Oct 11, San Jose FGC Meeting - Groundfish Petition

Please wear your PFD to this meeting to show your support.  We have 95 people signed up to attend this California Fish and Game Commission meeting.
Many of us will be taking a vacation day to express our concerns.

For additional details, visit the website: https://paul95255.wixsite.com/non-motorized-vessel

For support, complete this survey: https://forms.office.com/r/g2eDqsrW8R

Paul

Hi Paul -  Can we attend via Zoom on this meeting?

Thanks,

Mel

Hi Paul -  Can we attend via Zoom on this meeting?

Thanks,

Mel

Yes, you can, and I will post the link later.

However, I recommend people to attend in person to show our number and seriousness.

Paul

We have 97 people signed up for the Oct. 11 FGC meeting.
Hopefully, we make over 100 attendees.

They have adequate onsite parking spaces.  Arrive by 8:00 AM wearing your PFD.

If you cannot join: The meeting will be live streamed; visit http://www.fgc.ca.gov/ the day of the meeting to watch or listen. To provide public comment during the meeting, please join at an in-person location, via Zoom, or by telephone; you may join the webinar directly at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81722552033 For complete instructions on how to join via Zoom or telephone, click here https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=215026&inline or visit fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2023

Paul

The petition will be received under agenda item 25A "REGULATION CHANGE PETITIONS (MARINE)" which will probably be on day two, October 12. You can still comment during agenda item 2 "General public comment for items not on the agenda" on day one but they will probably get pissed off and tell speakers to simply +1 what a prior speaker said instead of soap boxing for the full minute since it will add two hours to the meeting otherwise.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=216474&inline

The petition will be received under agenda item 25A "REGULATION CHANGE PETITIONS (MARINE)" which will probably be on day two, October 12. You can still comment during agenda item 2 "General public comment for items not on the agenda" on day one but they will probably get pissed off and tell speakers to simply +1 what a prior speaker said instead of soap boxing for the full minute since it will add two hours to the meeting otherwise.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=216474&inline

Good points, Rick.

Not all of us plan to speak.  Since most of us can't make to the  San Diego FGC meeting, we are just making some of the comments earlier and showing our seriousness.
Our petition number is 2023-11, and the schedule is attached.

We have dedicated primary speakers: (2 from F&S members, 1 or 2 from NCKA members, 1  from impacted business owners): each speaker is allowed 1-3 minutes to speak.  We are going to cede some additional people's time to allow them up to 5 minutes of speaking time per the following instructions.

o   The presiding commissioner may allow up to five minutes to an individual speaker if a minimum of three individuals who are present when the agenda item is called have ceded their time to the designated spokesperson, and the individuals ceding time forfeit their right to speak to the agenda item.
o   If you decide to speak at a Commission or committee meeting, please begin by giving your name and affiliation (if any) and the number of people represented by your organization (if applicable). Then tell the Commission your concerns in the time allotted by the presiding officer – usually two to three minutes. Time allotted for each agenda item depends upon the number of speakers and length of the agenda. The Commission is interested in your views; don't worry about how to say them. If several people have spoken, try not to be repetitious. If there are several speakers with the same concerns, please appoint a spokesperson. The Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons you support or oppose a proposal.

Since this will be my first time attending the meeting, please let me know if you have any additional suggestions.

Paul

Paul, I have one suggestion for those attending in person. If you have a knife or pliers attached to your PFD (or otherwise on your person), you should probably stow it in your trunk before entering the meeting, or better yet, leave it at home. I don't know about the San Jose venue but I have seen TSA-style security in many state and local government buildings. Basically, treat it as if you are going to the airport to catch a flight.

Paul, I have one suggestion for those attending in person. If you have a knife or pliers attached to your PFD (or otherwise on your person), you should probably stow it in your trunk before entering the meeting, or better yet, leave it at home. I don't know about the San Jose venue but I have seen TSA-style security in many state and local government buildings. Basically, treat it as if you are going to the airport to catch a flight.

Thank you for your suggestion.  My original idea was to carry a fishing pole, but we thought it could be considered a potential weapon and changed it to PFD per MooMoo's suggestion.  I did remind people to remove knives from their PFD on my update to people who signed up on Survey.

Paul

We have 97 people signed up for the Oct. 11 FGC meeting.
Hopefully, we make over 100 attendees.

They have adequate onsite parking spaces.  Arrive by 8:00 AM wearing your PFD.

