| Meeting of the Saltwater Recreational Fishing License Discussion
Group March 12, 2004 Sportfishing Educational Center Attending: P. Augustine A. Clemetson, NY Sea Grant Extension Program G. Colvin, NYSDEC D. Conover, MSRC N. Delanoy, Captree Boatmens Association D. Dietz, Blue Collar Anglers B. Ellis, Senior Citizen Anglers of Suffolk County J. Ferrera, Sportfishing Education Center M. Hoffman, Atlantis Anglers J. House, North Fork Captains Association D. Kanyuk, United Boatmen J. Mantione, New York Fishing Tackle Trade Association J. McBride, Marine Resources Advisory Council G. Meyers J. Richy, Terminal Tackle J. Schoenig, Imperial Sportsman Club F. Schwab, Marine Resources Advisory Council, Emeritus William Wise, MSRC Invited, unable to attend: B. Danielson, Marine Resources Advisory Council M. Dearborn, Marine Resources Advisory Council J. Feliccia, New York Sport Fishing Federation S. Holder J. McMurray, Salty Flyrodders T. Melton, The Fisherman magazine R. Remmer, Esq. G. Scocca, Noreast Saltwater magazine A. Somma, Marine Resources Advisory Council E. Sullivan, Marine Resources Advisory Council C. Witek, Coastal Conservation Association Discussion Group Leader Bill Wise (MRAC) thanked the Sportfishing Educational Center for its hospitality in again hosting the meeting. He clarified that the opinions expressed at these meetings by discussion group members do not necessarily represent the view of the organization an individual might be representing. They are individual opinions and should be viewed as such. He asked that when a group member is stating the official view/position of the group he/she represents, this should be made clear. Before the meeting began Dennis Kanyuk thanked Gordon Colvin for his hard work and effort on behalf of New Yorks marine recreational fishing industry at a recent fluke meeting held in Washington, DC. He stated, "Gordon Colvin went to bat like no other state director Ive ever seen at a council or commission meeting go to bat for their particular state, especially for the recreational industry. He deserves a lot of thanks and gratitude." The group applauded Mr. Colvin for his efforts. Mr. Wise asked the members if they thought it would be useful and informative to invite Mr. John Long, Chairman of the State Conservation Fund Advisory Board, to a future meeting of the group. Mr. Long is very familiar with many issues raised with sport licensing and oversight of how DEC spends revenues generated from license monies. Mr. Wise suggested that Mr. Long would be able to answer many of the groups questions regarding the current state hiring freeze being applied to DEC positions funded through sporting licenses. The group gave the go-ahead to Mr. Wise to arrange a visit by Mr. Long to a future meeting. Mr. Joe McBride wanted it on the record that he has been given the authority by the Montauk Boatmens and Captains Association to explore the issue of a marine recreational fishing license on their behalf. Mr. Wise reminded the group that todays meeting was meant to discuss DEC programs and activities that might be funded through revenues from a marine recreational fishing license that the recreational fishing industry would think valuable and supportive of the various interests represented within the industry. He stated that Mr. Colvin had prepared a straw list of such programs that was based on his discussions with the recreational fishing community over the years. Mr. Colvin handed out the straw list of activities. The rest of the meeting was spent reviewing these suggested programs and activities and coming to a preliminary decision as to whether each would likely be of sufficient interest to the group to warrant further consideration as a component of a saltwater license revenue expenditure plan. Each suggested activity is described, along with potential fishery management outcomes if it is successfully implemented. Explanatory comments from Mr. Colvin are given next, followed by a summary of the groups reaction to the suggested program or activity. I. Improved recreational fisherydependent data collection programs A. Expansion and improvements to MRFSS Conduct independent surveys to determine with a high level of confidence the true magnitude and distribution of marine recreational fishing effort in New York (including geographic, seasonal, modal, time of date, duration, etc. distribution of angling trips and anglers residences). New York State would assume responsibility and accountability for substantially expanded intercept and telephone surveys that are distributed proportionate to angling effort and that produce statistically valid estimates of marine recreational fishing catch and effect. Outcome accurate and reliable marine recreational catch estimates that can be used to help reach equitable quota management decisions. Marine recreational catch distribution data that is sufficiently robust to enable evaluation of differential regulations in different modes and/or geographic areas. Comments- The consensus on this was generally positive; everyone seemed to feel that this should be a /the top priority, especially in light of the current situation with fluke. Most fishermen feel that inaccurate data is to be blamed for the drastic reductions that will be required in New Yorks recreational catch of fluke (and scup) in 2004 recommendation; these reductions could probably have been avoided with more accurate recreational catch data. One or two group members stated that just adding more money to the MRFSS survey would not alleviate the problem of inaccurate data. It was counter-argued that better data would help support the viewpoints expressed by the marine recreational fishing community because these viewpoints would rest on firmer data. Mr. Colvin informed everyone that MRFSS