Minutes of CLTFA General Meeting
Date: August 20, 2009 at Dana Point Marina Inn, Dana Point.
Participants: Rodger Healy, Casey Marks, John Guth, Bruce Campbell, Isrial Robison, Bob Kelly, Diana Rainforth, Jordan Solomon, Tom Pearson, Jack Norek, Paul Frederick, Dan Cludy, Matt Kay, Chris Miller, Eric Krebs, Chris Oldstone, Pete Tresselt, Josh Fisher, Teddy Vlasis, Ron Marks, Talib Wahab
Date: August 26, 2009 at Golden China Restaurant, Ventura.
Participants: Hunter Lenihan, Larry Cronin, Stanley Davis, John Guth, Matt Kay, Mike Nash, Kristine Barsky, Rodger Healy, Carla Guenther, Josh Fisher, Philip Beguhl, Kenny Swanson, Jim Colomy, Ray Kennedy, Scott Jarvis, Chris Hoeflinger, Scott Honaker, Rick Watanabe, Daniel Mello, Andy Volaski Sr., Talib Wahab
The meeting began with a discussion of the collaborative FMP proposal with the California Department of Fish and Game (referred to henceforth as the Department). Kristine Barsky, their Senior Biologist is the lead for this exploratory phase. She explained the reasons for this collaborative endeavor and the need to seek external funding sources in view of the state’s budget crisis. Kristine emphasized that Sonke Mastrup who is the Deputy Director and Marija Vojkovich who is the Marine Region Manager of the Department made it clear that they will not do an FMP if they cannot bring it to completion. A decision will be made early next year. The FMP will involve both the commercial and recreational fishery.
While funding is badly needed, the Department will ensure that the entire process is objective and those that provide the funding will not have undue influence. Regardless of whether the FMP will proceed, the Department will proceed with the stock assessment. The process has already begun since it is considered very important. The Department will seek input from all the scientists and look at all the scientific models presented.
John Guth explained that he along with a few other lobster fishermen and Huff McGonigal of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had met with Department officials for discussions to find out what is expected of all parties in the FMP process. He made it clear that if it goes down the path of the near shore fishery, CLTFA don’t want to have anything to do with it. John is confident that the Department is not going in that direction.
Chris Hoeflinger emphasized that we need to take a cautious approach based on his personal experience from the near shore fishery. In particular the harvest control rule that killed the commercial fishery.
John Guth reassured everyone about CLTFA’s alliance with EDF. This alliance has worked very well on many fronts for the benefit of the lobster fishery. He said we need to look past the near shore fishery and not get our heads buried in the sand in the wake of new realities and challenges faced by our fishery.
The meeting went on to discuss the fishery’s role in the FMP process. Jim Colomy insists that we should have the most input not just some input, since we have been good stewards of the fishery. We need to organize ourselves so we can exert significant influence over the FMP process. We have to deal with a lot of outside forces and other stakeholder groups like the sports fishery that are also out to protect their own interests.
Kristine said the Department is not going to be rushed into anything on a rigid fixed timeline. This is going to be a multi year process, and she assured us that no meetings are going to be scheduled during the lobster season. The process will take about four years to complete. If we opt not to do an FMP, we will have to go back to looking at management issues pertaining to both the commercial and recreational fisheries. The law requires that the fishery be managed through an FMP, but there is not much we can do if the money and other necessary resources are not available.
Chris Hoeflinger questioned the nature of the stock assessment and whether it is based on data poor. Kristine said they have lots of databases that they can look into along with the different models. Hunter Lenihan interjected with a warning about looking at models, in particular that of Brian Kinlan. That is based on very complex Bayesian statistical models that very few people understand, which was partly developed in his lab that he highly criticized. Hunter said if we move in that direction we need to vet that very clearly because there are a lot of assumptions built into it that will have profound effects against our harvest rates. Kristine said the Department would be forced to look at everything. She assured us that they will have people like Jeremy Prince, Ray Hilborn, Carl Walters, Mark Maunders and the other scientists that will be assisting who have ideas how a stock assessment should go. The Department have not chosen a path or committed to anybody.
Stock assessment is needed to not only do an FMP but also to take our fishery out of data poor status. John Guth said the difference between the near shore and lobster is that there is not much data on the near shore, whereas the lobster fishery has over 100 years of history and data. We will not make the mistake as near shore by going into an FMP with a data poor fishery. Addressing further questions about data poor from Chris Hoeflinger, Kristine said given what they got on long term data sets, she don’t believe our fishery will fall into data poor. The only reason it is there right now is because we haven’t done an official stock assessment. Kristine emphasized that the lobster fishery is totally different than the multiple species near shore fishery. John Guth said it is like comparing apples to oranges. Stock assessment is already underway, and Mark Maunders has indicated what we need now is some measurements that will be addressed with at-sea sampling.
