New Ideas for Private Recreational Management in the South Atlantic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

New Ideas for Private Recreational Management in the South Atlantic

May 18, 2020 Kellie Ralston Southeast Fisheries Policy Director

VIII

Project Overview

 American Sportfishing Association, Yamaha Marine Group

and Coastal Conservation Association

 Council Workshop (September 2018)

• Discussion and feedback on approaches for regional

meetings

 Regional Meetings (Fall/Winter 2018/2019)

• Recreational representative feedback

 Recommendations (March 2019)

• Recommended actions for Council consideration

Topic Overview

 Harvest rate management  Harvest tags for certain

deepwater species

 Seasonal management*  Regional differences  Electronic recreational

reporting

 Recreational registration or

stamp

 Release mortality reduction**

Angler Preferences and Regional Variation

 What makes a good fishing trip?

• Catch a lot of fish, keep enough to make the trip worthwhile
• ‘Enough’ fish = keep one trophy fish and take some home
• Sufficient opportunity to go fishing when it best suits the

angler

 Important species: Red snapper, gag grouper, vermilion snapper,

black sea bass and gray triggerfish

 A variety of harvestable fish allows anglers to keep “enough”

fish by switching target species Restrictions on red snapper affect trip satisfaction due to discards and having to avoid red snapper to catch other species

Harvest Rate Management

 Uses exploitation rate targets to reach a desired rate of

removal and stock biomass level

 Approach focuses on how Council monitors and responds to

changes, and adjusts management to reach targets

 Allows response to changes in recreational effort and fish

populations using most recent information

 Provides more stability and predictability  Anglers were supportive of the

• utcomes of this approach

 Could be a useful tool for

important species

Harvest Tags

 Tag issued for each fish to be harvested, as

in game management

 More appropriate for species with low

ACLs or naturally low abundance

 Can be used to improve data collection or

control effort

 Anglers were supportive of harvest tags in

limited applications

 Challenges:

• Fairness in how to distribute tags
• Potential to restrict access for active

participants Potential for a pilot program to allow for selective distribution and # tags higher than the ACL

Angler Registration and Reporting

 Registration or stamp through states for anglers targeting

snapper grouper species (open access)

 Better understand the number of anglers in the fishery  Electronic reporting could be used to supplement MRIP 

Anglers were supportive of registration or a stamp and recreational reporting to define the “universe” targeting snapper grouper species and improve recreational data

 Anglers more likely to report if they

understand how the data will be used and if they do not feel that the data will result in more restrictions

Final Recommendations

 The Council should consider regional regulations for

appropriate species

 The Council should continue to explore harvest rate

management for high value snapper grouper species

 The Council could consider an Exempted Fishing Permit for a

pilot program to test harvest tags for certain deepwater species

 The Council should work with state partners to establish a

registration for anglers targeting snapper grouper species, with consistency across all states

 The Council should continue development of Snapper

Grouper Amendment 46 to implement required or selective reporting for anglers

May 18, 2020 Michael Waine Atlantic Fisheries Policy Director

Recreational Management Reform: A Harvest Control Rule Approach

 Background

 Current Fishery Data and Management

 Harvest Control Rule Approach

 Submitted as part of Rec/comm allocation amendment

• MAFMC/ASMFC Amendment

 HCR needs further development and acknowledge MSA

challenges

 Next Steps and Questions

Presentation Outline

Recreational vs. Commercial Fishing

Recreational vs. Commercial Data

 Rec Management:

 Each state sets measures

predicted to collectively achieve RHL

 At the end of year,

compare MRIP catch estimates to RHL

 Accounting problems

because of uncertainty and time lag

 Comm Management:

 Quota set  Commercial measures

control landings

 Once landings are reached

fishery closed

 Data system minimizes

accounting problems

Recreational vs. Commercial Management Pound Based Quotas for Both

In Comes New Effort Mail Survey

 Rec catch estimates generally higher all the way back to 1981  Model generally interprets increased catch with higher ABCs  Example: Summer Flounder 2019  Recreational measures stay the same Commercial sector sees 62% increase

in allowed landings.

 Wait, if our RHL increased how come our measures stayed the same?



“You’re already catching it”

Harvest Control Rule Approach

 If we can’t manage the uncertainty

• f MRIP, can we tweak the

management system to account for that uncertainty?

 Premise of HCR: access

(allocation) can be defined for the recreational sector as a combination

• f

 size limits  bag limits  seasons

 Relatable to commercial allocation

in pounds because access can be more or less restrictive based on stock condition

Harvest Control Rule: The endpoints

Stock Condition

Recreational Commercial Healthy

 Least restrictive measures  maximizes access and participation  Allows for growth  Highest quota  market and landing capacity is met  Asymptotic market price  Allows for growth

Poor

 Most restrictive measures  Lowest access & participation  Loss of infrastructure  Loss of for-hire business because “not worth it to pay to go fishing”  Lowest quota  Loss of markets no supply  Not enough pounds to justify trips  Loss of shore side processing

Harvest control Rule Concept

 Pull management history  Pull recreational removals

data

 Match that management

and removals history to stock status in each step

 Analyze the range of

alternatives

 Demonstrate HCR through

at least 2- 3 year cycles

HCR Analysis Phase

 Management measures would move stepwise with

stock condition

 Possibility to be proactive, if assessment or indices

indicate stock condition is in continuous decline (e.g., 3 years) then move to lower step

 Review Timeline  Besides triggering review as part of accountability,

fixed review timeframe (e.g., every 5 years).

What about accountability?

 HCR in need of further development  Stakeholder involvement critical  HCR adjusts access (management measures) to stock

condition just like an ACL does

 Approach brings more stability to fishery and

management

 Submitted as part of scoping on

Recreational/Commercial allocation amendment

HCR Summary and Next Steps