could eliminate a lot of
derby effect, by taking the 80 or 120 boats out of
the 259 directed permits out there and be able to
understand that those guys have been mostly relaying
on this resource and not be trying to be in a hurry
to put some or all of them out of business, as what
we feel has been going on since '96 in particular.
And, try to work with us to try to keep us around.
Keep us involved. Because we're providing food.
You know, each shark we bring to the beach is going
to feed a lot of people and we feel that that's
important. It has always been important to us.
I've been in this business since I was; as far as I
was providing seafood and teaching people how to
fish, since I was a child back in the -- the early
'60s. And I've seen a lot of things. It bothered
me a lot in 1999 --
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: We can
come back to you, Rusty. We're just concerned we'll
run out of time for getting around the table. We're
only about one third of the way there.
RUSTY HUDSON: Okay. Well, the same
thing happened the other night at the public
hearing. After 17 minutes or so, I had to stop
because essentially you all ran out of time. So,
it's hard for us to get into the devil of the
details by just skimming over the top. At least on
the record, you know, each position that we've
taken. But we would like to take the time to say,
the A4, C2 combination puts us back with a quota.
And puts us on a course of species specific that we
have been seeking for a long time. And it gets us
back to around '96 data. But if you remember what
Pamela May said there at there at the OT meeting in
August of '96. Rusty's right, 27 boats, one trip
limit per week, 50 weeks out of the year. The whole
quota's gone. Nobody else can play.
Now this is important as a
distinction, because now we're operating under a 3.7
million pound quota this year using the Ridgeback,
Non-ridgeback. But you're proposing for us to go
down to 2.4 million for next year. And
automatically we're going to loose a third of our
catch compared to this year. We'll loose -- we're
at 2.8 million starting back in '97 when you cut us
in half and said the 50% cut wouldn't hurt. But it
hurt. I lost my business. And so did all the
people that worked for me including my brother, who
is now dead. And I only bring that up because he
was disabled and depended on my employment. And you
can't bring him back. And you can't bring back the
fishermen that are out of the business. So, be very
cautious, as you're getting ready to show some more
of us out of business, early next year or by late
next year. Either way.
Some of the guys are resilient. Some
of them will travel. Some of them will go away from
home. Some of them will challenge safety issues in
the fishing but whether it's not good. But yes, we
need you to be concerned about us. Because we're
the only ones in this room that get impacted in the
wallet. We loose our livelihood.
Now, I don't know when you'll be able
to come back to me, but there are a few areas that I
would like to get in specifics on particularly
prohibited species and a few other areas.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Once
we get around the table --
BOB PRIDE: Thanks Chris. I'd like
to share something with you and let you know that
commercial fishermen aren't unique in being effected
by the government regulations. In the late '90s,
Bill Clinton signed a law called The North American
Free Trade Act. And, I had about 30 small
manufacturing clients that were -- that I consulted
with since the early '80s. And, by -- by 2001 they
were all gone. Completely out of business.
The impact on my business is -- is
minimal compared to what it did to local communities
where those plants existed. You know, where they
were major employers, so, it's not -- it's not
unique to fishing, believe me. These -- these whole
-- whole families have been, you know, without jobs
for two years now. So --
UNIDENTIFIED: Those were charter
boat headboats --
BOB PRIDE: No. These are
manufacturing companies. Manufacturing companies,
had noting to do with fishing. So, they made
plastic injection molding parts, and stamped steel
parts, and things like that. So, don't feel like
you're put upon uniquely.
There's two comments Chris. The -- I
found a letter that the council had written to you
and turned it in to Karyl this morning, but she
didn't have it when she summarized the comments.
I'm going to try to run though them pretty quickly
for you.
Rebuilding timeframe. The council
really would like to see you consider looking at the
-- the rebuilding timeframe considering the biology
of the species involved individually. Now may be
there could be sub groups within the complexes, but
that's a very important issue. The council's been
talking about individual management of the species
for 15 years, so.
For the Shark Quota Administration.
Council's disappointed at the most recent three
years are being used for the allocation issue. The
council has consistently used data collected prior
to management measures to set its allocation
schemes. They would suggest that -- the council
would suggest that you consider the -- the decade of
the '80s rather than the -- the last three years of
data that you have available.
And if you look a those data, from
the '80s, you'll find that about half of the
landings came from the North Atlantic in some years.
So, it's a -- it's a pretty dramatic dramatic change
if you look at those last three years that you have
habit.
The quota basis again. It's hard for
the council to understand how the overfish complex
can have a quota increase of 35%, given -- given the
status of all the species within the complex.
Minimum Size Restrictions. The
council has some confusion because on the stock
assessment states -- the 2003 Stock Assessment, the
yellow book we have. On Page 60 it says, juvenile
survival is survival rate that most effects overall
population growth rates . . . thus lending
additional support to minimum sizes and protection
of reproductive females as possibly important
management measures.
It's hard for the council to accept
the newest position detailed in the Federal register
that the minimum size restriction should be
discontinued for commercial, yet only two columns
later, justify the minimum size to be maintained for
recreational fishermen. This inconsistency is a
logical disconnect especially when one considers the
level of recreational landings as compared to
commercial quotas.
Moreover this is a measure -- this
measure has a potential to encourage -- encouraging
commercial fishermen to direct on smaller sharks if
they can develope a market.
The council, on the recreational size
retention, council supports the one fish limit.
The VMS, the council encourages
implementation of that measure. Would help us with
some of our fisheries.
The time and area closure makes --
makes sense to the council. There are 13 permit
holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia who would be affected and actually report
landings. However, we feel like an appropriate size
closure would be important to protecting small
sharks.
That concludes the council's formal
remarks. I also have a couple of things that we
gathered in an informal remarks, since there
couldn't meet. We did poll the members and I get
some things together. And I've grouped them into
quota -- excuse me. The -- the species groupings,
the area closure, quotas, and recreational measures.
So, starting with the groupings. The
complex groupings should be, if your going to
continue with complex groupings, you should manage
to protect the most vulnerable species not the least
vulnerable. And, it seems like in this amendment,
the -- the Black Tip recovery has kind of driven the
-- the thoughts of how you're going to manage that
complex. And they're not the least -- they're not
the most vulnerable, they're actually the least
vulnerable in the species in the complex.
Another suggestion was that you split
the complex to allow sustainable harvest of the
Black Tips but protect the others. So, there's kind
of two ways of saying the same thing. And, I think
that was one of the alternatives that you proposed.
Related to the area closures. The
prudently size area should be established for
protects of spawning, nursery areas. The
justification of eastward boundaries for proposed
areas is not very clear. We don't know why they
extend so far eastward into the EZ.
The other area comment is the
closures to protect the young will inconvience South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia fishermen. And
basically, it seem it's to allow a directed fishery
elsewhere and it seems unfair to the commenter that
I gave you that comment.
On the quotas. Shark quotas should
be set to allow incidental, recreational, and
commercial landings only. That was a comment that
we received. And the came from more than one
person. So, in another words, use whatever
available quota you have just for incidental catch.
No quota increase can be justified based on the data
provided publicly. Overfished, overfishing,
unknown, there's continually completed, but yet,
we're looking at a quota increase. The data used to
justify this -- the increase should be made public
and the comment period extended so that we can have
a time to analyze that data. And, look -- look it
over and give you comments based on the actual data.
I think you told Tom Hoff, and me, and April, that
you were going to provide that data and we haven't
seen it. So --
Shark biology. Another quota
comment. Shark biology is considered, and it's an
argument for a quota decrease rather than an
increase. It seems -- it seems that the F values in
the safe report can be unreasonable for sharks and
we can only look at a 0.4 for flounder. How can we
look at a 0.4 for sharks? This makes no sense given
the biology. And therefore, they argue for the
quota decrease not an increase.
And then, the final one is the
recreational measure. One comment there.
Recreational fishery was the historical shark
fishery. And until 1985 that's where the landings
were. There were very few commercial landings. And
from '85 on, there was a developing commercial
fishery.
The ramp up in the 1980s basically
pushed the recreational fishery to the background
and it's the most incidental catch for smaller
sharks. For example in Virginia Beach, we used to
have a tournament every year. And that's where we
couldn't catch any sharks in the early '90s. The
whole club disbanded as a matter of fact. The
Virginia Beach Sharkers is no longer around. And
the economic impact of that tournament has been
eliminated from -- from the Virginia oceanfront.
But, the commenter that I talked to said that the
active participation for the recreational fishermen
has been discouraged, so that it appears -- so that
NMFS can continue to direct the fishery in the
commercial areas.
Those are the informal comments from
council members.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Bill
Utley.
BILL UTLEY: Well, since the rec
fishery on the coast of Maine is almost entirely for
Pelagics, there's very little argument among the
people I've talked with about any of the preferred
options in the Amendment 1. I wish we had some of
these species up our way to fish for, so, that we
would have comments, but I don't mean to infer that
our populations are in good shape because every year
they seem to be fewer and fewer Pelagics that come
in. But, you know that as well as I do. So, on
that note, I'll pass.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Ken
Hinman.
KEN HINMAN: Thanks Chris. We sent
in comments. So, I'll try to keep this -- this
brief. At the beginning, when Karyl was summarizing
the public comments, and near the end you mentioned
your favorite -- favorites, which were two different
opposing comments, one thinking that NMFS' shark
management was unduly influenced by commercial
fishermen, and another that thought it was unduly,
or overly influenced by environmentalists. And, I
think everybody thought that was probably kind of
amusing, but I think it's pretty significant because
I think NFMS -- I've been involved in the shark
management since -- since the late '80s and I think
NFMS has been walking right down the middle all the
way on this one. And I think that's what you're --
you're doing here. And, I think you're trying to
both protect the most vulnerable species in the LCS
complex, as well as maintain a viable commercial
fishery. And, I think in both cases it remains to
be seen whether either of those will be achieved.
But, it does seem to be the intent of these
regulations.
I think that's why we and our
comments supported the preferred alternatives that
the National Marine Fishery Service has -- has
identified. I think they are, in most cases the
most reasonable and not coincidentally, the most
conservative. And, I think that is the case,
because as Bob said, when you're managing a -- a
complex of Large Coastal Sharks like this, where
some are improving, or maybe we're not off, or as
bad off as we originally thought a few years ago.
There are others that are severely depleted and we
are obligated to -- to try to manage and protect the
most depleted species.
The only thing that I would add to
our comments is, just sort of, to emphasize there is
throughout the -- the plan, there is linkage that I
think is some -- between different alternatives that
really has to be kept in mind. Because the quota
basis, for example, that you choose is linked to the
classification you choose. And, if you choose your
preferred alternative in the quota basis, but decide
to pick species specific management, it changes the
whole total allowable catch. It actually triples
the allowable catch. And, I think it would actually
mean that there were twice the amount of effort than
there has been in recent years, which I think would
be devastating for the most vulnerable species in
that complex.
The no minimum size, eliminating the
minimum size is -- is linked to the time and area
closures. We've never been a proponent of the
minimum size in this fishery, because of the same
reason you're -- you're seeking to eliminate it. It
does result in just -- in dead discards. But, if
you eliminate it with out implementing effective
time and area closure to protect juveniles as the
2002 Stock Assessment recommended, and have
assessments recommended as long as I can remember,
you will just increase fishing mortality.
And the rebuilding probability of
meeting your -- your targets and timetables is
linked to the effectiveness of the non-quota based
measures in the plan. Which I think are, for the
very least, uncertain at this point. So that we --
we really need everything to work out as well as we
hope in the areas of counting dead discards towards
the quotas, monitoring all those things, counting
those sources of mortality, getting time and area
closures that are effective in protecting juveniles.
All of those things have to work if we're really
going to achieve that overall goal of 50% reduction
in mortality.
So, I think again that brings us back
to all of that supports what you have chosen as the
most conservative options in -- in the plan. I
think we could quibble about more that you could be
doing. I think there's still some risks out there
that we're not comfortable with, but I think
recognizing what you're dealing with here, we're
very supportive of -- of all the preferred options
that you've outlined here.
And, there's only one exception, I
think in our comments. Where we -- we do not agree
with removing the deep water species from the
prohibited list. I think that as far as we can tell
there's really no practical effect one way or the
other on these species from listing them in the
management unit or not listing them in the
management unit. So, we think it'd be much more
prudent to leave them in the management unit. In
the future, if they're -- something does change,
where we need to do something to protect them, you
know, you'll be able to do that under the plan
without going though a whole plan amendment. And
that's it.
MIKE LEECH: I have two very common
sense recommendations pertaining to the recreational
recommendations. The first one is on Black Nose
Sharks. Small Coastal Shark, not overfished,
overfishing is not occurring. And, as far as we can
tell, no Black Nose recreational landing has ever
been documented at four and a half feet. And, I
don't understand why that wouldn't be put in the
same category as the Bonnet Head, that also doesn't
get to be four and a half feet.
We need to remove the size limit, and
I'm not saying change the bag limit to allow for one
additional Black Nose. But I am saying, at least
remove the size limit, because they don't get that
big. And that, in effect, says you can -- no
recreational guy can ever land a Black Nose Shark.
And there's no reason for it, because they're not
overfished. So, we need to just remove that size
limit. It's just a common sense thing to do.
The other one is on harpoons. The
commercial guys, I guess, some time ago went to a
harpoon in lieu of a gaff, for Tuna fish, and
probably other species as well, for several reasons.