If you cannot join: The meeting will be live streamed; visit http://www.fgc.ca.gov/ the day of the meeting to watch or listen. To provide public comment during the meeting, please join at an in-person location, via Zoom, or by telephone; you may join the webinar directly at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81722552033 For complete instructions on how to join via Zoom or telephone, click here https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=215026&inline or visit fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2023

Paul

I will be attending using Zoom. Thanks for the hard work you all put into this.

Great job Joe!

Only caught some of the general comment before work. Mark L did a great job speaking and made a compelling comment. The Fresh and Salty folks just kind of bumbled around for two minutes and didn’t really get their points across clearly.

atleast they showed up

Only caught some of the general comment before work. Mark L did a great job speaking and made a compelling comment. The Fresh and Salty folks just kind of bumbled around for two minutes and didn’t really get their points across clearly.

Thanks for the comment, I thought the others did great, and I was the bumbling one. At the previous meeting in Fortuna they allowed 3 minutes for speaking. This time it was two minutes but others could concede their time. But donated time was only 1 minute. I prepared a 3:45 minute statement, and had to speed read it in 3 so I was kinda flustered. Overall we were very well received, and they gave us a lot of feedback which others can share, or I will later today. 

I thought Mark did great with calm cadence. I'm not sure how I sounded but felt rushed trying to get my 10 points in. I will follow up with email to the appropriate people to try to get a response to my points. It sounds like they might bring back the 20 Fathom line for 2024 but no promises. 2023 sounds like it's toast since the QB quota was supposedly exceeded so badly. I would be okay with 20 fathoms but would prefer 25, which would essentially be unrestricted for me.
I think about 15? kayakers showed up. Should have been more, but we were the dominant group, so got their attention.

Here is a copy of my speech:

Good morning members of the Commission. My name is Joseph Huettl. I have been a resident of Northern California for sixty years and have been fishing the area since I was ten.  I am a kayak angler and a member of NCKA as well as Fresh n Salty Kayak Fishing. More than any other form of kayak fishing, fishing for inshore rockfish and lingcod can be a real soul-enriching experience. Launching from a quiet cove through small swell surrounded by waves crashing on rocks, dropping a lure or bait down to the unknown and getting those tugs indicating a mystery fish on the other end is rewarding and magical. That unique encounter is almost always rewarded with a catch to bring home and share as an extension of that experience.

I firmly believe that the complete closure of inshore rockfish as a response to protect the Quillback is misguided and based on faulty assumptions. The following 10 points address some of these assumptions and strategies.
1.   There are around 90 species of rockfish with a wide range of relative abundance. Some species are naturally more scarce than others. By eliminating take of all rockfish and lingcod, Quillback are more subject to interspecific competition from similar species as well as predation from lingcod. Having selective closures, sub-limits has worked for recovery of other species.

2.   The largest harvest and impact to Quillback populations occurred during the 1990s. Take since then has been minor. Closing down the entire rockfish season is not going to magically rebalance the ratios.

3.   Since the Groundfish emergency of 2000, no-take MPAs have been established, protecting 20%-30% of Quillback habitat. So Quillbacks are already protected from extinction. MPAs and their protected populations are not factored into the assessment of populations or conservation strategy. We as fisherman have already given up access to those areas.

4.   After the Quillback take was reduced to 0, according to survey data, take continued to exceed quotas. I believe this is based on assumed release mortality rather than fish retained. Assumed release mortality is flawed.  With the use of fish descenders at depth less than 150’ release mortality is greatly reduced to 30% or less.

5.   Greatest Quillback densities are at depths between 20 and 40 fathoms. So opening up fishing to 20 or 25 fathoms would have minimal impact on population, especially if descenders are required.

6.   MPAs protect 852 sq miles of habitat. Kayak fishermen have only about 20 to 25 put-ins along the entire California coast, with a range of only 1.5 to 3 miles from those put-ins, which adds up to about 100 to 350 square miles, much of which is not Quillback habitat or already protected by MPAS.

7.   Studies in Oregon and Washington have shown the effectiveness of descending devices when used at depths less than 150’.  California has missed a conservation opportunity by not requiring descenders while fishing for rockfish.

8.   The Fish and Game Commission and DFW point their finger at the Pacific Fisheries Management Council but the Council gets its data from DFW and the Fish and Game Commission’s responsibility is to create rules and strategies.

9.   The closure of inshore rockfish leads to increased fishing pressure on halibut and other species.

10.   The economic fallout to coastal communities is significant. Campgrounds, boat and kayak rentals, launch facilities, local general stores and restaurants are all affected by the closure.

