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