One is, there's a safety issue when
you bring a big fish up close to the boat. It's a
lot safer to put a harpoon in it than it is to try
and gaff it. And now you're attached to a very
unhappy fish at close range. Particularly with
sharks, where there's a safety issue.
You do a lot less damage to the shark that you
want to bring in boat and -- and keep for
consumption, then you would with a gaff of any size.
You reduce the risk of loosing a severely injured
fish that you've tried to gaff, and it's thrashing
around. Now it gets off the gaff, gets off the
line. It's going to die, and you've lost it.
With a harpoon, there is no bycatch.
You would not use a harpoon on anything you can't
see clearly and plainly. So, there shouldn't be any
species ID problems, assuming that the recreational
guy knows one species from another. And, if he
doesn't, he shouldn't be out there harpooning it
anyway. And, it would prevent a lot of recreational
anglers that are now carrying harpoons in lieu of
gaffs when they get something really big, they're
harpooning it instead of when they get it up next to
the boat, gaffing it. And if we prohibit harpoons,
we're turning them into inadvertent lawbreakers.
For -- for no conservation reason. There is not any
adverse conservation affected by the use of -- of
the gaff -- I -- I mean of the use of the harpoon.
And it's basically what's being done in the -- in
the commercial industry anyway. And it's -- it's
not that recreational anglers are going to go out
and mass and start harpooning free swimming fish.
They just -- that's not what we do except probably
in a few rare occasions. But, mainly as a safety
issue and for something that's just traditional for
recreational anglers, I think we should include
harpoon as part of the recreational hand gear.
That -- that -- those are the only
two recommendations I have.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Rich
Ruais.
RICH RUAIS: Thanks Chris and I'll --
I'll be brief. I just want to align myself with or
support the presentation from Glen Hopkins and
Rusty. I think they were as heart felt as -- as I
heard at an Advisory Panel in the past. Sincere,
clearly from two guys that know the commercial
fishery inside and out. Certainly know the issues.
Rusty's 13 pages of comments, I think are -- are
right on. They -- they're well though out. They
seem to be balanced. And he's given it a lot of
thought and he represents a lot of people that was
dependant upon this fishery for their life. I -- I
hope that the expert advice that they're providing
you, especially with regards to a modified time area
closure, is something that the agency will really
give serious consideration to.
And, you can be sure that I won't ask
for the mic again incase Rusty needs a little more
extra time later on. Please give it to him.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank
you.
NELSON BEIDEMAN: Come on Chris. I
probably -- Blue Water probably will not be
submitting comments, so, you get -- you get me here.
And that -- that's it. I got to go back to working
for my partners in the NEDC Turtle program. But, I
would also like to support Rusty's addendum to the -
- the phone book. With the following additions and
exceptions etc.
First off, I -- I agree with well,
some of the comments that have been made as far as
justification not being very clear.
Second off, I want to make it very
clear that what my industry had supported in the
past and continues to support is State pupping
ground closures during the specific pupping season.
And, that's all we've supported. We haven't
supported 10 fathom, or 15 fathom, or 20 fathom.
What -- what we've supported is, you know, what our
body, you know, this panel, you know, numerous
times. Other panel, numerous times have virtuously
unanimously supported, and that's closing the State
pupping areas during the specific pupping seasons.
And, if you're having problems communicating with
the States, let's not take it out on the fishermen.
And, a lot of the States already have, you know,
closed and are we giving that enough time to see how
it's working. It seems like some of this stuff is
indeed coming back and that's some of the unclarity
of that justification.
And, if there should be any time area
closures, let's learn from the mistakes we've made
in the past. Let's make it for all gear
recreational and commercial. We know that, for
instance, hook and line fishing kills sharks.
Whether it be rod and reel, hand line, or longline,
it kills sharks. And replacing one more mortality
with another mortality, you know, is still dead
sharks.
We continue to have a -- a growing
out of hand situation in the Swordfish nursery
areas. The commercial fishermen have been, you
know, taken out of the equation, but the same hook
and line is catching the same small fish, killing
the same small fish and then, you know, fish after
fish is going in the back doors of restaurants and
the situation of many longlines continues to be a
huge problem. And, it's growing. Enforcement needs
to get on top of it. But, folks are -- are using
garden spools and spooling up a mile of that gear,
and putting out 20, 30, you know, up to 40, 50 hooks
on -- on that mile gear. And coming in with six all
Swordfish a night in the back door of restaurants
and the dealers, you know, that continue to try to
survive down there; go to their regular restaurant
customers and -- and their customers say sorry, you
know, hold up, hold up. Time after time.
It's prevalent. Everybody knows
about it. Enforcement knows about it. It -- it
really needs to be dealt with. And let's not make
the same -- the same mistake on yet another species.
Another thing, if there is any time area
closures, there needs to be exit strategies. These
things should not be forever and forever. There
should be a scientific justification for them, and
there should be a scientific justification to exit.
On the commercial quota
administration, it's very important that we prevent
one region from preventing another region from
having its fair shot at the fishery. If remember,
you know, Blue Fin Tuna, you know, one -- one area
closed down another area. Eight out of ten years
before a mechanism was put in place that each region
would have their fair -- a fair shot.
I'll support separating the -- the
Display Permits. That would be much less confusion
as, you know, lots of us are getting into using EFPs
for research purposes.
I'll support the safe handling and
release, including the mitigation tools, such as the
dehookers. We're -- we're finding in -- in the NED
research that, you know, it's -- it's amazing how --
how, you know, well, you know, these tools can work
with a little bit of training, you know, with the
incentive, you know, the fishermen are -- are
releasing things and so much better -- better
condition.
Of course we support moving toward
for utilization. On the minimal size, I notice that
Bob Pride mentioned that it would be a illogical to
treat recreational, commercial differently. Well
that's true and I think that's also true for time
area closures.
Enough quota for -- for year round
incidental take. We've always maintained the
position that, you know, we will have some
inevitable secondary catch of -- of sharks. No
matter how much, you know, we work at avoiding. We
will have some incidental secondary catch. We need
a incidental allowance so that dead discards are
reduced or eliminated.
And, research, you know, one of the
things that we've done in the NED is -- is develop
some hooking time recorders and time depth
recorders. And, we actually had a -- a company, you
know, develop those, design them, develop them, and
manufacture them, and we've been testing them up
there. We need to test those in -- in all the areas
that -- that U.S. Atlantic Pelagic longline fishes.
If we can find, you know, temporal
and special differences in -- in bycatch and target
species when -- when they're hooked up, the depth
they're hooked up, etc. It gives us more to -- to -
- work with for avoiding unnecessary incidental
catches.
And, that's -- that's it for now.
You know, I thank you, Rusty and Glen for their
comments. And well, this is a very important
document directly from, you know, those -- those
affected. Thank you.
GAIL JOHNSON: Thanks. As you know
I'm one of your provincial outlyers here and my
bailiwick is Pelagic Sharks. So, I have to defer to
Glen and Rusty. I agree that there are some serious
issues that Rusty raised. And, it sounds like they
need addressing and some answers.
Whatever you do with this, the
ultimately. And I can't comment on specifics,
'cause it's not my fishery. You need to craft any
closures, minimum sizes, and seasons, really
carefully. Because even though you're building/not
overfishing, it's SFAs trump card. You can't forget
number eight of the National Standards.
At the risk of being seen as being
disingenuous, I hope not to be, because I'm really
serious. Commercial boat provide observer
platforms. They provide the species identification
that you need in all of this mass of data that
you're getting. And you need the updated areas of
catch. And, to do that, I just heard today, I
wasn't aware of it, perhaps all of you are. That
there's apparently some kind of temperature anomaly
occurring in North Carolina and those areas. And,
that could possibly have some skewing effect on this
year and maybe subsequent years. So, keep that in
mind as data comes in.
I noticed that in the Chapter 4, the
document, well, you guys are considering a need for
a recreational quota at some point. I know that
won't go over well. So, perhaps falling on Randy's
outreach thing would be for the people within the
National Marine Fishing Service. I know you have
some good people there to do outreach. See what you
can do with the recreational industry, recreational
community. And, try to raise the consciousness of
not just the charter boat people, and the head boat
people, because they probably already are well aware
of it. But, raise the consciousness for the need
for data on sharks. The species, the catches, the
disposition of them, the value to the nation. Not
just one segment or another, but the value of the
data. So, thank you.
GEORGE LORENZO: Thank you Mr.
Chairman. I think Glen and Rusty did a nice job.
There are a couple specific comments and then a
general one. I -- I think very highly of the
benefits of VMS and for a lot of different reasons.
It -- enforcement, etc., but it also turns what used
to be anecdotal evidence into data in a lot of
cases. But, there is a lot of side benefits as a
communication tool with -- with market information,
but also as for instance helping fishermen
communicate turtle hot spots, things like that to
each other. But get impact from the users when you
pick a system, because they're the ones going to be
stuck using it. And if it doesn't work, or if it
has a lot of problems. And, make sure that they're
really involved in the choices.
I'm a big fan of closed areas. I was
the one -- that seems to be the preferred
alternative seems a little bit blunt for what you're
trying to do with it. Put it in perspective, it's
20% again as large as the State of Maine and I think
it really needs to be more specific.
And finally the general comment is
that, you know, in light of what Bob Pride said,
especially since many of the jobs, manufacturing,
etc., are being moved off shore, it's crucial that
we keep in mind that what we're operating under here
is a Sustainable Fisheries Act. And our goal is
sustainable fisheries and, you know, I -- it's clear
to me that we're serious about fisheries management
in this country. Commercially, environmental folks,
recreational people, and the government. We've got
a ways to go in a lot of species, but all our
efforts are pointing towards, we're doing a much
better job stewarding out resources, than anyone
else in the world right now. And that's something
that needs to get out a lot more. And I guess I'll
yield the balance of my time to Mr. Hudson. Thanks.
HENRY ANSLEY: I know HMS staff, this
probably comes as a shock, but Georgia, basically,
our main focus is, we do not support the continued
use of gillnet gear in the shark fishery, either in
the drift net or the strike net mode. The main
reason we -- the use of gillnets except for Shads,
which is primarily in the rivers in Georgia's -- is
prohibited under Georgia laws, and we continue to
have problems with enforcement. And this gear
coming into State waters is compromised our
regulation and our enforcement efforts.
And, we've also had other problems
with it. We don't feel that it is consistent under
the terms of consistency with State law and
regulation. We've -- there's been numerous seizures
of shark, drift gillnet vessels in State waters.
Now, we're talking about a small fleet that's
basically five vessels and probably we're talking
about part time, off Georgia, probably one to two
vessels each year. So, we're talking about a very
small portion of the fishery and part time.
Again we support the total
prohibition of gillnet gear, whether in drift or
strike mode. Mainly because the potential for
illegal use of the gear, either way it's illegal in
State waters and the potential use of the gear
illegally still remains. So, that's one reason.
The other reason we feel that that
Georgia has a cooperative State/Federal enforcement
agreement with the National Marine Fishery Service.
We -- it -- it's difficult to imagine what the gears
being so similar, how you're going to differentiate
or make enforcement clear enough for the two modes,
if the gear is so similar. And we're not sure of
how you can do this.
As far as strike netting, we know
that the bycatch in other waters have been shown to
be clear. I mean it's clearly the bycatch is pretty
minimal. As we understand, from talking to Doctor
Carlston that although there's confidential issues
in this, and he couldn't give us exact, that there's
limited information on strike netting bycatch off
Georgia.
And, that may sound like a trivial
type of -- of distinction but, really once you get
going for Florida you get into Georgia waters, as
anybody's been there, it's not the blue clear waters
that you find off Florida. It -- it turns into very
turbulent waters and very tidally influenced. And,
we're not real convinced on how strike netting would
work in this. Even the strike netting behind trip
boats, whether they would be potential bycatch,
marine mammals, such as Dolphin around the net, or
Turtles that even coming out of -- that may be
excluded out of the net.
So, we're just not -- we don't think
that data exists there and we think it's more risk
adverse to not allow this gear, at least up in this
area until, you know, I would -- again for
enforcement purposes we prefer that it just be gone.
So, I don't think that comes as --
And also, one more thing. If you
look at Fine Tooth catch. If you're looking at that
as being a concern, I think you'll see that a lot of
your Fine Tooth catches are in the drift net
fishery. I gave Karyl some information on the troll
fishery bycatch, that from Georgia, that was done
over a couple years. I think it's ASMFC stuff.
And, I believe they had two -- two or three Fine --
Tooth in the troll catch over all those years. So,
I don't know where the catch is coming from on that.
Possibly recreational needs to be
better identification. I agree with much more
increased education efforts. More publication, more
outreach, and working with the States to try to get
this out to -- to the fishermen. Working with the
States on other efforts to get better assessment,
like Rusty was talking about.
But basically, I think you know where
we're coming from. We'll provide other comments on
the other measures. We provided it in our written
comments that we'll be submitting. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
Gentlemen I would have to apologize for that --
KENNY KEEN: Yes. I have to
apologize too. I have been thrust into this less
than a week ago. So, I'm playing -- I'm an
information junkie right now. So, I'm going to have
to pass.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: -- the
State of Maryland.
KENNY KEEN: Yes, thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
(Inaudible.)
KENNY KEEN: Keen.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Keen,
Ken Keen.