has now been put under the umbrella of ACCSP (Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program.) One ACCSP recommendation is that the oversight responsibility for administration and management of the MRFSS contractors activities in each state be transferred from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the states. The states would then be in a position (not to necessarily hire staff, ASMFC is responsible for that) but to place the staff in a particular state to oversee the activities and performance of the MRFSS survey. This would enable the information to be more precise as opposed to grabbing a few people in a parking lot at the end of the day. B. Fisheries Observer Data Place observers on "for-hire" recreational fishing vessels and commercial fishing vessels to observe, record and measure discards. Outcomes - Generation of estimates of discards and discard mortality for use in regional stock assessments. The lack of a reliable discard estimate, for example, has specifically prevented adoption of a quantitative assessment for scup, leaving the relative abundance index from the NMFS spring trawl survey as the sole basis of determining stock status and quotas. Length-frequency information from released fish in for-hire recreational fishery would enable the estimation, for example, of the impact of reducing size limits on recreational harvest levels. Comments There was general agreement that more adequately documenting, and then reducing discards and discard mortality is important. A similar issue with the "for hire" fishery relates to understanding size limits. Should we want to roll back recreational size limits back at some point in the future, sound information would be needed on the length/frequency and length distribution of fish that were released in order to reasonably estimate the affect of lowering size limits. MRFFS provides information about the length/frequency of harvested fish but it does not give the length/frequency of discarded fish. Mr. Colvin noted the current Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, run out of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. This program is funded by NMFS with appropriations focused primarily on groundfish because of the need for observer programs to meet the mandates of the federal court in the groundfish litigation. NMFS also puts observers on vessels in the mid-Atlantic, an activity funded mainly from its Protected Species Program. Mr. Colvin commented that there just isnt enough money in the budgets of these observer programs to expand them to include the recreational fishing industry. Some group members felt that there should be an equitable share paid by the commercial fishing industry if the state were to put observers on both recreational "for-hire" boats and commercial fishing vessels. There was some skepticism expressed that observer data would not be accorded much weight in the fisheries management process because of what is viewed by some as the questionable accuracy and reliability of NMFS fishery observer data. Mr. Colvin reminded the group that, if Program/Activity A, above, were implemented, DEC would assume responsibility and accountability for such observer programs. This suggested activity was generally, but not unanimously supported by the group C. Cooperative Angler Programs Implement Cooperative Angler programs for all major recreational species to acquire data on recreational catch/effort, size frequency of released and landed fish, and scale samples for aging. Outcome - Avid, involved marine anglers have an opportunity to contribute valuable data to fisheries managers. Data is generated to compare to and use to help assess and control the quality of MRFSS data on New Yorks marine recreational fishery. Accurate and reliable Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE), length/frequency, and age data for popular species in the marine recreational fishery would result in improved stock assessments. Comments - The group agreed that it would be beneficial and useful to have a broader Cooperative Anglers Program that covered the major marine recreational fishery in which DEC would work directly with individual anglers to establish and maintain a diary of individual catch and effort data and to furnish DEC with measurements of fish that they catch and release, and the fish that they catch and keep. This would be useful because you would be working directly with the biologists and learning a lot more about the fishery in question and they would be learning a lot more from you. Mr. Colvin told the group that these interactions in the Cooperative Angler Program have been positive and the data collected by anglers enrolled in the program has been helpful. There was a consensus that this is also a good program. The group will continue to consider it for inclusion in a license revenue expenditure program. II. New fishery-independent data collection programs A. Trawl/seine surveys in Atlantic Ocean and South Shore Bays Conduct periodic trawl and seine surveys for resource & forage species in State waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in the South Shore Bays. Outcomes generation of new time series of data on abundance and distribution of fish in New York will lead to improved regional stock assessments. Had such data existed in the past, they may have been used to tune the weakfish assessment (absence of northern tuning indices is probably resulting in overly optimistic stock condition projections) or as a supplemental index for scup (use of NMFS spring survey data only, has probably resulted in overly pessimistic stock condition projections). Can also produce information on year-class strength of weakfish, winter flounder, scup and tautog on South Shore, and of abundance and