Oct 11, San Jose FGC Meeting - Groundfish Petition

It was worrisome that immediately after your comments they stated that PFMC was really the driver for studies and legislation but at least at the end they were able to circle back on that, stating they can possibly include kayak anglers requests/representatives when they discuss the future rules with the PFMC. 

lots of great info from that meeting, thank you all so much and happy it was successful in getting us in the spotlight of the council.

Also two members stated they were themselves kayak/sailors/fisherpeoples which can't hurt.

Wait a second.  You guys were expecting ~100 kayakers to show up and only ~15 did.  What does that tell you?

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as overly critical, but other than descending devices, I'm struggling to understand what your points are.  Help me understand.  If I (and others) are struggling, imagine what the FGC is doing?

-Allen

Wait a second.  You guys were expecting ~100 kayakers to show up and only ~15 did.  What does that tell you?

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as overly critical, but other than descending devices, I'm struggling to understand what your points are.  Help me understand.  If I (and others) are struggling, imagine what the FGC is doing?

-Allen

There were quite a few more kayakers on Zoom.

We were the strongest presence there and seemed to make a big impression. Follow up is critical, of course.

My points were probably overly succinct in order to try to fit them into 4 minutes. They were based on the Quillback report and other sources but were simplified/generalized.
A few of my points may be challenged and possibly refutable, but I think most are valid. It's not clear to me, but it seemed like they were counting releases as 100% mortality, since retention is illegal.

The main point is, which they seem to agree with, is that a complete closure of inshore groundfish was an overly broad tool to address the Quillback numbers, and a more nuanced approach (could be the return of the 20 fathom limit) would have less effect on fishermen and coastal economies. So in the end there might not be kayak-specific rules, but I think we are at least avoiding a shut down for 2024.

I don't think there are more than 30 reasonable put-ins along the entire coast, although I don't know SoCal that well, so that could throw me off. I hope to overlay the Quillback habitat map with reasonable kayak range areas from put-ins. My guess is that we access a small fraction of the habitat.

Wait a second.  You guys were expecting ~100 kayakers to show up and only ~15 did.  What does that tell you?

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as overly critical, but other than descending devices, I'm struggling to understand what your points are.  Help me understand.  If I (and others) are struggling, imagine what the FGC is doing?

-Allen

There were quite a few more kayakers on Zoom.

We were the strongest presence there and seemed to make a big impression. Follow up is critical, of course.

My points were probably overly succinct in order to try to fit them into 4 minutes. They were based on the Quillback report and other sources but were simplified/generalized.
A few of my points may be challenged and possibly refutable, but I think most are valid. It's not clear to me, but it seemed like they were counting releases as 100% mortality, since retention is illegal.

The main point is, which they seem to agree with, is that a complete closure of inshore groundfish was an overly broad tool to address the Quillback numbers, and a more nuanced approach (could be the return of the 20 fathom limit) would have less effect on fishermen and coastal economies. So in the end there might not be kayak-specific rules, but I think we are at least avoiding a shut down for 2024.

I don't think there are more than 30 reasonable put-ins along the entire coast, although I don't know SoCal that well, so that could throw me off. I hope to overlay the Quillback habitat map with reasonable kayak range areas from put-ins. My guess is that we access a small fraction of the habitat.

What Quillback report?  I tried to validate a number of your assertions, and honestly I'm pretty good at research, and couldn't do so in a reasonable amount of search time.  For instance, I found the following in seconds, but couldn't easily find many of your assertions.

Release mortality is 100% at depths greater than 30 fm, per a PFMC referenced doc, https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2021/12/status-of-quillback-rockfish-sebastes-maliger-in-u-s-waters-off-the-coast-of-california-in-2021-using-catch-and-length-data-december-2021.pdf/

Completely closure?  That's a mischaracterization.  It was an in season closure.

Knowing that Quillback are at 12% of virgin levels, how do you propose we maintain other fisheries while minimize the impact on Quillback.  Severe restrictions are warranted, for everyone, kayakers aren't special in this regard.

-Allen

Completely closure?  That's a mischaracterization.  It was an in season closure.

Knowing that Quillback are at 12% of virgin levels, how do you propose we maintain other fisheries while minimize the impact on Quillback.  Severe restrictions are warranted, for everyone, kayakers aren't special in this regard.

-Allen
[/quote]

We are not asking to be treated special we just want to be included. Power boaters started well before we could, and shortly after near shore opened it closed, and power boaters continue to fish. We just want to have an equal opportunity. Requesting a no take of threatened species, and the mandatory use of descenders seems like a reasonable solution.

One of the commissioners asked Director Bonham why the other states require descenders, and he punted to one of their scientists. He basically said it’s to hard to enforce but that they look into it. Director Bonham came out and spoke with us for a few minutes after we left, and one of the staff members spoke with us about the next steps for about 15 minutes. I felt really good about our efforts, and thought the commissioners were interested in what we had to say. The meeting video will be posted soon, and I encourage people to listen to the responses we received.

Here is a link to the 2021 Quillback report:

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2021/12/status-of-quillback-rockfish-sebastes-maliger-in-u-s-waters-off-the-coast-of-california-in-2021-using-catch-and-length-data-december-2021.pdf/

"The input catches in the model represent total removals, which equal landings plus discards".
I need clarification on this, but it sounds like they are counting discards as removals. If retention is not allowed, as it was later in the season, and "take" was still happening, then are they counting all reported discards as take?