KENNY KEEN: Kenny KEEN. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Liz
Lauck
LIZ LAUCK: Thanks Chris. Generally
we're very supportive of the amendment. Lots of
good hard work in here. A couple of comments
though. One thing that's -- that division
rightfully was very proud of in the HMS FMP was
taking a very precautionary stance on sharks. And
there are a couple of places here where we want to
make sure we continue that.
Specifically, the development of the
criteria for the prohibited species list. I'm not
sure that that's going to have the effect either
from a regulatory point of view, or a shark
management and protection point of view, for what
you're trying to achieve. Those criteria and the
way that they would be implemented aren't spelled
out as clearly as one might hope in here and I think
that takes -- that deserves a second look.
Also, removing deep water sharks from
the management unit doesn't seem particularly well
justified or something that's actually needed from
anyone's point of view at this point. And down the
road, could be a move that we regretted.
A couple of people around the table
have also made calls to engage Mexico more
thoroughly in the process and more completely. And
I would certainly like to add our voice to that.
Anything that can be done to engage Mexican
scientists to get that data would be most welcome,
and I think would be good for the sharks that we're
managing and for shark fishermen in the U.S.,
thanks.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Just
for the information of all parties, there is a bi-
lateral with Mexico scheduled for the end of this
month, I believe. So, we will be actively engaging
them on shark management.
LIZ LAUCK: Actually, Chris, to just
follow up on that. What are you -- what's planning
to be covered in that bi-lateral?
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: I
don't have the agenda. Perhaps sure Jack can share
some of that with us.
JOHN DUNNIGAN: It's an overall all
fishery issues between the two countries. ICCAT,
ITTC, Gulf of Mexico issues. We haven't talked to
the Mexicans in about three years.
The problem we're having right now is
that about two weeks ago there was a major shake up
in their administration, their natural resources
administration. And, it affected all their senior's
fishery people. So, we don't -- it may be that that
will have to be postponed for a while, but we're
still on hold. It's still on the schedule for the
23rd and 24th, of October.
VIRDIN BROWN: Thank you Chris. I
just a couple of general comments. First of all the
say that to the best of my knowledge there are no
Federally permitted shark fishing operations in
Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, but it does not
mean that sharks are not caught. Because they are
and they are prized. So, to the extent that they
are caught to the best of the State or territorial
regulations, Commonwealth and the territory. Those
local laws that are enacted, applied, and they are
fairly general, fairly broad and to that extent may
have limitations.
I would suggest then, as we
discussed, the comments were made earlier that there
be a little bit more coordination, perhaps even some
education as to the importance of this FMP and the
FMP Amendment Number 1, and soon to come number 2.
So, that these interests can be looked into and
protected.
The concern that I would express is
that, I aware of the fact that fishing activities
move from one location to another and therefore, we
are not immune to having relocations, and therefore,
to the area.
The other thing that -- that comment
that was made in the summary of the comments earlier
about fish, Turtles, whatever being protected in
U.S. waters and you go right across to the Bahamas
and they are being caught there. We experience that
too. What's not caught or saved by U.S. law and
treaties, that the U.S. sanction, may be in Puerto
Rico, or the Virgin Islands, may be caught in
Dominican Republic, of Haiti, or the British Virgin
Islands is right next door, or some of the other
Caribbean Islands. And, our people look at this so,
-- to the extent that we can have better
coordination and cooperation. Then, I think this
will make this workable also in the U.S. Caribbean.
I think we all support the efforts.
I also want to make sure that I don't
talk more than what I need to. I want to hear a
little bit more from Rusty. That's why I think
that part of the public has its day and need to get
its just due as well. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank
you. Merry?
MERRY CAMHI: Excuse me. I just want
to start out by saying that it's not only the
fishing industry or the manufacturing industry that
gets effected by decisions and stuff, because I
don't know how many of you know, but I was working
for Audubon as a fishery and shark scientist as a
Shannon Beamer. And it was the will and whim of
Audubon, because of mission issues as well as
funding, that they decide to totally eliminate their
marine fish conservation program. So, I am now
unemployed and I'm facing similar kinds of issues
that hopefully you wont have to be in the next year
or two.
So, anyway, I want to just say that I
very thankful. First of all I'm -- I'm here on
behalf of Sonya and was asked by her, while she's in
the -- the European (inaudible) meeting, to speak on
behalf of TOC. But, I'm also speaking on behalf of
myself, as an unemployed environmentalist.
I think that you guys did a very --
it's a very amazing job, what you did here and I
just want to just acknowledge how much work that I -
- that went into this. It is -- it is good to see
some of these things moving forward. In general, we
will -- we will be submitting comments, written
comments, a lot of specifics of things that we would
like to address.
But, I'd just like to bring up a
couple of the issues that we have some interest and
concerns with. I'm just going to -- these are sort
of random, so, I -- they're not in much of an order.
One of the things that we are very
much concerned about is how we're handling deep
water sharks. We feel like as proposed here, we are
moving in the wrong direction. We took the step to
put these animals into a management unit, not only I
-- I would say, to -- to address the issue of
finning, but as it says in the HMS, HMS FMP, also to
address problems with expanding fisheries,
interests, market, potential markets, and also as it
says in the National Plan of Action for Capacity,
NMFS itself has acknowledged that deep water sharks
are already over capitalized.
So, I think that it's very important
that we don't just remove these animals. That we
keep an eye, a close eye on them. Put them in the
position of possibly having management in a very
rapid way should we see fisheries developing on them
as we're seeing in deep water areas all over the
world. And therefore, I would urge to keep them in
the management unit. Even move them into the
prohibited species category. Since, if they're not
-- I -- I don't understand the down side of either
economically or regulatory prospective on not doing
that.
On the prohibited species issues. We
very much -- we're very disturbed to see interest in
moving Dusky sharks out of the prohibited species
and we're glad that now it's considered to be in
there as a preferred option.
There's -- we have a lot of concerns
about still about what's happening with Duskies.
The continued landing of Dusky Sharks in the winter
fishery. I know that there are -- there are
problems with -- as a bycatch species, but we are
definitely concerned about enforcement and continued
mortality in that fishery.
There are various ways that we would
like to see these things looked at and addressed.
We certainly are -- have been in the past minimally
supportive of minimal size issues, but most of all
we're very concerned about addressing mortality of
juveniles. This is something that is virtually
identified in the stock -- in every stock assessment
we've seen in the last few years, in all scientific
papers that we read, and in the peer reviews
indicating that definitely we need to do something
more to protect that sub-adult and juvenile age
classes if we're going to have this -- these
populations rebuilt.
And by eliminating minimum sizes by -
- we are very concerned that we're again moving in
the wrong direction. We would support the -- moving
away from minimum sizes if we had a good time area
closure that we felt confident would address the
bycatch of these juvenile animals. Now, I agree
with Nelson, that one of the way -- ways to get at
this is to make sure that we don't have excess
mortality in State waters in pupping grounds.
But pups are one issue and juveniles
and sub-adults are another issue. We're talking
about these animals, you know five, ten years later
and a lot of times, you know, these animals are
moving from State waters off to North Carolina and
some area where then they become vulnerable in those
-- that winter fishery.
So, in addition to protecting the
pups, I think we also need to do more to protect, to
ensure that these juveniles are -- are -- are being
protected. Whether it's though minimum size, or
time area closures, it's got to be one of those.
And, I -- I -- I'm -- I want to feel confident. I
think we need to feel confident that there'll be a -
- a closure put in place before we would back off
supporting something like minimum sizes.
Another concern in terms of the
prohibited species is the issue of Fine Tooth. It's
not clear. We know that we have an overfishing
problem with them. It's not clear what the -- what
NMFS is planning to do for these animals. We know a
lot of them are taken in gillnets, but apparently
it's a very small percentage are taken in the
gillnet -- the directed shark fishery gillnets. So,
where are -- where are they being taken and what are
we doing about that? I'd like to see the most
considered for our prohibited species or else we
need to do something to help protect these -- this
species.
One of the things we offered as an
option for addressing bycatch was pushing for soak
times, reduction of soak times. And, this goes back
to the Dusky Sharks.
Data out of VMS suggest that by
reducing soak times, you can actually reduce the --
the catch of Dusky Sharks. I think that some of the
VMS data indicated, according to the -- the
amendment here, that with a 15 hour soak time,
you've got a 57% mortality of Duskies. And if you
can reduce that to below 10 hour soak time, you can
get it down to 5% mortality. And I think that
that's something that was given short shrift here.
I -- I would like to at least see more discussion,
or hear more discussion, as to why that was rejected
outwardly.
Let's see. The other thing that I
want to talk about is we're concerned about
recreational compliance issues. We see that there's
still very high catch of -- of small animals and
compliance does not be -- there's just too many
sharks being taken in rec. fishery. These no
minimum size enforcement.
We agree with the need for workshops
and training. Recognizing that workshops can be
very expensive. We would support thinks like
through Internet training and -- and additional
tools that can be disseminated to the community.
And we would even like to see consideration of
linking the -- getting an HMS angling permit with
some kind of, you know, passing an exam of at least
showing a -- a minimal recognition of what the
regulations are for -- in the recreational shark
fishery.
Turtles. I mentioned those earlier.
And, I know that according to the data on table 337,
it does not look like there is a high mortality, at
least of Turtles caught on the line. But, I would
like it -- it would be nice to see these -- these
data sort of stretched out, played out a little bit
more. Because, from the information from the Turtle
buy up, it looks like when you consider post release
mortality, you actually end up with not just, for
example, in -- not tens of Turtle being taken, but
actually hundreds of Turtles being taken. Because a
lot of these animals were taking the hook in their
gut and not necessarily in their mouth. So, it
would -- I would like to at least see a fuller
analysis or a more complete analysis of the -- of
the protected species that we have here.
And, I guess that's it for moment.
Thanks.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
(Inaudible.)
IRBY BASCO: Thank you Chris. Rather
than going back over a lot of the ground that's been
covered, I just thought what I'd do is just hit on a
few things there that the Gulf Council has their
concerns with. Number one, you know, we already
discussed the Menhaden concerns about the bycatch of
the shark. We went onto, Gulf Council would prefer
in -- instead of -- of using the word hand gear, as
defined by hand line, harpoon, and rod and reel.
And then, we also wanted to take -- take banded gear
out of that -- out of that mix.
We also had one of our comments to
NMFS, we were trying to determine the -- what's
special needs mean. It says, develop a legal
definition of the term special needs. You all used
that in, I think, in one place in the -- in the --
in the draft amendment.
Then also we had a little concern
about not making the a -- the burdens -- the
administrators are so burdened some of that -- that
-- on the displaying of sharks. To where the people
will have a problem doing that. But, I think that's
cleared up in what you all told me.
And, any rate that's pretty well what
-- about everything else covered. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Bob
Hueter
BOB HUETER: I want to reiterate what
Merry said about the document. Generally, I -- I
find it to be exceptional. It's not more of the
same. It's -- it's a lot of new bold initiatives.
I think we need that. We're -- we're dealing with
animals that have been around for four hundred
million years that have been, in some cases,
depleted by 75% in our lifetimes. So, it's up to us
to take some bold steps.
I -- I still find, and I -- I'm sort
of echoing what Rusty says here. I still find that
some of the -- the inclusions, or the justifications
are kind of obtuse in the document. The
calculations of -- of things like the quotas, the
rebuilding time frame, although is explained, I'm --
I'm still unclear as to where the -- where the
numbers are coming from. They talk about an average
of 16 year generation time for some select number of
species. I'm not sure what those are. And, I think
this goes back to what Rusty said about making the -
- the linkage between the assessment workshop and
this process a little bit more transparent, a little
bit clearer.
We did -- we did direct a letter to
you Chris, and Gerry Scott, at the conclusion of the
last AP meeting that was signed by the incredible
collection of Ramone Bonfield, Willie Ethridge,
Sonya Fordham, Glen Hopkins, Rusty Hudson, Glen
Aldridge, and myself, on the same letter. And, we -
- asking for this -- this process to be cleared up
and -- and to be improved. And we're -- we're
waiting for to see that. We don't see anything
about that in the amendment.
The abandonment for now of a species
specific approach, I think, knowing what I know
about the data is probably realistic. And, knowing
that the database is -- we can split hairs on
different species but, we're probably chasing our
tails and -- and really the data are not there. So,
I -- I can understand that strategy, but I wouldn't
-- I would ask you to not abandon the objective
toward a species specific management measure.
A small thing. Interesting to me
about the Bonnet Head provision, which I do support.
I don't have a problem with that at all. I was
wondering where that came from. Whether the -- the
recreational fishermen asked for that themselves, or
whether that was something that was concocted by the
managers. But, but I -- I think it's -- it's
certainly okay. And, along those lines, Mike, your
comment about the Black Nose Shark; I think the --
the big problem there is identification. People
cannot identify that species and there would be a --
a very large vulnerability to mistaking juvenile
large coastals with that species. I know -- Black
Nose is a very common shark in my area and none of
the fishermen know -- know what it is. They -- they
-- they cannot identify it. Although, it -- it -- I
UNIDENTIFIED: It doesn't have a
black nose?
BOB HUETER: It's very very difficult
to see. And, they call them everything from lemons
-- I've actually, believe it or not, I've heard them
called Makos. So, it's -- that's the problem there.