Carla Guenther said some ways we can get into data rich is to refine the data that we have and to improve upon the finer scale data by modifying the logbooks. Also we need to have lots of participation with at-sea sampling in filling in the data gaps along with observations.
Ray Kennedy said the letter that they received did not clearly state that the money sought for the FMP is not for buying a result, and that we need to be careful about the money we receive especially from some of the foundations. This should not be an open invitation to seek money from just about anybody, and that we might not be safe with an FMP. Kristine said she was given the job to lead this because she has been around long enough to know the industry well enough both commercial and recreational. She won’t let it be taken over and there will be no strings attached to the money they receive. She intends to remain on the job at least for the next five years. John Guth said that this would be a unique opportunity to develop an FMP in a different way where we will actually collaborate with the Department to do it rather than just have them done to us. This is an elaborate and costly endeavor that is estimated to cost over $3.1 million.
Since fishermen will be working with the scientists to provide input in the FMP process, Stan Davis wanted to know whether the scientists will actually listen to fishermen since most don’t have the academic degrees and rely solely on extensive fishing experience. Kristine said fishermen should not underestimate themselves. She noted that several are eloquent speakers capable of making their case to just about anyone on anything, like the lobster escape port to change the legislation. As long as they are honest and straightforward, it doesn’t matter whether or not they have a college degree.
Replying to a question from Daniel Mello, Kristine said a quota is not needed for the lobster FMP. All we need are some form of management technique where there are control rules and some sort of precautionary measures that will include the establishment of some MPAs. Stock assessment should not be mixed with MPAs. John Guth said we should have a mechanism to do something later, like trap limits or loosen up MPAs, but we don’t know what it is at this point. John Guth said at the meetings we had, we have consensus amongst ourselves that we don’t want to look into allocations or quotas. We don’t think those are the tools we need for this fishery, and he asked whether we could set those as preconditions before we go into an FMP. Kristine said we can stick with what we have since it is not necessarily broken, and may only need some tweaks. Nonetheless do expect others to bring up other management types that we disagree with including regional management, and we should be prepared to deal with it. Kristine explained that Sonke Mastrup want to have a simple way to do it that everyone could afford. If it is something that they can’t pay for it, then the Department will not do it.
John Guth said the Lobster FMP would most likely be kept simple like the Department wanted since we already have a healthy and well-managed fishery. The FMP will also enable our lobster fishery to seek a sustainability certification with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Talib Wahab said it would be beneficial to have an external independent internationally recognized entity like MSC to be a part of the FMP process. We need to look at this from a different angle. We can utilize MSC’s newly developed risk based assessment model that is best suited to small-scale fishery like ours. Let’s see if there are compatibility issues between the Department led processes with that of the MSC.
Matt Kay started to address at-sea sampling with a brief overview of the work he had done with fishery participants in monitoring lobsters at the Channel Islands Marine Reserves. He acknowledged the good work by Chris Miller and Chris Hoeflinger that initiated the student project. A lot of people in the fishery were also soured on the reserve process at the Channel Islands because it is more a political process than a scientific process. He picked up on Stan Davis earlier comments by saying he considers him as one of his academic advisors, and that the more the fishermen get involved, the more they influence the process.
One of the immediate objectives of monitoring the reserves is to demonstrate that fishing mortality was reduced inside the reserves, so the reserves were meeting their conservation benefits. At Chris Miller’s suggestion, he and Hunter Lenihan met with Richard Parrish who is the senior fisheries modeler with NOAA at Monterey to talk about the ideas that he had about using the reserves to develop a harvest rate assessment model. Matt said when we talk about stock assessments there are these things called reference points. There are two classes of numbers. One class of numbers is what is the biomass in the water and what was there during virgin conditions. The other number is what fraction of the fish is being caught each fishing season by the fishery. He thinks the model that the Department is developing is the former using CPUE as the proxy for abundance because we don’t have the capability to measure abundance. So they are going to look at logbooks to see what CPUE has done over time. If CPUE is half what it was 30 years ago then we have half as much lobsters now than what was then. He went on to explain the flaws of this model and suggests that we look at all the other models including Brian Kinlan’s as well as supporting his own model. It is important that we fully understand the assumptions of the various models in order to correctly utilize them.