dynamics of forage fish species. Comments Currently there is no information available regarding abundance and distribution of fish in the near shore Atlantic Ocean, south and east of Long Island. The NMFS groundfish survey in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic does not sample within New Yorks marine waters. Benefits that would stem from these surveys can be illustrated using two species, scup and weakfish. Until now the information received from the NMFS groundfish survey has been hit and miss. More inshore trawl catches of this species are required to adequately estimate the condition of the scup resource. The VPA-based stock assessment for weakfish has concluded that weakfish are extremely abundant and the fishing mortality rate is extremely low. These conclusions are probably incorrect of where the weakfish catch data is collected. The weakfish stock assessment is tuned to the Jersey stock data; all of the indices from more northerly stock components have been rejected by the weakfish stock assessment review committee. If the limited northern indices had been factored into the last weakfish stock assessment, the fishing mortality rate would have been higher and the biomass estimate would have been lower and we would have been cracking down on the expanded southern fisheries. Currently Stony Brook University has the contract to provide vessel support to the New Jersey Atlantic Ocean trawl survey. There are usually 4/5 trips a year (approximately 8 days, 2 of those days are used for transit) and they do about 37 random stations, costing on average $18,000/trip. The group endorsed the idea of greater fisheries independent surveys of marine species. It was commented that the relative abundances of marine finfish species can vary dramatically over time; the frequency of such surveys should be sufficient to detect these variations. It was also mentioned to have information gathered about weakfish spawning on actual flats and if it does happen. Most of the group felt that major opportunities are missed and problems caused for the recreational fishing industry by inaccurate data on the condition of marine fish stocks and the suggested surveys are one way to improve the quality of this data. III. Expanded Law Enforcement Capability A. Increase the number of Environmental Conservation Officers in the Marine Unit of DECs Division of Law Enforcement, and expand their patrol capabilities through acquisition of additional vessels and equipment. Outcomes Improved visibility and response time for marine enforcement. Reduced frequency and number of illegally taken fish. (Question for anglers: "How much would you be willing to pay to know that even one less illegal striper will be harvested?") Comments The general consensus of the group was that a greater and more visible law enforcement presence was needed on the waters of the Marine District to deter potential violators and catch actual violators. Many in the group felt that expanded marine law enforcement was a potentially high cost alternative use of saltwater license revenues with perhaps not the greatest benefit to the recreational industry per license revenue dollar spent. It seemed to enjoy a middling level of priority within the groups members. It was pointed out that certain issues of importance to the marine recreational fishing community (e.g., the 2004 required reductions in fluke catches) are producing a level of disgust and frustration among recreational fishermen such that that they are breaking the laws knowingly and purposely. IV. Service to Anglers Outreach and Extension Programs - Substantially expand The I FISH NY Program in DEC Regions 1 (Nassau-Suffolk Counties) and 2 (New York City); initiate the program in Region 3 (lower Hudson River Valley). Outcome Angler education programs, partner programs for educating and recruiting youths to marine angling and conducting fishing clinics and related events are significantly expanded. Urban and suburban anglers are surveyed to determine their needs. Focused projects are initiated to provide information, access improvements, clinics and training programs identified via the surveys. Recruitment and retention of future anglers, particularly from youth and minority populations of New York City, Nassau and western Suffolk Counties. Comments: most group members viewed this as a good idea. However, many commented with frustration on the state hiring freeze that is currently in place. Since all these programs will be new, you are going to have to hire people to implement them. This was viewed as very frustrating because without being able to touch this money to hire more staff, there is little chance of actually expanding the I FISH NEW YORK Program. Angler Information Produce informational materials about marine fishing access and opportunities and species that where/how to fish for them for distribution via DEC website and publication (like Floridas or Virginias) Outcome - Anglers have ready access to information on how/what/where + regulations + consumption advisories, etc. C. Promotion of Marine Sportfishing in New York - DEC partners with industry, Long Island Tourism and Convention Bureau, I LOVE NY Program, etc., to promote New Yorks marine sport fisheries. "Empire State Outdoors" and other state and national television and tourism websites should be a focal point for these efforts. Outcome An increased awareness of the diversity and quality of New Yorks marine recreational fishing experiences and opportunities in local and regional markets results in increase participation, particularly by out-of-region and out-of-state anglers. Comments for #1 & #2: More promotional information should be made available in publication format as well as promotional programs. To do this there will be a