But, they probably are doing quite well. And they
could probably support a recreational fishery.
I -- I support the adoption of the
criteria for the prohibited species listing. I
think that's really good. But, I am troubled about
how they would be applied. I can imagine, at lease
hypothetically a scenario in which a species would
be found through irrefutable scientific evidence
that it's severely depleted and should be on the
endangered species list. But, if it's a problem for
the fishery, because they're working in the one last
area where they still exist, then it only meets one
of your four criteria and could be removed from the
list. So, I -- I'm troubled by -- by that
possibility.
The gillnet fishery, I'm so happy to
see you do something about that. But, I still, for
the life of me, cannot see the argument to -- to
keep this fishery going. And I agree with my esteem
colleague from Georgia on that. For six boats and
major bycatch problems, I'd rather close that
fishery and give their quota to Glen Hopkins.
Time area closures. I'm very
sensitive to Glen's concerns. You know, working
with Glen all these years I know what a -- what a
sincere honest guy he is. The thing I -- again is
because of the lack of -- of complete transparency
in the process, I am still, as a biologist, not sure
exactly why this box was drawn. But, I reserve
judgment, you know, when -- when that's explained
better.
One of the things to keep in mind is,
and -- and Merry alluded to this and Karyl knows
about this because she actually studied it. The
most vulnerable stage in most of these sharks' lives
is that large juvenile stage. Not the newborns.
Not -- not the -- what we call the young of the
year, the -- the pups and their first year. Those
young of the year animals experience a natural
mortality. We estimate some of our studied anywhere
from 60 to 80%. So, a fishery removal in many
cases, actually probably, substitutes for -- for a
natural mortality.
So, I -- I would suggest, and it's
the first time I've proposed this, and it may be a
terrible idea, but; that we think about looking for
protection of the neonates and the -- the young of
the year in the pupping grounds, which are in State
waters. So, focus in the State regulations on those
animals, and that we focus, in terms of the Federal
waters, in protecting these large juveniles. Look
at the -- look at that particular aspect of the life
stage. That's just before, just prior to adulthood.
Because the modeling shows that when you fish that
particular group hard, you really cut the legs out
from the population. That -- we've invested all
this -- these resources into -- into growing those
animals out. They're the last that remain of -- of
the young pups that were born anywhere from five,
six to ten years before. The others have died.
And, if you fish that one, it hasn't had a chance to
reproduce, then -- then that's what really kills the
population.
Mexico. Rusty, God love you. You're
always bringing up Mexico. By the way we're doing
satellite tagging now of Sandbars off the West Coast
of Florida. So, pretty soon you and I will be able
to sit down and look at where those sharks are
really going. And Jack Music is doing it off
Virginia as well.
And the Mexico situation is a mess.
And this is like the Supreme Court here compared to
what the Mexicans deal with in terms of fishery
management. We've been having real problems even
doing research in Mexico for the last couple of
years because of -- because of the lack of -- of
discussion with the U.S.
And, Fine Tooth Sharks, one of our
scientists at Mo did a parallel stock assessment of
the small coastals. And, he feels that the -- the
we're a -- we may be over reacting to the Fine Tooth
situation. The database is -- is not that strong at
all. So, it's nice to be -- nice to be proactive
and -- and take a conservation minded approach.
But, we're really probably looking at an animal that
has a very very limited distribution that, quite
frankly, evolutionarily is probably on its way out
anyway. It's only found in -- in certain pockets.
And the last thing I'll say is about
EFH. I don't know what the -- what the mandate is
in here to cover various EFH issues, but, I noticed
that all of the -- the discussion about EFH and
effects on it, deal with anthropogenic effects. Man
-- man -- human impacts. And we ought to keep in
mind that there are some natural impacts that can
affect EFH and things like the pupping grounds.
Where production is occurring. And that's going to
hurt as much as -- as a human impact. For example,
temperature rise, does -- does effect distribution.
And, I can tell you in our part of the world, on the
West Coast of Florida, Red Tide is really hurt the
production out of some of our -- our nursery areas
for Black Tips. So, that's something to keep in
mind as well. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Shanna
Miller.
SHANNA MILLER: Shanna Miller. So
now, not only this month do I speak as an unemployed
environmentally conscious member of the general
public, I also speak as -- as Shanna Miller. I was
so devastated by Audubon, that I had to change my
name.
UNIDENTIFIED: You got married?
SHANNA MILLER: Yeah, I did get
married. So, since I'm last, pretty much every
thing has been said. So, I'll just reiterate a
couple of things.
First of all I agree with -- with Bob
that, you know. Clearly the data for Large Coastal
Sharks isn't very robust by any means. So, I
certainly understand moving away from species
specific management, but you know, I'd just really
would like to emphasize that we can't loose sight of
that. And, you know, I hope you guys are crafting
some plan to move toward species specific management
sometime down the road.
And then, just to -- I was kind of --
we were trying to work through the -- the quota
basis and we were a little perplexed by, you know,
how you figured that all these other management
measures would account for 10% reductions, so you
could take the 40% reduction from MSY verses the 50%
recommended by the -- the peer review. So, I'd just
like to throw that out there.
And then also, with your calculation
of the time frame, you abanded the -- abandoned 10
year rebuilding timeframe in Magnuson, because it
only -- you only had a 68% chance of -- of achieving
that. Yet, with the 27 year rebuilding timeframe,
you calculated a 64% chance of achieving that. But
the 64% was okay, verses the 68% of 10 years, so --
I mean I know these numbers are all vague and not
exact, but I -- it just -- it just seemed odd.
And then, I'd also like to, you know,
support what a lot of people have said about deep
water sharks. As a member of the general public, I
would be very devastated if they were removed from
the management unit.
And -- and also for the -- the
criteria for the adding and removing prohibited
species. It seems like you may need to make a
separate list of criteria to add verses criteria to
remove. And, you know, like -- like Bob says,
special circumstances, you know, there will be
circumstances where a species should be removed or
added and it's not going to fulfill two of those
criteria. So, you know, I think that really needs
to be worked with. And as Lou said as -- as
probably, you know, premature at this point without
further analysis.
So, that's it. Other than that I --
good job. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Just a
point of clarification as Karyl said this morning.
Any proposal to add or remove to the list would be
by a separate rulemaking. So, we would have to
articulate the -- the basis and offer up for public
comment, so it's not that the criteria embodied in
this plan amendment would be the end of discussion,
so to speak, on any additions or removals to the
prohibited list.
Why don't we take a quick break? And
then, we'll be back to hear from Rusty some more.
As well as some others who passed on the first
round.
(Break: 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.)
RUSTY HUDSON: Chris, I've got to
leave at 4:00.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: At 4
o'clock.
RUSTY HUDSON: And catch a taxi, and
--
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Uh-
huh.
RUSTY HUDSON: And, make sure it gets
me to the airport by 4:30.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
RUSTY HUDSON: Or thereabouts.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Uh-
huh.
RUSTY HUDSON: And my flight's at
6:05
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Uh-
huh.
RUSTY HUDSON: Is that about a
reasonable way to do it?
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
RUSTY HUDSON: You know --
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: So,
we'll let -- let Bob go first since he passes his
first time around I guess.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Do you want me to
wait for them to sit down, or go ahead?
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: It
looks like we have a forum.
BOB MCAULIFFE: Okay, to start with.
I thank Rusty for bringing up taking the Caribbean
Reef Shark off the prohibited list. That is our
most common shark in the Caribbean. It's caught by
virtually all fishermen that use hook and line. And
I could never understand why that was a prohibitive
species. It's the most common shark we have.
The other exemption -- exception that
I have is with deep water sharks. I'm very much in
favor of taking them off the prohibited list.
Apparently, they must act differently in the
Caribbean, than they do with all the rest of you,
because we catch them in water from 80 to 250
fathoms deep. They're all bottom feeders. They're
very popular. They're a bycatch of our deep water
Snapper fishery. It's the only time that they're
caught. There's no other fishery that we perform in
the Caribbean, that I know of that produces deep
water sharks.
They're favored for food because
virtually all the deep water sharks are very low in
urea and are much better eating than your surface
sharks.
I don't know what that is. I don't
know how they behave in your regions, but it's a
very important food source for the fishermen. And,
I would encourage that we find some way to see that
we get the data on them. And -- but, whether you
outlaw it or not, the fishermen are -- are not
throwing away any fish. So, they're going to
continue to be caught and utilized. But, you're not
getting, again, a lot of data because of a lot of
the regulations that are in place and the lack of
communication between State and -- and Federal. And
the predominance of Federal permits that they're all
against.
So, we -- we have a lot of work to do
but, I'm very much in favor of taking all your deep
water sharks off the prohibitive list because we do
catch them a lot. And, they are a very important
food source. No shark in the Caribbean is thrown
away. There is no shark that is not eaten.
Everything that is caught on hook and line that they
can put in the boat is used for food. And you need
to keep remembering that. We don't have regulatory
discards because unless you go out there in a boat
and put a gun to the fishermen's head. He's not
going to throw it overboard.
RUSTY HUDSON: Basically, I've got
just a couple subjects I'll touch on, because I'm a
little short on time myself now.
I'd like to address the Fine Tooth
Shark. I just -- for everybody's minds. In my
comment, and I'll -- couch it in effect that NOAA's
fishery's claims that overfishing is occurring for
Fine Tooth Sharks because of bycatch, excessive
bycatch. We only have about one boat that's
directing on Fine Tooth, and that's with gillnet.
The study that was done March 2002,
by Doctor Henri Cortez of NOAA fisheries, for the
stock assessment for Small Coastal Sharks. He
remarked about both Fine Tooth and Black Nose Sharks
on Page number 35, under the heading of General
Discussion. He wrote the following statement:
Results for the Black Nose and Fine
Tooth Shark were directly influenced by the catch
series used, which did not include any bycatch
estimates. Which in turn influenced the priors
chosen for K. This explains the low values of MSY
predicted for these two species.
That's why we're saying we need to go
back to the workshop. We need to put the bycatch
numbers in and have them reassessed. And then, I
believe that you'll find that not only they're not
overfished, there's probably not overfishing
occurring. That is my summation on Fine Tooth.
As to my desire to stay with J1,
where my gillnet boats can continue using their
drift as well as strike net. The strike net is been
observed very carefully and it had virtually no
bycatch problem. It's a very clean approach. With
the drift net there is self policing methods.
There's way the guys are trying to make themselves
more habitat friendly and I think that with the
observer program and other stuff that can sort of be
ratcheted down.
The problem with unilaterally going
through this process of HMS and eliminating one or
both of those particular gear types on a half a
dozen boats, or a dozen boats in our sector is
wrong; because we have been working in good faith
with both Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, and the
Bottle Nose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan, in trying
to come up with common sense ways to be able to
continue to allow some nets to be fished in this
country. The example set would be very bad because
there's a large number of gillnets used in the Mid-
Atlantic regions and stuff. And, those nets would
be in some cases similar to the nets the fellows are
using either for Small Coastal Sharks and there's
tending requirements that's coming incase for those
people and other types of stuff.
So, we would like to see some of the
HMS people show up at the TRT meetings every day,
every time that we have one. So that we can go
ahead and sort of combine all the efforts.
I'm not trying to say that it, the
drift gillnet's perfectly clean. I know that
there's several problems. I would be the first one
to admit it. But, at the same time it is a way to
catch only certain types of animals. If you notice,
if they went with the allocation issue of regional
quotas, 83% of the Small Coastal Shark quota was
going to go to the South Atlantic. For dominated by
gillnet caught Small Coastal Sharks. I think that's
a very important feature that you have to sort of
understand that if we're going to make some changes,
whether radical, or somewhere in the middle road, it
may take another year or two, to really see how
regional allocations could work out. That's just my
feeling about that.
I also stress the idea of J5, which
included common sense measures. Such as using
dehooking devices, and the dip nets, and the line
cutters, and stuff like that. But, that goes, and I
believe very much needs to be tied in with J8, which
is the idea of having workshops.
Workshops that should include both
the commercial as well as any recreational
component, like tournaments, charter boat, head
boats, those type of people to get them, like Merry
mentioned earlier, something I believe to get them
up to snuff on those type of things. So, they can
have some piece of paper says they've done it. So,
it shouldn't be a one-time shot. It should be a
process that HMS sort of folds into a yearly
expectation of somehow working with these people.
Going back to the minimum size on
recreationals. I have tried to point out time and
again, that if our guys bring up a bunch of minimum
size commercial sharks and then they're going to be
dead, it becomes again another bycatch issue. A
regulatory discard, when traditionally, we usually
marketed almost everything we caught. And, we would
like to continue to market everything we caught.
And so, with the idea that most of the recreational
hook and line caught sharks that are under a minimum
size, usually juvenile, sub-adults that haven't had
a chance to breed yet, or spawn, or whatever you
wish to say. Those animals are going to be mostly
alive. That are released from the recreational. I
think that's a good thing. So, that minimum size is
a workable. It's a doable. Particularly if you can
let the animal go without a hook in its face.
The situation with the large coastal
being overfished. The 22 species that are in there,
20 species are -- can now be considered still
overfished. Of those 20 species, only nine of them
are still legal to be caught. One of those nine, a
Nurse Shark, is no market for the meat. The fins
have no value. They are virtually 98.5% of the
time, or something like that, alive when they are
released at the side of the boat. Even after having
been on a -- on a longline for eight or ten hours.
