RAAC Recommends Increase in Abalone Card Fee's

Today at the Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee (RAAC) telephone conference the committee members motioned and seconded that the annual recreational abalone card fee's be increased to $30 dollars. The recommendation will go to the Director of the Fish and Game Department.

Other issues discussed were, an enforcement report, the die off event of 2011 along the Sonoma Coast and the biology of that event, densities levels of the abalone populations, the regulation changes for abalone, abalone report card return compliance, and your thoughts (constituency input) on how compliance with return cards could be best achieved was sought in light of the new ALDS system.   

Thanks for the info RED.

Thanks for the information.  I'm not opposed to that, but could you tell me the justification for the recommended fee hike?

Along these these lines, I'd like to suggest that part of our funds should go to an independent evaluation of how the fishery is regulated.  This is particularly important with regards to how the status of the fishery is determined.  Many folks, including myself, are skeptical about how, presently, abalone abundance is determined.  My understanding of "Index Reaches" is that they are not statistically robust and therefore not a suitable tool to inform all of us about state of the fishery - and to make fishery regulations.

I think most abalone divers want the resource managed responsibly - and are willing to pay for it.  I don't think it is unreasonable to take some of our funds and contract independent fishery and statistical experts  to evaluate the science as it is presently being conducted.  Personally, I'm going to start insisting publicly that this be done.

Sincerely,

Dave

Yes to everything dave said with emphasis on independent population studies. 

As far as this vvvvvv goes...

your thoughts (constituency input) on how compliance with return cards could be best achieved was sought in light of the new ALDS system.

We're all electronic now, bar coded ab cards, you don't turn one in you don't get one next year.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I really wish they would figure out a better tagging system, filling out all that stuff right there on the beach sucks. If they are gonna charge us more, which I don't mind, they should make the tags more user friendly, at the very least have holes already punched in them. I don't know how, off the top of my head right now, but there has to be a better tagging system than this.

I'm a little worried about how they determine the status of Ab fishery also.  My understanding is they have 8 sites  to take data from and only really do 3 sites a year.   $30 a year for a  Ab card is too much when we voted in  $12. 

Today at the Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee (RAAC) telephone conference the committee members motioned and seconded that the annual recreational abalone card fee's be increased to $30 dollars. The recommendation will go to the Director of the Fish and Game Department.

What's the basis for the increase?

Thanks for the information.  I'm not opposed to that, but could you tell me the justification for the recommended fee hike?

Along these these lines, I'd like to suggest that part of our funds should go to an independent evaluation of how the fishery is regulated.  This is particularly important with regards to how the status of the fishery is determined.  Many folks, including myself, are skeptical about how, presently, abalone abundance is determined.  My understanding of "Index Reaches" is that they are not statistically robust and therefore not a suitable tool to inform all of us about state of the fishery - and to make fishery regulations.

I think most abalone divers want the resource managed responsibly - and are willing to pay for it.  I don't think it is unreasonable to take some of our funds and contract independent fishery and statistical experts  to evaluate the science as it is presently being conducted.  Personally, I'm going to start insisting publicly that this be done.

Sincerely,

Dave

Ab population surveys have always bothered me,  I haven't done allot of diving in recent years but just in a logical comparison of what I've seen in the easily accessable places I do dive to the whole of the mostly unharvested sonoma and mendocino coastlines tells me the ab population is very healthy.  Of course that's not a data-based conclusion just a gut reaction. 

I'd love to see some independent data.

Thanks guys your comments were precisely what I was looking for or better stated: what I thought would be the response of the constituency participants would be and with the appropriate questions.

Dave and all etc., to answer your question(s), the driver for the RAAC to make the recommendation to increase the card fee was the revenue over the past several years from the card sales is dramatically down, so stated the "CPA" member of the RAAC.  Since the implication of the Sonoma coast MPA's, increases in fuel cost, lessor economy and so forth were attributed as to the reason why in general.  But after a review of the RAAC spread sheet, I am not so sure that statement holds a lot of water, yes there is some decrease and ~ 100K + differences is a issue when the RAAC's Operating budget is around $700K per year. 

The discussion entailed somewhat more on how the new money generated would be spent. I, emphasizing into the discussion, if the fee's were to be increased to thirty dollars, the constituency would want the money to go for better science and data collection for all the obvious reasons that all of us who actually participate in the fishery know. The decisions to recommend reductions or not is primary based upon densities levels of abalone at the eight index sites. The use of index site is yet another issue, not perhaps favored for abalone management which I support, no index sites. 

The new regulations changes for the 2012 abalone season and beyond for now that did not reduce the over all annual take was a close call! Walking away from that October Commission meeting with Ft. Ross only seeing a two month reduction was a huge step in the right direction to capitalize on site specific management of the abalone fishery for now and into tomorrow. But I'll caution here, we will still have to fight to keep site specific management in play as time goes along and sooner than you might think.   

Dave and all, you are always welcome in my book when it comes to these type of meetings that just took place with RAAC.  Dr. Lin also participated too. It's not the "States" position per say; we know which is protection, protection, protection, right to the point of suggesting data that indeed supports over precautionary idealism and the agenda's that goes along with it, now don't we! I see and there may be an issue with the civilian members of the RAAC.  And that issue may be the civilian RAAC members are not getting the message perhaps, or they are not willing to listen to what really entails accountable data and science that can stand the peer reviewed process that is of concern for the general constituency and there representation at the DFG level on abalone matters. 

Just to be clear to the readers of NCKA I am not a seated member of the RAAC; which is a DFG process. I am seated member of a F&GC Commission process for all recreational fishing endeavors. Two entirely differently entity's whom can make recommendations. The RAAC recommends to the Dir. of F&G and Fishing Taucher Committee members recommend to the two Commissioner Chairs of the Taucher Committee.