We are not asking to be treated special we just want to be included. Power boaters started well before we could, and shortly after near shore opened it closed, and power boaters continue to fish. We just want to have an equal opportunity. Requesting a no take of threatened species, and the mandatory use of descenders seems like a reasonable solution.

“In summary, the petition requires the use of descending devices and non-motorized vessel exceptions to the 50-fathom depth restriction.“

Asking for exceptions sure seems like you’re asking to be treated special.  Seems like mincing words to me.

Why don’t we allow all boats to fish with no take of threatened species, and the mandatory use of fish descenders?  If power boaters do this, should they be exempt too?  Why not?

Your pitch really isn’t resonating with me, as much as I’d like it to.  Other than the fish descenders part, which I 100% support.  But that’s an unrelated point IMO, in that it stands on its own.

-Allen

Here is a link to the 2021 Quillback report:

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2021/12/status-of-quillback-rockfish-sebastes-maliger-in-u-s-waters-off-the-coast-of-california-in-2021-using-catch-and-length-data-december-2021.pdf/

"The input catches in the model represent total removals, which equal landings plus discards".
I need clarification on this, but it sounds like they are counting discards as removals. If retention is not allowed, as it was later in the season, and "take" was still happening, then are they counting all reported discards as take?

Same report I linked to.

The line you quote is in the commercial fisheries section.  Discards in that context are bycatch mortalities.

-Allen

interesting response from the commission with regards to descenders.

A chair asked herself why descenders weren't required in cal when they are in others states along the PNW and another guy answered something about it not being enforceable? He said they could somewhat enforce boats to carry them but could not enforce their use, He did state that most good intentioned fisher peoples would definately use their devises but something about the difficulty to enforce use was the reason. Doesnt really make sense, maybe from a ticketing perspective but im sure enforcing every boat to carry one would be good enough. Similar to an 18" net for undersized fish, you cant enforce its use but you can at least make sure people have it.

interesting response from the commission with regards to descenders.

A chair asked herself why descenders weren't required in cal when they are in others states along the PNW and another guy answered something about it not being enforceable? He said they could somewhat enforce boats to carry them but could not enforce their use, He did state that most good intentioned fisher peoples would definately use their devises but something about the difficulty to enforce use was the reason. Doesnt really make sense, maybe from a ticketing perspective but im sure enforcing every boat to carry one would be good enough. Similar to an 18" net for undersized fish, you cant enforce its use but you can at least make sure people have it.

I think the rule should be to use descenders, even if difficult to enforce. Without requiring the use, someone could openly not use it while carrying it on board and not be subject to any action.

I finally did a rough overlay of kayak put ins with about a 3 mile radius on the Quillback/Copper habitat map. I underestimated our potential reach. There are some areas like the Lost Coast and Big Sur where we have very little reach but other areas we can cover a signifiant portion of near-shore habitat. And there are probably several put-ins I'm missing, but also several put-ins see very limited use or have a small effective range.

interesting response from the commission with regards to descenders.

A chair asked herself why descenders weren't required in cal when they are in others states along the PNW and another guy answered something about it not being enforceable? He said they could somewhat enforce boats to carry them but could not enforce their use, He did state that most good intentioned fisher peoples would definately use their devises but something about the difficulty to enforce use was the reason. Doesnt really make sense, maybe from a ticketing perspective but im sure enforcing every boat to carry one would be good enough. Similar to an 18" net for undersized fish, you cant enforce its use but you can at least make sure people have it.

I think the rule should be to use descenders, even if difficult to enforce. Without requiring the use, someone could openly not use it while carrying it on board and not be subject to any action.

I don't think enforcement should be the issue.  Just having it on the books as a regulation will increase usage substantially.  Charter boats will do so, as they have more to lose not following the regs.  Fishermen will do it as any floater behind the boat will draw unwanted attention.

-Allen

I finally did a rough overlay of kayak put ins with about a 3 mile radius on the Quillback/Copper habitat map. I underestimated our potential reach. There are some areas like the Lost Coast and Big Sur where we have very little reach but other areas we can cover a signifiant portion of near-shore habitat. And there are probably several put-ins I'm missing, but also several put-ins see very limited use or have a small effective range.

Good stuff, although quite a few launches were missed.

-Allen

I finally did a rough overlay of kayak put ins with about a 3 mile radius on the Quillback/Copper habitat map. I underestimated our potential reach. There are some areas like the Lost Coast and Big Sur where we have very little reach but other areas we can cover a signifiant portion of near-shore habitat. And there are probably several put-ins I'm missing, but also several put-ins see very limited use or have a small effective range.

Good stuff, although quite a few launches were missed.

-Allen

Give us a list of your secret spots...

I finally did a rough overlay of kayak put ins with about a 3 mile radius on the Quillback/Copper habitat map. I underestimated our potential reach. There are some areas like the Lost Coast and Big Sur where we have very little reach but other areas we can cover a signifiant portion of near-shore habitat. And there are probably several put-ins I'm missing, but also several put-ins see very limited use or have a small effective range.

Good stuff, although quite a few launches were missed.

-Allen

Give us a list of your secret spots...

They are not secrets, pretty much all are referenced at some point or another on this site, but I also don't want to broadcast many/any of them.

One pitfall I've heard from DFW personnel, along the lines of the enforcement comment, is that it is hard to collect data on kayak anglers, as they don't send survey takers to all these spots, whereas for boaters, they just go to the local harbors.  Another angle for you guys to be aware of.

-Allen