There's a couple other species, pretty resilient
like that. They need to continue that idea, that,
you know, if we're not going to use it, let's, you
know, go ahead and let it go. So, the Nurse Shark,
in my mind, can't possibly be overfished, but it's
never been assessed. So, we need to do that.
The same thing, you know, everybody's
worried about Dusky and Night Sharks, and Sand
Tigers, and putting them on a, you know, endangered
species. Well, I'm hoping that ESA will, under the
ESA Act, that they'll wind up doing an assessment on
those individual species before they're in a hurry
to go ahead and have all the collateral impact that
goes with having a threatened or endangered status
put on them. Particularly the Dusky and the Night
Shark. The Night Shark is a component of the -- of
the bycatch of the Pelagic longline and could --
could potentially still be a second revenue for
those people when they're targeting their Swordfish.
As far as the Dusky, the same thing.
Both are bycatch in the Pelagic as well as a bycatch
in the -- in the directed. But, as you notice with
the observer program, it looks like they've
ratcheted down on the number of Duskies that are
being interacted with the last couple of years since
they were prohibited. That's a good thing. But
sometimes you can't get away from some of the pups
because there's some documents by Music and others
that indicate that the Dusky Shark pups are doing
rather well. There's a lot of them, so you know,
they obviously had to have mothers. And so, it sort
of fits in to my idea about that.
Going into the other animals that are
still legal to be caught. The Silky Shark, the
Scalloped Hammerhead, and the Tiger Shark, none of
which NOAA fisheries claims that the CPUE of those
animals is not in decline. That's a good thing. In
fact, Tiger Shark is increasing. That's a good
thing.
Hammerheads. They're virtually dead
most of the time when they come up. We don't see a
whole lot of Smooth Hammerheads in most of the areas
that our guys are at. We see more Scalloped. And,
the reality is, sometimes they can get into a lot of
them quick. It's kind of hard to utilize some of
the animals because something that Bob just
mentioned was the urea problem.
Hammerheads have a terrible urea
problem. It spoils the meat. And if you put it in
the same brine or in the same ice hold, with a
Sandbar or Black Tip, it's going to have a tendency
to ammoniate the other animals. That's not good for
market. Fresh caught, frozen, it doesn't matter.
It is not good.
And with a Spinner, of course that
looks like a Black Tip, and I believe that it's
being off shore a lot. I don't believe it's
overfished either. But it would take an assessment
to say that. Right now, the status is overfished.
That's what you tell Congress each and every year.
The Narrow Tooth. I have never known
of one ever being caught in the U.S. waters yet.
And yet -- you know in the Atlantic U.S. But, the
problem is we've managed it and protected it. We've
managed it since '93. And, we protected it since
'99. But, it's known as the Bronze Whaler or the
Copper Shark over in the Pacific and is a very
common shark there. It is an exotic that has come
through the Suez Canals in the Eastern
Mediterranean. That's a big deal too, because if we
have some show up, they might be more of an exotic
than anything else. If we ever did get one. But
how can you target it. How can you ever assess it?
Yet, we're still telling Congress it's overfished.
The Big Eye Sand Tiger. An animal
that's put on the '97 list. Two or three specimens,
that I'm aware of, that have ever been caught.
Usually it's caught on the bottom in very very deep
water. And because it looks like a Sand Tiger, you
know, it's a look-a-like problem. I have no problem
with it being on the list, but it does not need to
continue to be identified as overfished to the U.S.
Congress. It's wrong. Because it sends the wrong
message.
Certain other animals, Lemon Sharks,
we need to take a look at a little bit. They're --
they got a component that's in our catch and we
can't avoid them at times. So, you're going to
catch them.
Bull sharks. I don't believe they're
overfished and they have a quite a nasty reputation
for a lot of our shark attacks. And, I believe that
because a lot of State waters are closed, Bull
sharks usually predominate inside State waters most
of the time. Sometimes you'll find them off shore,
but not as much as you'll find them inshore. And
so, Bull Sharks again, is another one identified to
Congress as overfished.
Dusky is still overfished to
Congress, yet it's prohibited. But, out of the
other ten of those eleven that are large coastals
that are prohibited, many of them will never be
assessed because they're such a small amount of data
able to be retrieved in the U.S. Atlantic from
either the directed guys or fishery dependant, or
fishery independent efforts.
You know, we can't really go out and
catch a Galapagos. Not unless we go down to Puerto
Rico or over to Bermuda or something like that. The
reality is, is overfished to Congress. And again
this gives everybody the feeling in this room that
all 20 species are overfished of that large coastal
shark complex.
And, I believe they relied on Henri
Cortez's study of many sharks of the world and the
demographics involved with that in order to come up
with a 16 year time series added on to the 11 year
no rebuild in order to give us the 27 years that we
now have. I think maybe the 16 year mean average
time is a little generous, but you know, it still
puts you on track of a shorter rebuild plan than
what you had back in '98 with a 40 year rebuilding
plan. So, we've already carved off 13 years in some
cases.
And, that's what I'm trying to say.
If you want to talk to us and work with us, you have
the capacity to do that. If you want to talk at us
and then just make rules that keep on putting us out
of business, like I said, how are you going to ever
going to get those people back. How are you going
to get the marketplace infrastructure back? You're
not. And, that's the type of thing, that we're in a
situation right now. Again, we come to this table
and we're representing families, little businesses
that are trying to fight for their right to exist.
And, we're wanting to work with y'all. Every one of
you. And we want you all to work with us and
understand where we're coming from. I could go into
a bunch more details of things that bother me about
some things, but there's a lot of things that make
me happy with the way NOAA fisheries has changed
their mindset since they didn't loose any of the HMS
lawsuits, but they didn't win them all either. And,
there was a certain component there that we sought
to achieve. Better science. Fair proper
management. The idea of a renewable resource. The
idea of being able to accomplish that. So, that
we're not overfishing. And I believe we're well on
the way. We've done well in the last several years.
I commend NOAA fisheries for having got us to this
point. Just don't loose us in the next year or two.
You know, we'd like to still be around.
And I'm going to have to wrap it up,
'cause I have to go shortly. But, thank you very
much.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Any
other Advisory Panel members for a final comment?
Merry?
MERRY CAMHI: I can't believe I'm
going to agree with Rusty, but I do also think that
the generation time that is used for rebuilding is a
bit on the -- generous side. And a little bit
uncertain as to how that was -- why it was chosen
that way. It seems to me that -- it's not exactly
clear why 70% is good enough for one circumstance
where we are talking about where we were building
to, and then the other circumstance, we're talking
about, well, it's not good enough for us to have a -
- 10 -- a 10 year rebuilding time frame if it's only
got a 68% probability of success. This is what
Shanna was alluding to before. So, I -- I think we
need a little bit more clarification on that.
But, also the other concern we
have is, why you choose a rebuilding plan predicated
on adding to this mean generation time when you've
already shown that you can almost rebuild in 10
years or less, which is required under Magnuson. A
16 year generation time. Here you are factoring or
averaging in your -- some of your most vulnerable
species rebuilding, regeneration times, the Dusky
and the -- Dusky Shark for example is longer one.
It skews your -- regeneration much longer and if you
eliminated your most vulnerable species, it's --
from that calculation, which would be a more
precautionary approach, and only added 10 or 12
years, you'd end up with a like 22 year rebuilding
time.
Another concern that we have about
how you do this rebuilding, setting the rebuilding
timeframe, is that it looks like we keep resetting
the time clock when we start rebuilding from. You
know, we -- we here we're now starting from 2002, we
could have done it from 199 -- we should be doing it
from -- it seems to me from 1999. You'd -- if you -
- if we did that we're a little bit more
conservative we would and used all the a 20 year
rebuilding time, we'd be rebuilt hopefully in about
16 years. Without even having to do too much more
with the quota, at least from the calculations that
you seem to suggest here.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Uh-
huh.
MERRY CAMHI: So, that's something
that I think we're -- we have some concern about.
Another issue is, how -- where are
the -- where are the data or the -- the information
to support reduce -- going from the 50% quota
reduction, which was recommended in the peer
reviews, down to a 40% reduction in quota. Now, we
know that that's going to be -- it's contingent on
all these other factors. But, we've yet to see
exactly which of these factor will end up being in
the FM -- in the final rule. And, we also don't
know actually how much of a gain we get. You know,
we're assuming here it's 10%, because that's what
you're telling us, but we have no calculations that
seem to demonstrate, at least from what I can see.
So, more information to that effect will be helpful.
I agree with the comments that were
said about the criteria for prohibited species. One
concern I have is that if we put these four criteria
into this draft amendment, what is the process by
which we can go and change them later? Yes, we may
take a proposed rule to, you know, go through rule
making to add and change species, but what about
changing those criteria if they find they don't
work?
Having been involved in the criteria
debates over listing things on the IUC and Red lest
-- Red List, or endangered -- threatened or
endangered fishes, I know that is a very contentious
process. It's not easy and I just don't think we
should be jumping the gun and just sticking criteria
in there before we've analyzed exactly what the
quantitative effects might be.
The other thing I wanted to mention,
I -- I would be remiss, since I'm here in Sonya's
place, is to ask you about Sawfish. The Ray Sawfish
is a protected species in here but there's nothing
being proposed for Sawfish management.
And one question we have, I --
knowing that these animals are often caught in
gillnets and in entanglement in -- in State waters,
that's one thing. But, what about when they're in
Federal waters? Is there nothing we can do to
either identify critical habitat, an EFH, or some
kind of time area closure that might protect these
animals, which are listed on the endangered species
list?
And finally, I just want to reiterate
that, we really would like to see some kind of
specific plan for working with States on getting a -
- pupping ground habitat protection. We've been
talking about this for years, you know. We're aware
that some States do it better than others. But, I
do really think that it -- it behooves NMFS to take
the lead in -- in pulling the States along and
identifying a really clear plan for how we address
that -- that mortality, as well as addressing the
sub-adult and juvenile mortality off shore.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Thank you Merry. Just on the Sawfish issue, it's
not been her view?
MERRY CAMHI: Yes. But it's in your
--
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: That
is been handled under the Endangered Species Act
now. And my understanding is that -- (inaudible) --
start taking a look at those issues. Excessive
mortality -- (inaudible) -- mortality, identifying
critical habitats, and the likes -- (inaudible).
That we do this manage directly. Interaction
Sawfish -- (inaudible) -- recovery plan.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: I also want to
clarify that the Page 360 has pretty much all the
information we have regarding Sawfish takes in the
fisheries. They aren't caught in the gillnet
fishery. But, there have been a few takes in the
bottom longline fishery. All except one of them
were released alive and that one, it's unknown
whether it was alive or -- or dead. The observer
didn't mark that off.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: We
have one for Bob Pride.
BOB PRIDE: Actually this is some new
information. The -- I'll just called to check on
the Virginia law in -- on sharks and we have 58 inch
minimum fork link size for commercial fish caught in
State waters. We have a 31 inch dress weight size
minimum for commercially caught fish. There's an
exception for EEZ caught -- for territorial sea
caught fish, that will allow 200 pounds fish under
the 31 inch dress weight to come in a day.
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Uh-huh.
BOB PRIDE: So, that's allows for
some incidental catches. I don't think there's a
gillnet fishery off of Chincoteague. But, my
question becomes now, if the Federal rule becomes no
minimum size, would we, I would think our commission
would tend to -- to take off minimum size
commercially, which could be a problem, because we
would loose our protection in pupping areas. So,
give that some though when you're crafting that
final rule. Thanks.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Than
you. At this point we can move into our public
comment area of the agenda, but before doing so,
Othel asked me to remind everybody that Federal
Travel regulations require that vouchers be
submitted within five days of completing your
travel. So, she's got some handouts for those who
are not familiar with the procedures of what to do
and who -- how to contact her. So, Othel, you can
either distribute them at the table, pass them
around, or stand at the door and block anyone from
leaving who doesn't take a paper.
OTHEL FREEMAN: I'll pass them
around.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Did we
have the sign in sheet for those members of the
public?
OTHEL FREEMAN: Yeah, there's --
_______________
PUBLIC COMMENTS
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank
you. As is required under the procedures for use of
this Advisory Panel, it is always a public meeting
and we do invite the public to participate in the
process. We try to make some time available for
general members of the public to comment during the
course of the meeting. We have several folks who
have signed up here. I'm not sure who exactly would
like to speak, but we have Kristin Rob, Shawn Dick,
and Dewey Hemilright.
You can -- anyplace where there's an
open mic would be helpful.
KRISTIN RABY: Good afternoon HMS
Advisory Panel. My name is Kristin Raby, with the
Department of Education Outreach for Aquatic Release
Conservation. Please accept these public comments
from the Aquatic Release Conservation or ARC and
make them a part of the public record.
ARC is making public comments on
draft Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, and Sharks as private
sector gear technologist, co-designing, and co-
developing, ARC dehookers, Nola force line cutters,
and dip nets, as a conservation organization. A
historical participant in the HMS and commercial
shark bottom longline fisheries and as a
constituent.
ARC has been actively involved in the
HMS fisheries and bycatch mortality reduction
providing safe handling and release techniques and
technologies for over two decades.