Matt being a nuts and bolts person is not interested in models based on assumptions. He prefers models based on observations. He uses growth rate data of legal size lobsters that he got from his last three years of trapping at the Channel Islands. He tagged about 18,000 lobsters and recaptured about 5,000 of them after a year. He then looked at the annual growth rate across a bunch of sizes and the size structures. Knowing how fast they move through the different sizes and figuring how fast they are disappearing, he would then determine its harvest rate. This model that he developed with Richard Parrish is objective and fisheries supportive, much like Ray Hilborn’s work. He will have the model developed and published for the Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands in about a year. He encourages fishermen to get involved with the Department in collecting at-sea information so they will be better informed. This will also give them a place at the negotiating table that would eliminate a lot of assumptions. He also suggests that we should get the modelers to explain in plain English how their models work so everyone can understand.
Matt made a proposal to collect at-sea data for the Department and would like to get some fishermen to participate. Several fishermen sign up on the project. The at-sea sampling is based on what the fishermen were doing in the New Zealand. It will require the fishermen to assign four of their traps for data collection purpose. They will be provided with the necessary tools so it won’t be too time consuming.
We talked about the predictive modeling done in Mexico and W. Australia where they are able to forecast future harvest rates based on monitoring the recruitment levels. It would be a good idea not to rely on just one model. Fishing effort should also be modified periodically to conform to these biological signals to ensure the sustainability of the fishery over time. Phil Beguhl suggests doing some sampling in otter rich areas to test the assumptions about how lobsters would respond to that kind of environment.
Ray Kennedy brought up the issue of quantifying the recapture rates of lobsters inside and outside the reserves. He questioned some of the conclusions made by some researchers about the fishing mortality that don’t make sense. Matt agrees that some of the mortality rates being thrown around that are close to around 100% by some estimates is outright ridiculous and not supported by his observations. Matt is confident that when he is done with his report, he will come up with a fishing mortality rate of around 50% which is very low for a lobster fishery worldwide.
John Guth gave an update on AB 571. It has gone through most of the hurdles and he expects this bill to pass with minor modifications. The escape port language has also been added to it as negotiated by the fishermen representatives with the Department. The vote tally at the committee hearing on August 17, 2009 was 8 Yes and 1 No.
AB 489 was also discussed. This bill will authorize a hefty increase on landing tax for all commercial fisheries in California. It is a tax based on average ex-vessel value during the previous year. Landing tax will rise to 1.5% ex-vessel value on January 1, 2011 and to 3% ex-vessel value beginning Jan. 1, 2013. Based on current landing tax, it represents an increase of 1200% and 2400% respectively for the lobster fishery (assuming an ex-vessel value of $10/lb.) Fishermen need to contact their state legislators to get them to oppose this bill. The vote tally at the committee hearing on August 17, 2009 was 8 Yes and 5 No.
Carla Guenther gave an update of her socio-economic impact study on the Channel Island Marine Reserves after adding two more years of logbook data. So there are five years before and five years after data. There is an average of at least 30% reduction in individual daily catch and a 20% monthly revenue loss. There are also reduced number of traps around the MPAs and a reduced number of fishermen fishing at the islands. Some has moved their traps at the islands and concentrated their efforts along the coast. Revenue loss is mostly felt after the second, third and fourth year after the reserves go into effect. The catch in areas near MPAs is about the same, and the impact is mostly felt in island areas farther from MPAs. It is in some ways the opposite of what we were told would happen. Since there was never a timeline provided for predicted benefits, a direct comparison cannot be made. Her work is being readied for a high profile publication.
Phil Beguhl and Josh Fisher gave an update on MLPA. The process is now down to three MPA proposals. One from a moderate group of consumptive users and middle of the road environmentalists, one from the fishermen (FIC/FIN) and other consumptive users, and one from the extremist preservationists group. The various options being considered are limited by the guidelines put together by the Science Advisory Team (SAT) and the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) with regards to the size of the reserves, spacing and connectivity. The decision-making tools have relegated socio-economic impacts in favor of ecological functioning in the reserves. It is of utmost importance that we demonstrate solidarity as a group to defeat the preservationist’s proposal that would jeopardize the livelihood of commercial fishermen and threaten the economic viability of the various port communities. Josh urged that we all show up during public comment day either on October 20th, 21st or 22nd (TBA) at Long Beach before the BRTF, so we can show our presence to support the FIC/FIN (Group Two) proposal. Another important event is the F&G Commission Meeting on December 10, 2009 at Woodland, where we need good representation in the proceedings. We also need to write letters to the legislature. We stand to lose the most and need to act decisively to mitigate our loss.
Rodger Healy led the discussion on the Southern Rock Crab permits. There are various issues regarding the fishery that need to be resolved, mainly the transferability of the permits and by-catch. The fishermen at the meetings voted for transferability for all the permits along with by-catch. A special meeting was convened on August 28 at Ventura Harbor to address those issues. The Department’s goal is to keep things simple and minimize costs.
