Abalone Take Reduced for 2014

California Department of Fish and Wildlife News Release

 

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 27, 2013

 

Media Contact: Jordan Traverso, CDFW Communications, (916) 654-9937

Public Contact: Craig Shuman, Marine Regional Manager,  (805) 568-1246

 

Fish and Game Commission Acts to Protect Red Abalone on California’s North Coast

 

The California Fish and Game Commission yesterday took action to modify abalone fishery regulations along the northern California coast. Specifically, the Commission voted to reduce the annual limit to 18 abalone (previously 24), with no more than nine taken from Sonoma and Marin counties. Other changes to abalone regulations included a coast-wide start time for the fishing day of 8 a.m. and a closure at Ft. Ross in Sonoma County. The changes are expected to go into effect for the 2014 abalone season.

 

“The new management measures we’ve adopted today will help ensure that the red abalone remains abundant on the North Coast and the popular recreational fishery there continues to thrive,” said Commission President Michael Sutton. “Our job is to keep wildlife populations in California healthy and not wait for a crisis to take action.”

 

Northern California red abalone are managed adaptively by the Commission, using traditional management measures coupled with fishery independent surveys to maintain the catch at sustainable levels, as prescribed by the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP). Ongoing data surveys by the Department of Fish and Wildlife detected the effects of a recent abalone die-off along the Sonoma coast. The declines in abalone density triggered the changes to management measures, because the densities dropped below levels that are prescribed in the ARMP for management action.  The new regulations are intended to provide an opportunity for abalone populations in Sonoma and Marin to increase, and to help Mendocino County maintain a productive fishery. The set start time for the fishing day will also aid enforcement.

Mendocino here we come!

I wish they would put more effort into catching poachers who resell to their customers.   One poachers can wipe out a cove in no time. 

I wish they would put more effort into catching poachers who resell to their customers.   One poachers can wipe out a cove in no time.

Ditto

Mendocino here we come!

Yep my friend and that is why the california coalition of diving advocates #1 recommendation was the 2/24 bag and annual limit. The CCDA option choice and our letter to the commission represented that choice. Our rational for doing so is:
We think the ideal abalone fishery would of been far better off by NOT going to a long term plan per say. We believe the long term plan in the eyes of the DFW is the self fulfilling prophecy to closure, i.e. Regional approach, area's, zones, sites, etc, all are divestiture of the assets; divestiture is not the choice of business ideals. Breaking up the whole and in doing so as in our case means lottery systems, points systems and divers competing for allotted tags. That future is a very real possibility and the commissions adoption of the 2014 abalone regulations the other day just advanced that hour hand on the closure clock to 15 minutes to closure. The CCDA's knew, although not popular, reducing the bag limit to two no matter how you slice it is 1/3rd reduction. Because a peer review of the methods to detect abalone densities was underway, not knowing what the peer review would produce or not produce, we wanted to position accordingly with the fishery, i.e. give the fishery a chance to stabilize and take the reduction the commission was surly going to make all the while being in a better position to reduce further, if needed or not, dependent upon the peer review.

We also highly entertained the possibility (just like pilots and other specialist do; believe the instrumentation is correct until proven otherwise) that the density data maybe accurate within the scale applied. So what does that mean. Based upon the data without putting up all the grafts and charts so many have seen, yes Mendocino index sites represent for the most parts abalone densities are above the .50 abs/m² and the Sonoma index sites are considerable below the .50 abs/m²mark, present day values. Around 2008 and beyond for reasons fully not known, the abalone report cards returns indicate / reflect the landings of abalone for Mendocino are, and have became greater than Sonoma by measurable amounts in the tens of thousands present day values. Again, if the data is accurate; believe the instrumentation is correct until proven otherwise, going back to data released around 2007 to 2008 when the Sonoma abalone sites were king of the fishery effort and the landings of abalone were tens of thousands higher than the Mendocino index sites, Sonoma county index sites, it appears  captured an already trending downward abalone populations before the HAB event, before the MLPA and it's array of Sonoma coast. If the data is accurate, accurate enough, what the commission adopted the other day, a 18 annual limit, surly such action can be at biased to keep Mendocino abalone landings high. Can Mendocino adsorb a 27K to 29K fishery pressure at an 18 annual limit.  In retrospect of all stated and there is more assured, perhaps reducing the max Mendocino limit by 8 abalone per constituents just might stabilize Mendocino with the populations of abalone densities Mendocino enjoys now.                   

Too many people over the years converging on Sonoma County. I started diving in Sonoma in 1974. Its no wonder , really, that it has come to this. Especially for the intertidal area. The elimination of the early start makes it more enforceable? Possibly. It will cut the pickers out for the large part for sure.

The beginning of the end.

I would have rather seen an increased size limit. 9" maybe? The size limit shouldn't be designed so that limits are the rule, IMO.

It was pretty clever how they talked about reducing it to somewhere between 9 and 15 per year for so long that 18 ended up looking reasonable. Watch, in 5 years or so, they'll start talking about 1 a day and 9 per year, then settle on 2/12 and everyone will feel that a good compromise was reached.

Eventually they're going to need to try other methods of management than simply reducing bag limits.

I'd rather see a bounty on poachers. 50% share of fines collected and 50% of equipment confiscated for non-technical poaching would be a good start.

non-technical poaching

I kinda like that coining "non-technical poaching"
What is your definition of non-technical poaching ?
 