partnership with the industry to promote tourism in a statewide I LOVE NY Program, which will be considered outreach. Also, New York State government is producing a new television program, called, "Empire State Outdoors," to publicize outdoor programs and activities. There are myriad of cable television opportunities that can be utilized to describe saltwater fishing in New York and each one will be researched to find the best possible means of promoting recreational fishing opportunities. D. Artificial Reefs - Conduct biological and angler surveys of current and proposed reef sites. Construct reefs using manufactured reef materials (e.g. reef balls) and materials of opportunity. Outcomes - DEC is able to produce monitoring and site assessment data necessary to evaluate existing reefs as required by permit conditions and to evaluate proposed new reef sites. Existing reef permits are renewed and new sites are established and permitted. Inshore and offshore reefs are enhanced by placement of highest quality reef materials, maximizing attachment of reef objectives. Comments - Fishing license revenue is not typically used to cover capital construction costs or the cost of acquiring land and/or buildings. Either federal grants or the State capital budget is used for that. However, DEC can take Wallop-Breaux money that we use to build boat ramps and any other capital money from other grants and a small amount of license money to solve the capital project administrative problems and deliver a lot more projects on the ground. A pressing need is to hire an additional engineer in DECs Facilities Design Office and dedicate that person to designing boat ramps, fishing piers, and other access facilities. The group felt that, before money is channeled into the artificial reef program, there should be more specific sites stated. There was also concern expressed regarding the difficulties associated with acquiring permits for artificial reefs, a subject discussed at the January 2004 meeting of the Marine Resources Advisory Council. E. Fishing Access - Facilitate & expedite the development of boat ramps and shore fishing access facilities. Secure state and federal capital funds for construction. Accelerate completion of facility design, bidding and award of construction contracts. Outcomes - New boat ramps, piers and shore access facilities are completed more expeditiously. New project opportunities to improve fishing access are identified. Comments - DEC is working on different stages of development for ramps on Long Islands North Shore. The group viewed this suggestion positively, although some felt that ramps are expensive and any one ramp benefits only a small fraction of the marine recreational fishing industry in New York. E. Surveys - Anglers are periodically surveyed to ascertain their satisfaction, motivation, needs for increased participation, etc. Outcomes DEC and fishing industry are able to modify their marine angler services to better meet the needs and expectations of the marine recreational fishing public, thereby maintaining and building participation rates. Comments This activity was generally accepted and viewed as positive. IV. Research A. Research Conduct targeted research on issues of priority to New Yorks marine recreational fishing community (e.g., predation rates on winter flounder; impact of piscivorus wildlife on marine fish stocks; release mortality rates; biology, movements, and dynamics of local stocks of fish such as tautog and winter flounder, etc.) Outcomes Information that enables management to improve fish stocks and angling success. Comments Fish habitat research would benefit tremendously as well as many other programs. Not all the research funding should come from saltwater license revenues, but a small part of it would/should. NMFS does not maintain a laboratory in New York State and this limits the amount of federal dollars available to New York for marine fisheries and fisheries habitat research. There are currently only two marine fishery researchers at Stony Brook Universitys Marine Sciences Research Center, and one of them is currently the Dean and has limited time to dedicate to research. It was suggested that research into artificial stock enhancement and restoration should also be encompassed in the research category. This category was viewed as positive and received support from the group. V. Habitat Inventorying A. Habitat - Inventory and assess important fish habitat in New Yorks Marine District, such as wetlands, eelgrass beds, rock/reef/shell bed habitat. Outcomes A better understanding of the location, extent and condition of marine fishery habitat enables management intervention to protect, restore, and improve habitats as necessary. Comments - There were no comments regarding this suggested issue. The discussion group decided that all of Mr. Colvins suggested programs/activities that might be funded through marine recreational fishing license revenues were worthy of further consideration, although some alternatives were clearly viewed more favorably than others. Mr. Wise will assemble a smaller group to develop and expand on the above-suggested activities, particularly their estimated annual cost. This information would then be presented to the full discussion group for its review and consideration at a future meeting. The next discussion group meeting will be held at 1:00 pm on April 29, 2004 at the Sportfishing Education Center. The main topic will be the specific of a marine recreational fishing license program (i.e., license cost, procedures to acquire a license, exemptions, mechanisms for industry involvement in deciding on a license revenue expenditure plan, etc.). The group will work off the licensing proposal prepared and circulated some time ago by Pat Augustine. |