The Department’s law enforcement put in a request in the triennial review of sport fishing regulations to have a definition of a hoop net. They are forced to do multiple proposals because there are a lot of modified hoop nets. They got a definition of the traditional flat hoop net, a definition for allowing a modified trap (but not a full one), and a definition of a modified hoop net with added restrictions reducing the number and the number allowed on a vessel. They made the motion and it is going before the Commission. When the sport regulations are changed, it will be posted on the Department’s web site. Anyone can make a regulation proposal to the Commission via email through the Department’s web site, by fax or by mail. The Department is trying to close the barn door after they let all of the various types of hoop nets being used right now. This will be a struggle because of the various advocacy groups. In that bill there is also an option allowing recreational lobster fishermen to carry spears, which is controversial. The lobsters also cannot be tailed until immediate consumption.
The final agenda item is the nomination and election of a new President and Vice President of CLTFA. Rodger Healy and Josh Fisher were nominated for President and Vice President respectively, at both the Dana Point and Ventura meetings. They received overwhelming majority votes from the membership. They are officially appointed with immediate effect.
An announcement was made at the conclusion of the meeting that CLTFA membership dues have been reduced to $100 annually with the expected passage of AB 571. CLTFA hopes this will encourage more fishermen to join and become active members.
*****************************************************************
Minutes of CLTFA General Meeting
Date: September 16, 2010 at the Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos.
Participants: Kristine Barsky, Bob Bertelli, Scott Honaker, Kenny Swanson, Charlie Graham, John Guth, Josh Fisher, Rodger Healy, Talib Wahab, Dave Rudie, Shad Catarius, and Paul Frederick.
The meeting was primarily held to discuss the new FMP (Fishery Management Plan) model the Department is pursuing that was presented at the recent OPC (Ocean Protection Council) California and World Ocean Conference, and to provide an update on the status of the ongoing lobster stock assessment. The objective of the new FMP model is to reduce costs, while meeting the goals set forth under the MLMA (Marine Life Management Act). Earlier FMPs completed such as for near shore and squid cost the Department too much and is simply unaffordable.
Kristine Barsky, who is the Department’s Senior Invertebrate Specialist, was on hand to present at the meeting.
In addition to political pressure and a vigorous push by EDF, the Department also has long standing interest in developing a lobster FMP because:
1.
The newly planned MPAs in southern California will affect the lobster fishery.
2.The Department has concerns with the recreational fishery and the growing use of hoop nets.
3.Lobster is a major fishery that has commercial and recreational components.
The new FMP model will be general in nature to make it flexible, so it can be modified to complement existing traditional management measures such as minimum size limit, season, restricted access, trap rules, etc., and whatever new management tools adopted in the future. Among the things that may need to be considered could be issues like how we would compensate for fishing territory lost, and what to do with the recreational fishery. Kristine held discussions with Huff McGonigal of EDF about a grant proposal to fund a lobster FMP. The major topic of these discussions was which tasks would the Department like to keep in-house, and what tasks could be contracted out under DFG supervision. The initial proposal submitted to RLFF (Resources Legacy Fund Foundation), a consortium of non-profits, was turned down because they wanted to focus on funding MPA monitoring projects.
The funding proposal was then submitted to the OPC (Ocean Protection Council). The OPC at their November meeting will decide whether to fund the lobster FMP proposal. The Department will be funding their own in-house portion of the FMP development, and is requesting $1 million to cover the costs of the external contracts. The money will go to the non-profit California Wildlife Foundation that will manage the contracts and money for the Department. The Department will proceed with the FMP as soon as it is funded, and once started it will proceed to completion.
A stock assessment is an estimate of the number of lobsters in the wild based on mathematical models using fisheries data. Department biologist Doug Neilson is currently working on the assessment. The draft assessment will be available at the end of December for peer review. Neilson consulted with stock assessment experts before working with stock depletion models where it is assumed that CPUE is highest at the beginning of season and CPUE declines as the season progresses. Estimation of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is calculated using among other techniques, a non-equilibrium surplus production analysis to determine whether the harvest rate is at, above or below MSY. Management considerations covering both the commercial and recreational sectors will only take place after the stock assessment has been thoroughly reviewed and accepted.
Whatever management options or actions are taken will be equitably shared between the commercial and recreational fisheries. The Department is also trying to get researchers funded to gather data across all regions along the California coast since there are obvious differences that will need to be taken into consideration, even though regional management is unlikely to be adopted due to costs.