Make the season from Dec1st to March 31st?

Allow shooting of poachers on sight!

non-technical poaching

I kinda like that coining "non-technical poaching"
What is your definition of non-technical poaching ?
 

Taking 42 abs of all sizes = poaching. Scuba gear, out of season, etc.

Wrong date or incorrectly filling out ab card with otherwise legal abs is a technicality.

Red Tide,
Poaching,
Significantly Increased Legal Take, (vs say 10 to 25 years ago)
Poor reproduction for years and years
Reserves causing concentration of effort in allowable take areas

Having dove the same relative easy areas for 25 years I can see the difference.  I pretty much don't go down past 15 ft anymore.  Seemed like a slow downward spiral but not reaching crisis mode. Never had a problem getting 3 for dinner.

Then the Red Tide, I dove a spot last November for about 2 hr, and found a spot completely devoid of abs, other spots I used to go to have really sparse populations left over. (Sonoma Co)

Was at Van Damme at few weeks ago, and there are still plenty of abs left but definitely fewer every year.

I don't really have good info on the depths surveyed at the index sites, but a "real" eyeball survey of ab populations away from those sites, with some data at different depths would be really interesting.

Take data while useful for the easy areas probably doesn't reflect what's going on in the rest of the coast/depths.

With all that said I realize I'm only touching the tip of the population, I'm pretty confident that most of the coastline has pretty healthy populations at depths of greater than 25 ft or so.

To me it's a dilemma, supposing "other" data at some "other" sites and depths show a very healthy overall population, do you then open the regs up and allow more take based on the overall healthy population? (which would continue the decline of the population in the "easy" areas).

No one needs abalone as a food staple, it's a treat to eat and a satisfying accomplishment to get, (Actually kinda of a spiritual thing being in the ocean)(but being in the ocean without hunting down something to eat isn't nearly as spiritual) So yes increasingly tight limits on take do bother and effect me. 

So where am I going with all this?

Just rambling thoughts I guess, 

And happy I'm not a decision maker.

FYI - deadline for nominations this Friday, July 5th. See also http://calost.org/science-advising/?page=scientific-review#red-abalone-density-estimates

Dear Northern California Underwater Hunters,

On behalf of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the Ocean Science Trust (OST) is soliciting recommendations for scientific and technical experts to serve on an independent Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to review the survey design and the methods currently used to estimate red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) density.  DFW has identified you as a key constituent group involved with this fishery and as such we would like to invite your organization to make recommendations for the SAC.  Abalone density is used as part of an adaptive management approach coupled with traditional abalone management measures to inform catch guidelines for the recreational red abalone fishery in northern California as outlined by the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/armp/>  (ARMP).  For more details on the project, please see the information below.  Please send your recommendations to Hayley Carter ([email protected]) by July 5th, 2013.

Thank you in advance for your recommendations. Your input is valuable in helping OST identify a diverse pool of qualified, engaged reviewers. Feel free to contact me or Hayley Carter ([email protected]) if you have any questions.
 
Sincerely,

Skyli McAfee
 
Review of Abalone Density Measurements

DFW’s goal in asking for this review is to determine the most robust and tractable methods for estimating abalone density in support of the effective management of the recreational fishery. Specifically, DFW is seeking scientific and technical review of: (1) survey design, including strengths and weaknesses of current methods for estimating abalone density; (2) the application of existing methods, including analysis of existing data, and interpretation of results; and (3) uncertainty associated with existing methods for estimating red abalone density, and its use in managing the red abalone fishery in California.
 
OST will form and coordinate the SAC in alignment with DFW’s Procedural Guidelines for DFW Ad Hoc Independent Scientific Advisory Committees <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=ScienceInstitute> . To ensure public accountability and transparency, names and 2-page curricula vitae of the SAC will be posted on a public website; additionally one or more online web conferences will be open to the public and a final outcomes document will be signed by all members of the SAC.  The SAC will be required to read through provided background material, prepare evaluations of abalone survey methods, participate in 2-3 online web conferences, participate in 1 in-person technical workshop in Oakland, California, provide recommendations on abalone survey methods, and review and sign a summary of outcomes document. This work will be completed over a period of 5 months.  OST will provide a $500 honorarium for participation throughout the entire process.

Specifically, we are seeking scientific and technical experts with experience in subtidal/intertidal ecosystems in the following fields: fisheries biology, marine ecology, intertidal ecology, invertebrate zoology, or related fields.  In addition, nominees for the SAC must possess the following minimum qualifications:

    Demonstrated expertise in scientifically recognized and accepted methods of survey design and sampling methodology, including use of these methods to generate estimates of density.
    An understanding of random stratified sampling in subtidal marine environments.
    A Ph.D. from an accredited university in the life sciences, oceanography, or a related field.
    Senior-authored publications on marine natural resource surveys or assessments in peer-reviewed, scientifically recognized literature.   
    Experience conducting field work to survey marine benthic invertebrates is preferred.
    Demonstrated success working collaboratively.



Skyli McAfee

Executive Director, California Ocean Science Trust
Ocean Protection Council Science Advisor

1330 Broadway Ste. 1530
Oakland, California 94612
wk:  510.251.8323
cel:  707.529.7984

http://www.calost.org/

OceanSpaces is live!  Join the online community that fosters new knowledge of ocean health.  www.oceanspaces.org