Allow me to play devil's advocate if you will.  Some of the questions are in the spirit of learning

I thought Mark did great with calm cadence. I'm not sure how I sounded but felt rushed trying to get my 10 points in. I will follow up with email to the appropriate people to try to get a response to my points. It sounds like they might bring back the 20 Fathom line for 2024 but no promises. 2023 sounds like it's toast since the QB quota was supposedly exceeded so badly. I would be okay with 20 fathoms but would prefer 25, which would essentially be unrestricted for me.
I think about 15? kayakers showed up. Should have been more, but we were the dominant group, so got their attention.

Here is a copy of my speech:

Good morning members of the Commission. My name is Joseph Huettl. I have been a resident of Northern California for sixty years and have been fishing the area since I was ten.  I am a kayak angler and a member of NCKA as well as Fresh n Salty Kayak Fishing. More than any other form of kayak fishing, fishing for inshore rockfish and lingcod can be a real soul-enriching experience. Launching from a quiet cove through small swell surrounded by waves crashing on rocks, dropping a lure or bait down to the unknown and getting those tugs indicating a mystery fish on the other end is rewarding and magical. That unique encounter is almost always rewarded with a catch to bring home and share as an extension of that experience.

I firmly believe that the complete closure of inshore rockfish as a response to protect the Quillback is misguided and based on faulty assumptions. The following 10 points address some of these assumptions and strategies.

1.   There are around 90 species of rockfish with a wide range of relative abundance. Some species are naturally more scarce than others. By eliminating take of all rockfish and lingcod, Quillback are more subject to interspecific competition from similar species as well as predation from lingcod. Having selective closures, sub-limits has worked for recovery of other species.

Selective closures and sublimits were in fact done this year, and still the quota was met.  Now what?

2.   The largest harvest and impact to Quillback populations occurred during the 1990s. Take since then has been minor. Closing down the entire rockfish season is not going to magically rebalance the ratios.

That's already factored in.  Current populations are a result in part due to the take in the 90's.

3.   Since the Groundfish emergency of 2000, no-take MPAs have been established, protecting 20%-30% of Quillback habitat. So Quillbacks are already protected from extinction. MPAs and their protected populations are not factored into the assessment of populations or conservation strategy. We as fisherman have already given up access to those areas.

Fisheries management is not equipped to take into account biomass in closed MPA's.  I posed this question multiples times to staff and to anyone that would listen.  This is a great point.

4.   After the Quillback take was reduced to 0, according to survey data, take continued to exceed quotas. I believe this is based on assumed release mortality rather than fish retained. Assumed release mortality is flawed.  With the use of fish descenders at depth less than 150’ release mortality is greatly reduced to 30% or less.

What is the mortality used in the model?  Reference for 30% release mortality?  BTW, 30% mortality is still significant IMO.

5.   Greatest Quillback densities are at depths between 20 and 40 fathoms. So opening up fishing to 20 or 25 fathoms would have minimal impact on population, especially if descenders are required.

Reference on depth densities?

6.   MPAs protect 852 sq miles of habitat. Kayak fishermen have only about 20 to 25 put-ins along the entire California coast, with a range of only 1.5 to 3 miles from those put-ins, which adds up to about 100 to 350 square miles, much of which is not Quillback habitat or already protected by MPAS.

Reference?

BTW, there are much more than 20-25 putins along the entire CA coast.

7.   Studies in Oregon and Washington have shown the effectiveness of descending devices when used at depths less than 150’.  California has missed a conservation opportunity by not requiring descenders while fishing for rockfish.

Reference for studies?

Agree that descending devices should be required.  Why is this being piggy backed on kayak specific regulations.  This should stand on its own.

8.   The Fish and Game Commission and DFW point their finger at the Pacific Fisheries Management Council but the Council gets its data from DFW and the Fish and Game Commission’s responsibility is to create rules and strategies.

Not sure I understand the point.

9.   The closure of inshore rockfish leads to increased fishing pressure on halibut and other species.

Reference for studies?  And why is that a problem if halibut and other species also managed?

10.   The economic fallout to coastal communities is significant. Campgrounds, boat and kayak rentals, launch facilities, local general stores and restaurants are all affected by the closure.

Reference for studies?  I do not disagree.  I remember one MLPA meetin when someone presented that the economic impact was only xyz%. I countered that those numbers fit the definition of a recession.

-Allen