Position and Policy

NYFTTA Position and Policy
Regarding Addendum VIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP

My name is John Mantione and I'm president of the New York Fishing Tackle Trade Association. The NYFTTA represents 300 businesses in the New York State with members in New Jersey, Mass., Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The NYFTTA membership extends beyond the borders of New York State, with associates ranging from Maine to Maryland.
Our member businesses are comprised of retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and manufacturer rep groups directly involved in the production, distribution and sales of recreational fishing tackle and the distribution and sales of fishing baits. NYFTTA member businesses create jobs and contribute significantly to State and Federal coffers.

I'm present this evening to render comments (on behalf of the NYFTTA membership) regarding Addendum VIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP

You will hear this evening positions, based on known facts and statements of public record, that Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey's (MRFSS) data was clearly never intended to be used for or is an efficient tool to determine recreational paybacks.

You will hear this evening Valid and justifiable Arguments, that before the commission address recreational paybacks, the mechanisms for determination of harvest must be improved. Even the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) is on record, in a statement to the ASMFC, opposing the use of MRFSS data as a tool for paybacks. Best available data does not always equate to accurate data and furthermore is not sufficient , in detail, to incorporate a payback mechanism. (Attachment A)

The recreational community has followed the numerous regulations set-forth by fishery managers each year; that were aimed at regulating landings. Approved plans, that were based, in part, on MRFSS data and were targeted at controlling recreational harvest, by implementing appropriate size limits, bag limits and seasons, have apparently fell short of expectations.
If previous attempts to measure recreational trends and curtail recreational landings have failed, then there is obviously a fault in the system.
A fault that should, first and foremost, be remedied before applying this ill-suited technique to implement an unreasonable act as recreational paybacks.
Fishery managers must first repair the fundamental mechanisms that are causing the problem, rather than forging forward and implementing an additional burden of potentially harsh penalty's, on an unsuspecting public.
In a sense this issue can simply be stated as a "double jeopardy scenario." (Place in regulations to restrict recreational anglers, and by no fault of their own, exceed the harvest totals, and then are penalized again for abiding by a lawful act.)

However, in light of the foregoing comments, efforts are in place to improve standards and the mechanisms for gauging recreational trends.
Through the implementation of Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), combined with MRFSS, a more accurate image of the recreational community may be portrayed, yielding a more effective standard for future regulatory control.

Currently, the foundation of any payback process is obviously faulty and to build upon a defective fundamental standard can only result in a devastating consequence to the recreational industry.
Fishery managers, doing their job and achieving their objectives, have increased the summer flounder stocks and are maintaining a sustainable spawning biomass. The industry, that I represent, capitalizes on recreational opportunity's and markets to fishing trends (ie: availability of species, consideration to climatic conditions and economic consumer confidence.) These two objectives, at times, seem to be diametrically
opposed. (To exemplify this statement, tonight, as we debate a fishery management proposal, at this public hearing, counterparts of the recreational industry are holding a seminar, on improving techniques to catch summer flounder) The problem, in part, is the management of a recovering and recovered fishery.

Hopefully, this socioeconomic component will be incorporated in ACCSP; an
important factor of the equation relating to recreational fisheries management. If ACCSP proves to obtain high confidence levels, then the net result will generate an improved characterization of recreational trends and an enhanced management system yielding a desired and favorable outcome for all user groups.

The position, NYFTTA delivers tonight ,is shared by many of our associates (United Boatmen, RFA) and is not intended as an anti commercial position but a pro recreational stance.
You will hear tonight an explanation of the inherent differences between the commercial and recreational industries and the methods and reasons why the two can not be governed under the same principles.

You will hear this evening factual statements, of public record, that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rejected the notion of recreational paybacks because of the potential conflicts with national standards (1,4 and 7 [Attachment B])

You will also hear this evening, positions based on analysis of known facts, that "fair and equitable" equates to a reallocation of the (TAL) for summer flounder to a 50/50 split amongst the recreational and commercial sectors. (Attachment C)

With prior regulations in place, the summer flounder stock continues to grow and recover. To impose an unfair and unjustifiable action, as with recreational paybacks, is a wrongful act, unwarranted by this commission.
I appeal to the commission to reject recreational paybacks and support, Issue 1) Status Quo, Issue 2) Status Quo and the reallocation of the summer flounder TAL to a 50/50 split.
After hearing comments and suggestions tonight and per chance an alternative to Addendum VIII is considered, then I strongly believe it is incumbent upon the New York delegation to the ASMFC (commission) to reach out to all marine stake holders and work with us to develop a framework that is fair, viable and suitable for all.

Thank You for your time and consideration in this matter,

John Mantione,
NYFTTA President
.

