OST-DFW abalone SAC Members request additional data

Is there a silver lining to FT. Ross closing? Perhaps so and always dependent from ones perspective of view, but in light of the positive prospective for having Ft. Ross reopened, the closure decision rendered by the commission did come with a sunset clause to it. The possibility that Ft. Ross could be reopened in 2016 is actual, not guaranteed, but the possibility does exists at the discretion of the commission per say rather than the stanch requirements of the ARMP for an individual abalone landing site reopening under the interim phase of the ARMP. The wording language in the ARMP that allows this possibility to be so and makes it possible, at the discretion of the commission is "new tools and management" and "best available science".

New tools and best available science is in motion as of right now. When the commission adopted the new regulation package with reductions in take and with the Ft. Ross closure becoming so last June, effective beginning the 2014 abalone season, the DFW and the Commission had already commissioned an due diligence process which may lead to the reopening of Ft.Ross sooner than what would be otherwise so and possible without the full development of the long term ARMP phase being in action.

In action now is the Ocean Science Trust (OST) hosted abalone science peer review of the methods and terminology of the current surveys used to detect abalone densities by the DFW. What the OST abalone science committee review produces will more than likely have direct bearing for the future abalone fishery at the site level, and right into just what can be the defined long term ARMP abalone fishery phase. My understanding from communications with DFW abalone management and OST abalone SAC members is the review may not be completed by December due to additional DFW data information being requested by the abalone SAC members. This is a good thing !!! The OST abalone SAC members seem to be giving it the once over and a then again

Thanks for the update.

Remembering the MLPA process and closures, reduction of the seasonal allowance and all that great science, collaboration and consideration of expert knowledge offered by stakeholders, I feel so hopeful.

I think the DFW needs to re-examine how they regulate the fishery. Every 5 years they're going to reduce the bag limits until it's simply not worth the effort.
Why not raise the size limit instead? Bill, was this ever considered during the process? Right now, it's too easy to get a limit. If the minimum size was 8.5 or 9, the overall take would be significantly reduced, which is what the DFW wants, but at the same time, we'd still be allowed to hunt for those elusive 9s! Thoughts?

Thanks Andrew! I suggested that on coast side like 5 years ago or more. I was then saying raise it to 8 inches to give the shallow water a break. Received with hostility.

Received with hostility.

Not surprised. But who wants a 7" ab anyway, especially if you're only allowed 18 per season? Every one counts! I might try and get involved next time the regs are on the table, maybe suggest that to the DFW. Although, the thought of going back to one of those rigged, one-sided meetings makes me want to throw up.
Thanks to everyone who fought to keep it at 18!

I think the DFW needs to re-examine how they regulate the fishery. Every 5 years they're going to reduce the bag limits until it's simply not worth the effort.
Why not raise the size limit instead? Bill, was this ever considered during the process? Right now, it's too easy to get a limit. If the minimum size was 8.5 or 9, the overall take would be significantly reduced, which is what the DFW wants, but at the same time, we'd still be allowed to hunt for those elusive 9s! Thoughts?

I heard the PTB were against the size limit increase as it would reportedly have the negative effect of increasing mortality of newly classified undersized Abs on return to rocks and exacerbate poaching.

I think the DFW needs to re-examine how they regulate the fishery. Every 5 years they're going to reduce the bag limits until it's simply not worth the effort.
Why not raise the size limit instead? Bill, was this ever considered during the process? Right now, it's too easy to get a limit. If the minimum size was 8.5 or 9, the overall take would be significantly reduced, which is what the DFW wants, but at the same time, we'd still be allowed to hunt for those elusive 9s! Thoughts?

I heard the PTB were against the size limit increase as it would reportedly have the negative effect of increasing mortality of newly classified undersized Abs on return to rocks and exacerbate poaching.

Wouldn't the mortality issue mainly apply to rock-picking though? I think it also needs to be illegal to remove an undersized ab. In other words, you have to measure it before you pop it.

I think the DFW needs to re-examine how they regulate the fishery. Every 5 years they're going to reduce the bag limits until it's simply not worth the effort.
Why not raise the size limit instead? Bill, was this ever considered during the process? Right now, it's too easy to get a limit. If the minimum size was 8.5 or 9, the overall take would be significantly reduced, which is what the DFW wants, but at the same time, we'd still be allowed to hunt for those elusive 9s! Thoughts?

I heard the PTB were against the size limit increase as it would reportedly have the negative effect of increasing mortality of newly classified undersized Abs on return to rocks and exacerbate poaching.

Wouldn't the mortality issue mainly apply to rock-picking though? I think it also needs to be illegal to remove an undersized ab. In other words, you have to measure it before you pop it.

That would save a ton of scarred abalone that are going to die. Seen it first hand repeatedly over the years. They just get chucked back like yesterdays trash. Really.

Indeed, measuring prior to removal seems right and should be required. Many of us already do this with larger measures. My iron has a 7" measure attached with it and I carry a larger one.

Been busy guys with the season and all. Good dialog guys and I wish I had more to add but I don't other than the original post: OST abalone SAC members request additional data. Maybe this will help.

1) Will the academics do more than the charge and the charge again is, evaluate the current, but not limited too past survey methodology used to detect abalone density and the assessment thereof and to make recommendations to improve upon if possible - most likely the academics will not, and if they do we will most likely never know it; it will never be publicly available. This means notes and minutes of closed door work, personal communication and so forth will never be released. But at some point we will see the product, whatever it may be for review and comment.

2) Another reason why to do this due diligence, in this case it is required by law; both the Commission and the DFW are required to insure the sustainably of an fishery. Now your idea of what a sustainable fishery is.........might not be one and the same. Don't spin off here on that last sentence by the way roll with it for now. Come back to this after the review is completed.

3) Another reason to do this due diligence and review, not required by law: you know despite all the bull, all the negative, and or the positives whatever that may be or not, not having a abalone fishery is just plain unexceptionable on anybody's watch. Anybody watch is you and me, the DFW and the commission I believe. Never stop believing.         

The DFW (DFG) is loaded with anti fishing and hunting people. They would be happy to shut the whole coast down, to sport fishing. And only allow areas to be farmed by corporations. That is going to be the future. The Government just has to go about it very slowly. If this wasn't true, the DFW would put Min and Max size on our fish. As that is the only way conservation makes any sense. Large fish for breeders The Small fish to grow . The Middle fish the ones that are missed become breeders. I can't go any deeper in the subject, because it would get political and offend someone. 

For those inclined:

"Meeting Summary for the Red Abalone Density Estimates Technical Review Workshop" is out for review. A very good read I do add !
http://calost.org/pdf/science-advisi...20FINAL%20.pdf

The link result:

404 - Document not found

The document cannot be found in the requested location. Please return to the main site. As a courtesy, please contact an administrator of the site to inform them of the broken link. Thank you.


Click here to return to the main site

The link result:

404 - Document not found

The document cannot be found in the requested location. Please return to the main site. As a courtesy, please contact an administrator of the site to inform them of the broken link. Thank you.


Click here to return to the main site

Oops sorry about that this should do it. http://calost.org/science-advising/?page=ongoing-reviews#scope-of-work-review-process Then see:

"Technical Workshop"
Wednesday, October 23, 10:00 AM - 5:30 PM
1330 Broadway, Suite 1530 Oakland, CA. Then see and open "post" meeting summary.