We're currently working as a
fisheries partner in cooperation with NOAA
fisheries, Southeast Fishery Science Center,
Southwest Fishery Science Center, and Inner American
Tropical Tuna Commission, ICCAT, Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council, the commercial
sector, Blue Water Fishermen's Association, and
Directed Shark Fishery, recreational sector, IGFA,
RFA, Congress Recreational Fisheries, The American
Fishery Society, and NGOs, in an effort to reduce
bycatch mortality in the U.S. and international
fishing communities.
Some of our comments are as follows:
ARC supports and endorses the following alternatives
and preferred alternatives.
Alternative C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, and H2.
And under bycatch reduction measures ARC fully
endorses and agrees with this entire preferred
alternative J4 and J5 more specifically release
equipment, line cutters, dip nets, and when
improved, dehooking devices.
Line cutters. The Southeast Fishery
Science Center, Pascagoula Lab and Harvesting Team,
has develop a line cutter that is safe and effective
in removing mono from entangled marine mammals and
Sea Turtles in the Atlantic Pelagic longline fishery
as evidence by the final analysis report from the
2001, 2002 Net Experimental Design Fishery. Line
cutters have been extremely effective in the safe
removal of trailing mono from numerous Leatherbacks
as well as other species that cannot be avoided in
that fishery.
Dip nets. NMFS approved and co-
designed dip nets have proven to be extremely
effective and safely boating smaller Loggerhead Sea
Turtles for resuscitation and gear removal in the
net experimental design fishery. Several dip net
designs and models have been developed for this
experiment.
Vessels that -- that can boat smaller
Sea Turtles should boat them in order to better
control their hook and gear removal procedures and
resuscitation environment.
Dehooking devices. ARC has advocated
the use of safe handling and release equipment, line
cutters, dip nets, and dehooking devices for over 12
years. The safe removal of hooks and line before
they're release can dramatically increase the
chances of survival of a released bycatch as is
evidence to the 1993 Cooperative Oxford Lab Hook
Retention Study, authored by Keith Lockwood and Eric
May.
After this three year controlled
study, Dean Armaryland determined hooks left in
Stripped Bass reduced the fish's chance of survival
and he recommended that all hooks be removed with
dehookers.
The consensus of veterinarians'
comments and NOAA Tech Memorandum 455 Appendix 4,
indicates that removal of hooks and trailing mono
from Sea Turtles can substantially reduce post
release mortality of released Sea Turtles in most
cases. The veterinarians comments refer to hook
location, hook wounding, post release hook and mono
movement, trailing mono being ingest when possible
occlusion of the gut, and a impairment of feeding
and reproductive capabilities.
There's widespread belief among
academia, managers, and industry, that proper and
safe removal of hooks and mono would substantially
increase post release survival. So, availability
studies with sat. tags are currently on going and
should produce encouraging results in the very near
future.
Industry acceptance. The safe and
effective removal of terminal gear, hooks, crimps,
and mono, from marine mammals and Sea Turtles, as
well as other bycatch species with line cutters and
dehooking devices has been widely accepted and
endorsed by not only the U.S. HMS fishing fleets,
but also more recently by the international fishing
community, ICCAT, and ITTC participating countries,
and by various NGOs. The widespread use of
dehookers in the HMS fisheries was noted in the 1998
Shark Management Plan.
Most State quotas and the HMS
fisheries believe that if hooks and line are safely
removed from bycatch, post release hook landing,
subsequent impaired feeding, and associated post
release mortality would be dramatically reduced.
By safely removing hooks and line
from bycatch, fishermen are releasing bycatch in a
manner that ensures the maximum probability of
survival consistent with the National Standard 9 of
the MSA, ESA, MMPA, and other related fishery laws.
This preferred alternative J5 will
most likely receive the complete support from the
industry as a wide and prudent mandated management
measure that is not intrusive to their fishing
operation, is economically feasible, and allows the
fisherman to do their part for the conservation of
their fishery also sustaining a viable fishery --
fishing operation.
These release technologies and
equipment also remove hooks and line from juvenile
target species. Thus providing an additional
benefit to the fisheries and the conservation
effort. Most of our HMS fishermen try to avoid
regulatory and economic discards, but are more then
willing and able to safely release those bycatch
that cannot be avoided.
Economic. The retrieval of fishing
gear, not only saves the fisherman money, but it
also can save the fisherman time and effort of
retying gear and removing hook and mono from
bycatch, as well as target species. Dehooking and
disentanglement techniques and tools in most cases
would speed up their fishing operation and reduce
catch per unit effort. The successful retrieval of
expensive terminal fishing gear is evidence by the
recent success and gear removal of 2001, 2002 Net
Experimental Design. In addition NOAA approved line
cutters, dip nets, and dehooking devices are
relatively inexpensive and are a one time outfit.
Most commercial vessels could pay for
the release equipment within one or two trips with a
savings from retrieved hooks alone not to mention
the time and effort these devices would save in
remaking of terminal gear after loss.
An added economic incentive for HMS
fishermen to properly use release equipment would be
the credibility of having Sea Turtles friendly
target species at the market place. This would
allow for the market edge for the U.S. HMS fisheries
over those imports that were not Sea Turtle
friendly. Peer pressure from those fishermen who
properly release bycatch would inspire others to do
their part in conserving fisheries as well.
Transference of technology. The
benefits associated with safe handling and release
techniques and tools are numerous. And have
positive long term implications in other fisheries
with multiple bycatch species nationally and
internationally.
The U.S. has always been on the
leading edge of fishery conservation technology and
this preferred alternative, J5 could easily be
transferred to the international HMS fishing
community as well as other national and
international fisheries with other target species
and bycatch consistent with the stated policy, NOAA
fisheries, ICCAT, regional fishery management
councils and ITTC. The dehooking devices, line
cutters and dip nets are relatively simple to use
and techniques can be easily transferred from
fishery to fishery and from nation to nation.
Enforcement. Enforcement of this
alternative J5 as it relates to release equipment
and their use onboard should be addressed. Dockside
inspections could easily determine whether the
devices were onboard, but not whether they were
properly used at sea.
Alternative J8 would adequately
address this problem and expense by offering
workshops, literature, manuals, guidelines, and
certifying that the effected permit holder has
passed a training course on the proper safe handling
and release guidelines and protocols.
These workshops and subsequent
certification would insure that the permit holder
passed the training course on the proper techniques.
This would serve as a multiple benefit to management
and to the permit holder. The permit holder could
be issued a compliance sticker for vessel wheelhouse
in order to make enforcement easier and more cost
effective.
Under alternative J8. Although this
alternative is not currently a preferred
alternative, ARC is convinced that the educational
enforcement benefits of this alternative warrant
great consideration and review. Educational
workshops and outreach programs that could inform,
instruct, and certify permit holders, and fishermen,
anglers on the proper safe handling and release
procedures and techniques would provide multiple
benefit -- benefits to the fishery.
1. Workshops would serve as an
educational forum for fishermen to meet with
researchers, other fishermen anglers, and management
to keep apprized of the latest technologies and
regulatory requirements in their particular fishery.
The workshops could adequately address any
attitudinal or informational constraints that may
exist or that might hinder conservation efforts in
the future.
2. Attending fishermen and anglers
could share an innovative concepts for their
particular fishery that could benefit other
fisheries as well. Similar mandatory workshops in
the Pacific have proven to be a valuable management
tool and extremely successful.
3. Educational workshops and
subsequent certifications would aid and compliment
enforcement efforts dockside. Once certified and
receiving a numbered or registered sticker for the
vessel's wheelhouse enforcement would be enhanced by
the verification of certification and sticker. This
would dramatically reduce the cost of enforcement
and free up critically needed homeland protection
vessels and crew.
4. Through proper training and
certification, fishermen and anglers would have time
to perfect dehooking and disentanglement techniques
in a controlled environment with instructors present
before they would be required to release larger more
robust bycatch in the field or sea under adverse sea
and weather conditions. This controlled environment
training would instill confidence and a sense of
duty in accomplishment in a participating fisherman,
angler, or permit holder.
5. Workshop managers could poll
and record the success rates as the program matures
and grows. This census would give managers and
instructors valuable insight to the reality to
management measures in the field and in the fishing
world, as fishermen, anglers, permit holders see it.
6. Private sector gear
technologists, NGOs and other interested parties
could help fund these educational workshops thus
offsetting the expected expenses. Trainers could
donate their time and expertise. Fishermen and
angles could absorb the travel and time as well as
contribute assistance in funding if necessary and
the benefits are derived. Educational grants could
be applied for to offset expenses.
7. Educational videotapes, websites,
and literature could be developed, promoted and
distributed as a guide to further education while at
sea or for home study.
The net experimental design observer
training workshops, the mandatory captains, owner
meetings, and workshops on HMS regulations, ESA
requirements, safety at sea issues and net
experimental fishery dehooking and disentanglement
protocols and guidelines have proven that proper
instruction and education on release techniques and
tools greatly increase the success rates of those
release procedures once at sea, and with larger more
robust animals and bycatch. These workshops also
serve to exchange valuable information and
innovations in the field.
In closing, education, communication,
cooperation, and recognition, are the fishery tools
of the future. ARC recommends that alternative J8
be considered as a preferred alternative in this
draft Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, and Sharks. Every mandate
in this fishery is a viable management tool. ARC
would like to thank NOAA Fisheries, Chief Rogers,
HMSAP for allowing us to make public comments on
these important HMS issues. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
Kristin, if you had an extra copy of the written
testimony there that would be fine. Okay, great.
That will help the transcriptionist. Shawn Dick,
did you have any further comments?
SHAWN DICK: (No Microphone,
Inaudible.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
SHAWN DICK: (No Microphone,
Inaudible.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Do -- Dewey Hemilright.
DEWEY HEMILRIGHT: My name is Dewey
Hemilright and I'm a commercial fisherman from North
Carolina. I started shark fishing in 1993 when the
management plan was coming into effect. Since 1993,
we've watched our income decrease from regulations,
regulatory regulations, and it appears that it might
even decrease even more.
When I go to look at -- when Glen
alluded to being probably 80% of the observed data.
I participated in the observer program in 1996 and
1997, thinking it was the right thing to do. I
still believe in it back then, but really don't
believe in it now because I see the way the
information gets distorted once it goes, instead of
once it leaves this area, or this area. It gets put
in different realms.
The time and area closures you have,
I don't believe it needs to be there. I believe if
you look at State waters where there's been closures
already, and if you look at other State waters that
are continued fishing right now, it might maybe
alleviate or we could get some data from that. When
you go to look at National Marine fisheries and the
recording of the data, we still don't know what's
being landed. What species are being taken?
Here's a -- and probably I ain't a
good speaker, but I got my heart in it because it's
my livelihood. And, when you sit there -- here --
here's a good instance; this year, National Marine
Fisheries went to species -- species specific quotas
for Ridgeback and Non-ridgeback.
If you land sharks in the State of
Virginia, the dealer sends them, say 3,000 pounds of
sharks. It's written down as sharks. The State of
New Jersey, I talked to a dealer it's written down
as sharks. The State of New York, it's written down
are sharks. So, how can National Marine Fisheries
tell the fishermen that they're doing, on the dealer
reporting, specific things, when it's all sharks.
Who decides? And this didn't just happening this
year; this has been going on for years.
It's like since 1993, you made a
management plan. You put a 4,000 pound trip limit
into effect and you've done nothing else since that
time. But boy, we've watched the world of things
happen. We watched from seeing press releases that
they're extinct. That we need a 50% cut, we need
this, we need that. Various enviros saying this and
that. And, authors writing articles on this and
come find out, you do another stock assessment; the
last one was just done. And sharks seemed -- looked
a heck of a lot better than they used to be.
It seems like we always, in the shark
fishery here, got the -- it's a never ending
struggle. It seem -- the -- the State fishing, but
every time you look about something you get a
telephone book that sent out there like that. And
you expect to go through it and here's all the
answers.
Well when I -- I read that thing
about four or five times and it's full of holes.
Holes that just begging for questions to be asked,
but there's never a time. You got 60 days, you got
5 hours, you got this and it's all of a sudden boom,
it's done. You know, and -- and you all can sit
back there and say, well, we're constrained by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act and da da da, da da da.
Well, heck, they tell you to rebuild your engine and
give you a hammer and chisel, think you gonna be
able to do it? I -- I -- probably not.
These time and area closures, that
are proposed is -- is going to effect a lot of
people's livelihood and a great deal. I think you -
- you will loose the rapport with the fishermen,
because that's where the datas come from. It's come
from putting our -- our sweat on the boats. Putting
the -- the people out there fishing, the observers
taking part. Taking part in this process, driving
up to these meeting, going to a stock assessment.
Which I don't all understand it, but I can tell you
that this just -- it just don't pass the -- the
right test when you look about it, but -- but that's
here nor say.
I want to read you all something back
from the 1994 Shark Evaluation Workshop. And I know
that -- that government is slow. I watched nine
years it take to get the incidental Blue Fin Tuna
requirements changed around nine years. So, I
realize what slowness is and how you -- how it
works.
But in 1994, was one of the about the
second year, may be that they started doing the
stock assessments, getting the stuff together. And,
everybody was new at this. We didn't have no data.
We still ain't got no data probably, but -- but
we're working better to improve it.