Melissa Dearborn:

We have heard many different views this evening regarding Addendum VIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP. I do not wish to reiterate the comments that have already been made except to say that the other speakers have brought up valid points that defend the overall recreational industrys belief of remaining at status quo on all four issues at this time. However, we do know that it is not in our best
interest to leave here without offering some ideas or alternatives for moving forward.

We know that when the process for Addendum VII began, there was concern with the status of the fishery and the recreational overages. Even as this Addendum was written, the final figures for the 2002 recreational harvest were still being finalized. But, according to the MRFFS website, the 2002 recreational landings were just under 8 million pounds, below the 9.72 million pound harvest limit. Of course, one year does not mean that there will never be a recreational overage again. But Addendum VIII looks at the glass half
empty, stating that rather than continue the 1999 trend of moving towards the required landings, recreational landings in 2000 increased dramatically. 2001 landings, though lower than in 2000, were 11.64 million lbs, exceeding the harvest limit by 4.48
million lbs. It lacks the benefit of including the 2002 landings. I prefer to look at the glass half full. If you look at the trend since 1998, the current base year, landings have decreased each year, except for 2000 where there is a questionable spike and preliminary figures put us under the target in 2002.

In addition, many people have been in favor of implementing constant 2-3 year management measures to avoid the annual change in regulations. Most states have made very little changes to their regulations in the past two years. I believe that we are finally seeing not only the signs of a recovering fishery, but management measures that are working. Remember that even though the recreational community has been known to whine and complain, we put our faith in the technical committee and the managers that the measures they approve will meet the desired target. We are told that if we follow these measures, which have sometimes cause economic hardships, we will meet our
required target. Why should the entire burden of paying back overages be placed on our backs, when we have followed the regulations that the technical committee approved to keep us within our targeted harvest?

We believe that this Addendum should be put on hold.
With ACCSP finally getting under way, there will be more opportunity to include all sectors of the recreational industry allowing for more accurate data.
Under each section of this Addendum, there is the tug of war regarding coastal or state specific paybacks.
With PSE levels that can range as high as 20% when you get down to the state level, it is not feasible to calculate any payback system on a state specific level. And it is certainly not equitable for those states that do not exceed their limit to have to share a payback burden if the coast as a whole over-harvests. Therefore neither approach works and
until there is a system that provides more accurate and complete data there should be no payback system implemented.

Besides the hopes that the ACCSP will help to achieve more accurate data at the individual state levels, we hope it will address the need for more timely data.
As I stated earlier, the 2002 landings figures were not even published in this Addendum VIII, which is dated March 2003. It would be unacceptable for the commercial industry to operate on a hard quota system if their data was not available until months after the
close of the period. The commercial fishery has the benefit of real time landings data and they are able to react quickly and make changes in their regulations. Trip limits can be changed almost weekly to avoid a shut down in the fishery. This is why there is never an issue of any significant commercial over-harvest. Until the recreational industry has a
program that provides timely data along with the tools necessary to react to that data, there should be no payback system implemented.

In addition to more timely and accurate recreational landings data, we request that a mechanism be put in place to get a more timely stock assessment. The current situation of a two-year lag does a great disservice to the recreational and commercial industry
as well as to the fishery managers. If there were a more timely stock assessment, the managers and scientists would have a more accurate picture of the current state of the fishery and would be able to implement more accurate fishery management measures.
In this modern age, there is no excuse for not having a timely stock assessment, especially in a fishery that is important to both the recreational and commercial industry - a fishery that generates billions in revenues and brings in substantial tax dollars to the government. Until the stock assessment data can be achieved on a timely basis,
there should be no recreational payback system implemented.

Lastly, if these issues are addressed, but there is still a desire to investigate recreational overages, we politely demand that a panel be created comprised of industry members, fishery managers and technical staff to work together to craft a plan that will work.
The options in the current Addendum could prove devastating to the recreational industry. NMFS has already stated that using MRFFS data to regulate the
recreational industry in this manner violates several of the National Standards. We hope that by working together, a plan can be crafted that not only does not violate these national standards, but also does not threaten to impose economic hardships of historic
proportions. The recreational community does not receive the benefit of interacting with the technical committee or the fishery managers on a one on one basis. We are not given the opportunity to express our concerns during the development process. We are
not given the opportunity to ask questions that may lead us to providing valuable input to the development process.

We may not be scientists, but we know this fishery.
Our goal is not to destroy the fishery. Yes, we want to protect our livelihoods, but for many this is a generational business and we want to see this fishery survive for future generations. Far too often this industry is not given the chance to work with the
managers. Our first involvement with a plan of this magnitude should not be at a public hearing where we are forced to become defensive. Rather, it should be the opportunity for a working dialogue between the stakeholders and the managers with an exchange of
ideas so that an acceptable plan can be reached.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Melissa Dearborn
Vice President, NYFTTA