Based on the 2008-09 recreational lobster report cards that were turned in, it is estimated that the recreational fishery landed roughly 40% of the total landed by the commercial fishery. While there is long term data available on the commercial fishery, similar data has only recently been collected on the recreational fishery. Only about 7,450 of the 30,000 recreational lobster report cards issued were returned. The Department is working on an automated system to track the report cards to the person it was issued to, and perhaps require that it be properly filled and returned before a new one can be issued. The impacts of the surge of recreational hoop nets in recent years, and the use of the modified version that increases retention will be taken into consideration in some way or another, though it is not clear how at this time.
Some members of the recreational fishery are interested in having a slot limit, meaning having a minimum and a maximum size limit. It is known that bigger sized lobsters are more fecund than the smaller ones. This is something the commercial fishery should also be thinking about.
It is estimated that it will take three years to complete the FMP, and important meetings will be scheduled during the off-season whenever possible. Any regulations required to implement provisions of the FMP will fall under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Those regulations are done through the Fish and Game Commission and must be approved through their regulatory process.
At-sea sampling based on the New Zealand model using four randomly marked traps per fisherman, could be done as long as it does not interfere with the fishermen’s work or compromise their safety. Everything caught in the marked traps would be recorded for carapace length, tail width, sex and GPS location to determine the demographics of a population sample. The at-sea sampling data however will not be used in the current stock assessment.
The Department would like to collaborate with the Mexican fishery on things like the sharing of data, research methodology, comparing models, etc., but there are various problems to overcome since they are dealing with a foreign country. Mexico also has a different management structure whereby the fishery is operated by fishing co-operatives. Thus far, the Department has not received the model information it requested.
John Guth proposed a collaborative project between CLTFA and the Department that will put lobster fishermen to work to collect fishery data. The fishermen will be compensated for their work. The rationale being that fishermen know better where to find and how to catch the lobsters. It is suggested that CLTFA partner with DFG to put in a funding proposal with Sea Grant since $4 million will be made available for collaborative projects of that nature. It has to be done during the off season to avoid enforcement problems since specialized gears with smaller mesh and no escape ports will be used to sample a population inside the MPAs. It is important that we know what the population structure is within the MPAs, and to test the validity of the spill over theory. The findings can be used as a supplement to the stock assessment. This project can also be incorporated into the FMP, that will also require monitoring. The proposal has to be submitted within the next six months.
The meeting proceeded to address CLTFA business. The by-laws require that CLTFA have a Board of Directors. It is agreed that the Board shall consist of a representative from each port. Under the by-laws, membership renewal date is on November 1. It is proposed that it be moved to January 1. The by-laws will be revised in the next few months for membership approval. It will incorporate the Robert’s Rules of Order for conducting meetings.
AB 408 (lobster management enhancement) will most likely be vetoed. CLTFA did all it could to appease Department opposition by making several concessions such as modifying or deleting any part(s) of the language the Department objected to, in addition to raising the fees due to DFG to 24% of the gross amount collected. Ultimately, it was state politics that derailed the bill. CLTFA will be exploring other avenues for raising funds to accomplish the objectives set forth in this bill. It may take reorganizing CLTFA into a non-profit 501(c)(3) status organization. (Update: AB 408 was vetoed)
AB 291 (lobster escape port) is expected to pass with no objections. (Update: AB 291 passed)
Some members requested an MOU from EDF with regards to its dealings with CLTFA. EDF responded with a letter that was later distributed to members via email. Copies were also issued to the port representatives present. The letter should resolve concerns anyone might have about CLTFA dealings and relationship with EDF. CLTFA could not do everything on its own with its very limited budget and expertise. Outside help is sometimes needed to get things done for the benefit of everyone in the fishery. Everything that CLTFA seeks to accomplish in partnership with EDF had already been voted on and approved by the fleet. CLTFA did not make any commitment with EDF in any shape or form with a binding agreement of any kind.
It is also proposed that CLTFA need to create a protocol for collaborative research projects with academia. The purpose of the collaborative research, and types of data that need to be collected should be clearly specified. A project that is currently pursued by the Bren School is an effort to collect baseline data before a new MPA is put into place. It will be used for future comparisons with similar data taken after the MPA goes into effect. CLTFA should be entitled to a copy of all the data collected. If a student researcher is to go on board a fishing vessel for at-sea sampling, insurance coverage should be required along with a letter of indemnity from the school that will absolve fishermen from all liabilities as a result of any accidents that may occur while the student is on board the fishing vessel. The student is also responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from DFG to conduct the research, and be equipped with Coast Guard approved personal safety gear.
**************************************************************