It says here in 1994, less data or
landing by species improved substantially it would
not be possible to produce credible species specific
assessments. And -- and you still don't have the
data. You look at the dealer reporting. You know,
it -- it -- they're reporting the sharks, unlike the
data in my log book, but why not go out there and
build a rapport with the dealers. It's probably
only 20 dealers, that -- that fill out that -- the -
- the logbooks. I mean that land any majority of
sharks. So, if you would go out there and there's
no way you could, you know, you getting Small
Coastal Sharks. You're getting the Smooth Dogs,
like in the State of Virginia; I read something in
2001 there was 20 -- 4,000 -- 400,000 pounds of
sharks landed. How was that classified as? Was it
this or that?
Well, I mean when we come here and --
and when these -- these regulations the -- the --
the fishermen, whether it's commercial, recreation,
but it -- it -- it's hits my pocketbook hard on the
commercial side. So, I want to stick to that.
These regulations that -- that is
coming, it -- its' like all of a sudden are there.
And, there is no way to get the question on how this
works, or --? Oh, well, we're working with the
States. I mean that's smoke. You -- you got to do
better than that people. I -- I mean you -- your --
you're responsible for maintaining the resource or
renewable resource, you're charged by that by your
mandates and whatever. And, we're just ain't
getting the bang for the buck. It just ain't
happening.
You -- when you look at -- not only
that when you look at -- when you go to look at the
-- I sat trough a stock assessment this last year
and you go look at the recreational side and you go
look at the data that's there. I want to know why
you even got the -- why not increase their limit --
why not give them five sharks a thing? Why not -- I
mean, it's like anything that's not a -- it doesn't
matter. Because it's got to be followed.
You look at the landing of Duskies.
I mean, I don't believe their laying into Duskies,
myself, personally. But, you got data that says it
is. And, you got the data that says I'm doing this
and this one's doing that. You all got to clean up
your data work. Somebody's got to get off their
duff and -- and -- and work collectively. I think
there's enough good people out there with the States
that you -- you just can't go with this smoke screen
for 20 years and keep on going and people being put
out of business. And, oh, these -- here's the best
available science -- well the science might be all
right, but here's the best available data and the
numbers. You could take a pile of numbers and put
on this table and whoever collects them and puts
them in there, they -- they show a lot of different
stories. You're not getting the, you know when you
go to -- you just don't have enough data to go
species specific. I thing you all need to put in
place what you have since like '97, back up, get all
-- work on the collection of the recreational data.
Work on the collection of the commercials. Get the
to where you dealing with the dealer's reporting.
Hey, what have you been putting for the last five
years? Well, I been reporting sharks. Well damn,
it comes out here, well, well let's say 25% of them
are Black Tip and 30% of them -- that ain't the way
to do it. Why not work and -- and -- and do
something constructive. The way you going out there
to grab the -- the data's there. The dealers are
reporting. Fishermens are filling out the logbooks,
whether you believe them or not. So, somewhere
between there we can work on this.
And so, once you got the data to
what's being landed. Then you go with a management
measures and the rest of the crowd that wants to
hurry up and with a management measures, well, you
can just put them on hold for a while.
Because if you don't have the data,
and know what's take out that ocean, then you -- all
the science and all the reproductive, and all this
and that, don't make one hill of beans. You -- you
go on there and when you looking up here like your
landings and stuff, you always want to show
percentages. People are well, percentage of what?
You -- you look at here at the Large Coastal and the
Small Coastal Landings Percent By Regions, Average
1999 to 2001. Why did you choose 1999 to 2001? Why
not 1993 to 2001? Why them three years? Was it
convenient? Does it have a agenda? I mean, why not
put in the numbers?
When you go look at the shark
observer data. I seen one thing where it showed the
soak time in North Carolina was 24.4 hours. Well,
that's just ain't the fact. You go adding the
numbers up and it comes up to about 14 hours. So, I
mean -- I mean the whole thing about it -- and then
when you go, our observer program, when -- when the
observer program left, under the leadership of Steve
Brandsteader, at the Gulf South and Development
Foundation, maybe not the data in, but the
credibility in what the heck. It got lost, it's
gone.
You look at the reports that been put out from
this observer programs, back then. Good reports.
You look at it now, there wasn't even a report for
the stock assessment this past year, in 2002. Not
even there. Here we were told that, hey, boys this
observer data's important. You got to do it. It
went from voluntary to mandatory. And then you have
a person in charge that doesn't even put out a stock
assessment.
I know I'm rambling on here, but it -
- it -- it's -- it's pertinent that all these
measures you all are doing. Because all these
measures got to have some numbers that come from
somewhere before you can do that. I wish that you
all, you know, you can't rebuild something that
takes 10 or 15 years and expect to see it over
night. Because you all got a hard time of
convincing the people of how all of a sudden you
went from extinct. I sit through a stock
assessment, I was most mentally frustrated I had
ever been in a week, sitting trough that stuff. And
-- and how you come up with the numbers. How this
and that.
And you know you got to start
somewhere. I agree with that and different things,
but how do you go from all of a sudden some thing to
extinct. You know I was sitting in the law suit
there and the -- the -- the attorney for you all
were telling the judge, your honor, they'll be
species extinct in two to five years if you don't do
something. Well, look all of a sudden here in the
year 2000; I ain't see too many things extinct yet.
You know, I'm hearing a little bit
more positive. But at the same time, you got to
draconian closure that goes from here to here, and
anywhere there was a Dusky pointed in, hey, we'll
close it.
Well, you know that -- that might be work out
with. Hey, and it very -- probably will -- will
be. But -- but you all are loosing some credibility
at people that sit there, Glen and myself, and all
the others that took observers and we best to
complain at don't you want not -- since they bitch
and complain, but a -- but just you know of -- of
stuff going on but -- but all of a sudden here you
loosing the rapport.
And -- and you and -- and it -- and
it should be somebody on the observer program who --
who is independent, not associated with this, or
with this, or with this, because it gets the
appearance of improprieties. Whether it is or
isn't. And I have seen it first hand. Experience I
probably studied the sharks more than, heck, what I
studied this much in school or something. But just
because it's my livelihood and -- and know the ins
and outs.
And who says this, and I realize
government's slow. I -- I totally realize that so
it ain't -- it don't happen over night. But,
somewhere you all got to clean up on these numbers.
And the numbers are out there to clean up on if
somebody just take the initiative and go -- and go
look for it. Or -- or, go do it. Or, listen.
Don't' say, well, we're working with the State.
Well, we called the State the other day. That don't
work people.
You -- I mean, you know, take pride
in -- in -- in what you doing. Because it effects
all of us. It effects, you know, the whole, the
resource. Because if there ain't no sharks out
there. I'm not going fishing. Recreationals aren't
catching no fish. Environmentalist ain't having
those sharks in their aquarium. Well, they might
got the ones they still got in there, you know. But
-- but as far as the other stuff, that you all got a
chance to, you know, we come to a stock assessment
and we reached a point where all of a sudden, well,
maybe things ain't so bad after all. But, now all
of a sudden, we -- well, let's just shut this down
because so and so said we need to do this, or this,
you know, it there any.
I looked at this closure as a
failure. As a last resort because other things
could probably be looked at. Maybe the -- what was
the effect of closure of State waters in different
places? How much of that is shown on the observer
data? You know?
It -- it's just a lot of things that
I -- I'll -- I'll finish up with on last thing here.
I asked the National Marine Fisheries
three months ago, for an answer to a question. And
I've continued to ask that. We've experienced where
the fin ratio is -- is a law was mandated, I believe
in Congress, about 2001 or something. Does that
sound right, or 2000? Of a five percent fin ratio.
I've experienced five and a half, or six percent, on
adult Sandbar Sharks of taking the fins off all the
four primary, main ones and the other three ones.
Which makes me five and a half percent, six percent,
six and a quarter percent. And, I've asked for
three months, you all, this is how -- this is what
really -- well, it provokes you a little bit because
you think it's -- we look at something in the
working worlds, if something's broke you try to fix
it in 'cause you got to -- you got to fix it to
continue working. I know it's a different
appearance in the government world.
But, I've asked a question is; where
did this five percent come from? Where -- how do I
clean my shark to stay within the five percent
requirement? Because we've experienced some things
with enforcement where it's -- it's -- it's kind of
like a zero tolerance thing. We're -- we're --
we're seeing or something. And, it's -- some of us
asking the questions, well, how is this it? I've
asked for three months. And, I still haven't got an
answer form you.
I sent a paper in the other day. If
Congress passed a law of five percent, I would hope
you all would have the information to show where it
come from. And, it don't take three months to dig
up in files.
I probably got a lot more to say, and
I'll leave it at that. But, -- but before you all -
- before you all look at these time and area
closures, go back and clean up the -- the, you know,
you got the dealer stuff, like I say from Virginia
to Maine reporting sharks. Well, who decides what's
caught? I look at the small coastals; guys that are
gillnet fishing, guys that are doing this today and
nothing hard. You know once the dealer reports what
it's, hell, he can sell it whatever he wants to, you
know? That -- that's beside the point.
But you all know about this problem
and you all say you're doing something. I get the
air, you're doing something. But I just don't see
it on paper. And if you cleaned the data up, just
like was done at the workshop though the assessment,
on different things. Where we sat through like the
-- the -- the bycatch of the Menhaden industry got
cleaned up. For, you know, different things like
this. May be it would show it in other things and
you wouldn't -- we could manage these sharks a
little bit better. But -- but the quit -- and --
and I asked that National Marine Fishery, please
take this shark observer program in-house, where
something different than the path that has been
taken since 1999. Because it has lost all
credibility with me in -- in the process of who it's
currently housed under. Because the work ethic
there is from a fisherman's point of view,
commercial, it's pathetic. The work ethic. Thank
you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Thank
you Dewey. Shawn Dick. And, we'll get back to you
Nelson. And, just for completeness, did Colby go?
Did you intend to speak at all?
COLBY DOLAN: (No Microphone,
Inaudible.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Yeah,
okay.
SHAWN DICK: (No Microphone,
Inaudible.)
KARYL BREWSTER-GEISZ: Can you turn
on the mic please.
SHAWN DICK: Thank you Chief Rogers,
Mr. Dunnigan, HMSAP. I spoke with Dewey last night.
I understand a little bit of his frustrations. I've
been involved in the HMS Shark Plan for probably
since the late '80s. I was involved with Jose'
Castro, and Paul Leach, and I think, and Doctor
Hughter. And, I go back quite a ways. And, I've
seen this FMP grow quite a bit.
And, I think that it's been a difficult fishery
to manage because of its highly migratory nature of
the species. And because we didn't have as much
understanding about the fishery as we needed to
have. But, I have seen some incredible
accomplishments and some really good things that
have happened throughout the years. And this is
accomplished because a lot of the hard work of the
AP. And it's been a result of a little bit of
differences on the panel, but there's differences of
like spawn some solutions that have really helped
the fisheries.
There's some issues that I'd like to
address. And, I'm going to do it quickly because I
know it's been a really long day here.
As far as Mexico goes, I was working with Doc -
- Doctor Mark Teenhall, at the IATTC, and if the
fishery management regime there has changed
recently, this may not be true. But as of about a
month ago, Mexico mandated some of our mitigation
measures from the NED in their shark fishery. And
so, I did see some sort of bending by Mexico.
Now, that could have changed in the
last couple of weeks. But, we're actively working
with about 13 different countries to employ some of
the successful mitigation measures from the NED;
such as, avoiding hot spots by vessel to vessel
communication, by soak times, haul times, gangent
links, dehooking devices.
So, there's been a lot that's been
done recently, and I think it's bee due to a
cooperative effort. And, I've really seen NOAA
fisheries and the commercial industry, the
recreational industry, I've worked with IGFA, I've
worked with RFA. I've seen a lot of people here
recently really concerned about their fishery, and
really concerned about how they manage their own
fishery.
What I think the problem is, when we
are working with highly migratory species is that,
no matter what we do, if we don't get international
compliance, the same -- everything that we do is
going to just swim out of the waters, like the
gentleman from the Caribbean said, and it's going to
be caught by somebody else.
And I understand what Dewey is saying
here. He's very frustrated over this time area
closure. I think that Rusty may have a solution to
that, if we could work with it. I know it's a
preferred alternative. I know we're under time
constraints right now, but there may be a way to,
you know, compromise on that time area closure.
Which I think is one of the largest grievances that
I've heard from industry in the last couple of
months.
Second, they seem to be totally
dissatisfied with their observer program. I don't
have the details on it, but, you know, that's
something again, I think that may be we could work a
little harder to correct and get that credibility
going again.
And, the same thing that happened
when I was working with a hammer and the net, there
was, you know, not a whole lot of credibility.
They're afraid their fishery is going to shut down.
They are afraid they couldn't bring their, you know,
food home to feed their families. But, you know,
the cooperative effort between NOAA fisheries, the
NGOs, the researchers, it's really made a big
difference. And -- and I've seen them turn the
fishery around. I think they can turn the shark
fishery around the same way. I think that we're
going to, you know, have some, you know, people that
are not totally satisfied with it. And
understandably so.
But, I just want to leave this AP
with saying that, I -- I've noticed this thing over
a long period of time and it's really taken some
really positive steps for it. I want to compliment
the AP. I think that's what the Secretary of
Commerce, Evans, had intended for this group. Is to
get together and to solve these problems. And to
look at these issues.
We've got a much larger problem on
our hands and that's the international community.