For the last six years I have shadowed the RAAC meetings and in every case when the RAAC members voted for allocations for funding recommendations, the RAAC recommended voted to increases such fundings for enforcement, none for better science and data collection. And in fact, time and time again I have heard one of the RAAC members say: "when we started this (meaning back in 1997 and SB 463 also known as the ARMP) it was for gun's and badges, guns and badges. Now don't get me wrong we need a good enforcement and the enforcement is well funded today from our stamp/card monies to the tune of an extra $175K per year, of which only $37K has been spent. This is perhaps okay and needed assured. To do the science and management of the recreational abalone business $261K allotted and of which only 81K has been spent. The total invertebrate management allotted was $673K and the total spent to date is $298K. I know the the prior Governors executive order to not spend money explains why the allotted $673K was not spent.     

The RAAC's recommendation to the dir. of the DFG to increase the fee's for abalone cards I suspect will be received in favor by the director of the DFG. No surprise there right. What maybe scarey is the RAAC member's indicated that would seek State assemblymen Huffman to sponsor the bill.

So if this increase in abalone card fee's get's more traction and it just may, now is the time to make it crystal clear what you want your money to be spent for! Guns and Badges or Science. If you do not voice your desires I believe it will be business as usual with your abalone card money, the RAAC and the DFG and their agenda of over precautionary idealism that translated to, if for no reason at all just reduce in the name of protection.               

                  Annual Allotment         $673,519
Abalone Report Card Sales            Abalone Fund Balance               
2011 - Report Card/tag Sales 30,487 @ $19.25 = $586,875 as of 9/30/2011            2011/12   $897,000   estimated         
2010 - Report Card/tag Sales 34,211 @ $19.00 = $650,009 as of 2/28/2011            2010/11   $914,000            
2009 - Report Card/tag Sales 38,530 @ $18.75 = $723,188             2009/10   $837,000            
2008 - Report Card/tag Sales 37,408 @ $17.75 = $663,992            2008/09   $887,000            
2007 - Report Card Sales 39,719 @ $17.00 = $675,223             2007/08   $1,029,000            
2006 - Report Card Sales 37,362 @ $16.00 = $597,792              2006/07   $1,028,363            
2005 - Report Card Sales - 35,110 @ $15.25 = $535,428            2005/06   $999,574            
2004 - Report Card Sales - 36,421 @ $15  = $546,315            2004/05   $1,057,955   
2003 - Report Card Sales - 36,769 @ $12  = $441,228            2003/04   $985,601   
2002 - Report Card Sales - 35,857 @ $12  = $430,284            2002/03   $624,651   
2001 - Report Card Sales - 40,857 @ $12  = $490,284            2001/02   $815,232   
2000 - Report Card Sales - 39,277 @ $12  = $471,324            2000/01   $792,524   
1999 - Stamp Sales - 39,965 @ $12  = $479,580            1999/00   $788,432   
1998 - Stamp Sales - 35,507 @ $12  = $426,084            1998/99   $583,332   
 

Thanks for the info so far, now how about telling us a little more about yourself, you mentioned a position that seems a little vague to me.

Thanks for the reply Red.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but are you telling me we've been paying up to a million dollars annually for abalone fishery management - and all we get is high school level science?  I feel like that should be on a tee-shirt or something.

Sincerely,

Dave

Dave, not to worry about being called on the spot but and I am not an fishery biologist but the ARMP policy and it's provisions are more liken to abalone biology and fishery management 101 rather than graduate fishery management. My back ground is power generation management and the ancillary disciplines for support of power generations. I find the science strangely the same. So yes Dave it does appear so, high school 101 abalone management for half a mil to one mil a year.       

Thanks for the info so far, now how about telling us a little more about yourself, you mentioned a position that seems a little vague to me.

Sorry about that somewhat Dale. I know you know there is a fish and game commission. Under the commission there are two subcommittee's. The Al Taucher hunting & fishing opportunities and preservation subcommittee and the Marine Resource subcommittee. Each of the subcommittees are chaired and co-chaired by two or more of the Commissioners. For the Al Taucher subcommittee the commissioner chairs are Commissioner Dan Richards and Commissioner Jack Baylis. For the Marine Resources subcommittee, commissioners Mike Sutton and Commissioner Richard Rogers. I am seated to the Al Taucher subcommittee as a general member of the public at large. Do I dive and fish consumptive in nature yes, since 1974. Basically without getting into a lot of it more often than not, recommendations from either of the two subcommittees are adopted by the F&G Commission than not. Hope this helps with your question.     

Thanks I appreciate the info,  I've been to a Commission meeting or 2 mostly to protest the MLPA closures in general and the north end of Salt Pt SP specifically.

I'll admit my knowledge was lacking, I didn't know about the 2 subcommittees.

Thanks for being involved and thanks for taking the time to include NCKA.

(Now About that Striped Bass Proposal)

(Now About that Striped Bass Proposal)

The Taucher subcommittee recommended back in March of this year to not increase the take for SB. We are sitting on pins and needles on this one. The Taucher folks have another meeting coming up in Burbank on the 8th and the SB topic will once again be on our agenda. At best I am hoping to get some calcification from the commissioner chairs on what, if and how the commissioners will proceed. The commissioners have perhaps heard every argument both pro and con from all sides. Not to derail "this" posting on abalone fee issues, I'll post the results of the Taucher fishing subcommittee on SB shortly after the 8th.       

Red,

The other thing that left me scratching my head is the recommendation for increased card fees while the department has not spent the funds they presently have.  Can you fill us in on that?

Thanks,

Dave