We're starting to get some cooperation because
they're starting to watch us. They're starting to
see what we're doing with our successful mitigation
measures. They're starting to -- starting to do a
little bit more than what they had been doing. But,
the only reason that they're doing this is because
we put this tremendous pressure on them from the
U.S. The U.S. has been this example.
If we don't have a fishery, and I'm
not saying that we wouldn't, but if we didn't have a
fishery like a shark fishery, we wouldn't have an
example to show the international community how to
do it correctly. And, they surly are not going to
stop fishing if we stop fishing. So, I think it's
really critical that we've got some probably, some
of the best experts and some of the best minds in
the fishery sitting right here at this table. And,
I -- I -- I was here in 2001 and I've really seen it
grow. And, I've seen a lot of good things coming
from it, from the recreational industry. I mean,
there's not much more the U.S. fisherman can do.
We're some of the most conservation minded people in
the world. I mean, we have sacrificed our fishery.
We've done every measure possible. The recreational
industry's been catching and releasing voluntarily
long before it became politically correct to do so.
The commercial industry has now kind
of boiled itself down to a -- a group of people, who
really concern themselves with the fisheries and
conservation efforts.
If we can take this with the combined
energy and clout of the NGOs and focus it
internationally, then we can really solve some of, I
think, what are the largest problems in our
fisheries and that's -- I think that would be a
really good start.
And, I just want to say I think the
AP's been doing a really good job. I think the
commercial industry's been doing a fantastic job. I
think the NGOs have been doing a fantastic job.
And, I think the recreational fisheries have been
doing a fantastic job. The resource managers and the
researchers. And that's really all I want to say
tonight. Thank you.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Coby
Dolan.
COBY DOLAN: Thank you. Chief
Rodgers and -- and the AP Panel. Thank you for
letting me speak this afternoon. My name is Coby
Dolan and I work on program council for fish
conservation with the Ocean Conservancy. I work
with Sonya Fordham, who unfortunately couldn't be
here today, and -- and I'm not going to be very
long. I'll be brief because, Merry Camhi, in
Sonya's place. I think has identified a lot of the
things that our organization is concerned about in
the -- in -- in the draft. And, I do -- I do want
to reiterate that we -- we think that everyone's
done a really good job on this and that overall it's
-- it's a -- it's a pretty good product. And -- and
we're heading in the right direction.
You know, the Magnus -- the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and the amendments that that we passed
in 1996, you know, came about because we wanted to
really make sure that what we're doing is having
sustainable fisheries, and healthy fish populations
for now and for future generations. And, that's why
we put in measure, you know, to make sure that we're
stopping overfishing. And I think that this
amendment gets us to where we need to to stop
overfishing and start rebuilding.
I -- a couple points I wanted to
touch on. I think Merry and Shanna touched on.
This -- this 70% probability, you know the
rebuilding timeframe. I -- as an initial matter, I
think, as I read Magnuson, what it requires is that
when you have -- when you determine that a -- a
species is overfished, and -- and here you got the
complex. Is you've -- and it's just the way
Magnuson is set up, is you determine whether that
stock can be rebuilt within ten years. And, the
simple answer here is, yes, it can. Zero mortality
there's a 68% chance of rebuilding within 10 years.
And so, the simple answer is, the rebuilding
timeframe has to be 10 years.
Now, what the 2002 stock assessment
said is that with a 50% catch reduction of the 2000
catch levels, which is, you know, for the most part,
you know, for purpose of -- of the point I'm trying
to make; is what this does. Because it's 40% and as
I understand from Karyl, although I don't know
exactly how we get there, the other 10% is made up
through some other measures. So, you know, with a
50% catch reduction of the 2000 catch levels,
there's a 50% chance of rebuilding within 10 years.
That's what the 2002 stock assessment said.
I'm not a scientist, so, I will take
that at face value. So, you know with what we're
doing right now, there's a 50% chance of rebuilding
within 10 years. Now, what the document says is, we
set this 27 years and it says, I think on Page 4 --
4.5 is that, you know, in 27 years there's a 64%
chance of having rebuilt by that point with these
measures. And so, when you look at 10 years at 50%
and 27 years at -- at -- at 64%, it's just a
question of, you know, which point you want to take.
Now, as I understand the application
of the 70%, you know, precautionary measure is,
you've got a species, sharks generally are obviously
are -- are a lot less productive, more long lived
than most fish stocks. And so, you want to be more
precautionary in their management. And -- and
that's how that's in there. Now, you know, if I'm
picking between 10 years at 50% and 27 years at 64%,
it's really the same thing. It's the same management
measures, just a long time line. I would take the
10% -- or the -- the 50% with 10 years.
(Tape Change.)
COBY DOLAN: -- in years that we're
getting the complex rebuilt. And so, between the
two, I think, you know, I've -- I've given some
testimony before the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, where I -- I -- I brought this point up and
I just wanted to make it again and maybe be a little
more clear.
Certainly our comments that -- that
we'll submit on Friday, our written comments will go
into that more thoroughly. But, I want to -- I just
want to drive home that point, that I think as we
read the law, the rebuilding timeframe has to be 10
years.
Another point I want to bring up is -
- is just on the bycatch. Merry mentioned the
Turtle bycatch and that this document talks about
the -- the amount of mortality specifically some --
some Turtle species like Loggerhead and -- and
Leatherback, and, you know, I -- I did some number
crunching just looking at the pages from the
biological opinion, which go into -- it's not just
the -- the mortality when they're brought up, but
the release mortality. The mortality afterwards.
And, what that -- what that talks
about is a mortality rate of 27 to 42%. And, even
if you -- you apply that -- that -- that the lowest
end of that. The 20 -- 27% mortality rate, when you
look at the last eight years in the Pelagic
longline, it lists 154, you know estimated,
Loggerhead and Leatherback Turtles dying. But if
you apply that 27% as a minimum, as a conservative
estimate, it's really 3,848, you know as a -- as an
approximation.
So, you know, I -- I think that you
really need to explore how you're addressing the
bycatch there. Because again, the bycatch
requirements of Magnuson are that -- that, you know,
first of all you -- you develop a -- a standardized
methodology for determining how much bycatch you
have. And I think you're taking some good steps
with that with VMS and observers. But also, it's
not -- I mean the first step is that you -- you
after that you're supposed to minimize bycatch.
Which means to try to avoid having these Turtles get
hooked in the first place.
And then, the second part of that is
that if you cant, you know, to the extent that you
cant minimize bycatch any further, that you minimize
the mortality. And so, that's where you get to the
27, 42% on mortality.
I think there's some measures in here
that address that. The dehooking things that --
that are going to help address that mortality after
the fact. But, I don't think that this document
clearly addresses the mortality upfront. The -- the
avoidance of -- of that. So, I'd like to see some
more on that.
Some other items, I -- I certainly I
agree that with what several people have said here
about the minimum size for commercials should be put
back in place. I also -- we have concerns about,
obviously the deep water sharks. I object to that
being removed from the management unit.
And, finally on State coordination.
I -- I think that really is important. I think some
people have, kind of, brought up the fact that we're
not doing enough working with the States. Because,
you know, certainly anything that swims in the ocean
isn't going to recognize State lines, Federal lines,
or International lines. And so, it's not just, you
know, that we have to coordinate better with the
States to make sure we're doing the right thing. We
also have to do that with the international
community.
It doesn't do us much good to reduce
our -- or to sustainably manage the sharks that we
have in -- in Federal waters and -- and also
minimize the bycatch of other species, mammals,
turtles, and other finfish. You know, but we also
have to do, and it's not that we shouldn't be doing
that just because others aren't doing it. But, we
also have to take those further steps to work harder
to coordinate with the States and coordinate
internationally to make sure we're all working on
the -- on the same page. Because there resources
are really everyone's and it's just -- it's not just
whether they're within the Federal waters or not.
So, all in there. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS:
Nelson's standing up there after Dewey was speaking.
We have about two minutes before our published
agenda comes to an adjournment.
NELSON BEIDEMAN: This is something
that keeps falling, you know, between the cracks.
What Dewey brought up as far as Virginia, and New
Jersey, and New York, the dealers. Less than 20
people involved. Everybody in the business knows
who they are. Each and every one of them certainly
know how to identify the species.
What is the problem? Is it the
paperwork? That the paperwork doesn't call for
species specific? Is it laziness? You know, what -
- what exactly is -- is that problem because, I know
all these people. You know all these people.
DEWEY HEMILRIGHT: What?
NELSON BEIDEMAN: Are we not asking
them to do the right thing?
DEWEY HEMILRIGHT: The -- the
question I asked because it was brought to me when I
was fishing. I -- I was curious of how, you know,
all of a sudden National Marine Fisheries were
something that I just didn't believe could be done.
Still don't believe how they could do, you know,
specific quotas. I just don't believe in it. Don't
believe it can be done like that. Don't have the
information. So, I started asking some questions.
I'm like how does my sharks get
counted, you know. I fill out my logbook and I'm
being told that, you know National Marine Fisheries
decide that shark seasons going to start Jan -- July
1 and going to end September 15th. That's
fascinating how they can decide that. That's beside
the point.
But then, they decided that both
Black Tips and Sandbars are going to shut down the
same time. I'm like, you know, I'm -- so I start
making some calls of people that I land my sharks
with. And, I asked them, well, how do these sharks
being recorded? And, they say, well we just take
our thing that shows that you, you know, your ticket
that where you've unloaded your sharks and we send
it right in to the port agent. Fax it in. I'm like
well, that's all we do, you know. And we been doing
this for years. It ain't just happening yesterday,
day before, last year. It's been happening for
years.
And -- and when I go looking at the
numbers at the landings and I'm trying to figure out
y'all, National Marine Fisheries is going to decide
on what species of sharks are being counted. I'm
like how the heck do they figure this out? They
don't even know. You know, it's like you sit around
a little ouija board and say, well, let's say this
is Black Tip. I'm sure you all got a little better
defined way of doing it, but that's my just little
comical comment.
But -- but this is something that
it's -- it's -- it's, you know, with a little bit of
work it could be cleaned up. It -- I don't -- you
know, it don't take no rocket scientist or -- or
just a little bit of effort. Effort that could show
something better may be in -- in what's being caught
and this size waters, or closed, or State waters, or
outside, just a little bit of effort.
And -- and I don't think this is new
to you all. You know? I -- I don't -- maybe you
had higher priorities but -- but this -- from what
I've seen, it just, you sent in the ticket, the
dealers, you know once the dealers -- this report
let the dealers sell whatever he wants to. But
just, you know, work with the fishermen, or -- or
what ever being done, or you know, maybe the port
agent ain't telling the people, hey, you -- you need
to -- I don't know. I -- I just know it ain't being
counted and there's no way that you all going to
tell the public, and the fishermen, and whatever
that we're deciding that this is Black Tips landed,
or this is Sandbars. Yeah, you might come up with a
number but it's a piece of the pie and, you know,
would be like putting a bandanna on them and hitting
a pi¤ata, hoping you're going to get the lottery or
something. I just don't see how you do it. But, I
can just -- from what data whatever it seems.
NELSON BEIDEMAN: Thank -- thank you
Dewey. It -- it just seems that, perhaps we're not
asking the question on the paperwork proper or what
have you. But if -- if we could make a note to find
out specifically from the port agents exactly what
that problem is. Because I would say that all these
people are, you know, or most all of them, are Blue
Water members. And, I know that all of them, you
know, know how to identify the sharks. It seems
like this is something that we could -- could get
straightened out. You know, pretty easy.
Second, you know, I don't think that
Shawn noticed Jack trying to tell him that as far as
he knows, Mexico -- I don't know where Shawn went,
but as -- as far as Jack knows, the Mexican measures
are still on line. You know. And what Shawn is
talking about, the technology transfer, there is
something in the order of 17 countries that are
being inquired for, you know, technology transfer,
and to -- to buy some of the mitigation tools,
equipment all being developed at the NED. And,
another, something like 30 have inquired. So you
know, that part of things is way -- way ahead of
schedule, which is, you know, a real good sign.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Okay.
Thank you Nelson. Any final thoughts or comments
for our Office Director?
DIRECTOR: (No microphone,
inaudible.)
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: Have
you enjoyed your afternoon?
DIRECTOR: Absolutely. I've learned
something.
MODERATOR CHRISTOPHER ROGERS: We
certainly appreciate you all coming here. It was a
rather quickly arranged meeting given the timeframe
we had for this room. And, we do appreciate the --
the attendance. Not only of the panel members, but
also the public. We hope that it was informative.
We've heard a lot. And, we will look
forward to renewing this discussion with Dewey and
Willie tomorrow night in Manteo. And -- and for
those that will be down in South Carolina as well,
and then we a lot of work to do in terms of
finalizing this -- this product and getting some
final rule out, and final plan amendment out before
the end of the year.
So, safe trip home. And thanks for
your input.

WHEREUPON:

THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED.

















C E R T I F I C A T E

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF NORFOLK

I, PAUL T. WALLACE, a Professional
Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify
that the foregoing transcript represents a complete,
true and accurate transcription of the audiographic
tape taken in the above entitled matter to the best
of my knowledge, skill and ability.
In witness whereof, I have set my hand
and Notary Seal this 17th, day of December, 2003.


______________________________
PAUL T. WALLACE. Notary Public
My Commission Expires
October 3, 2008

THIS FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF
THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION
OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT
CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.