Garibaldi Groundfish Meeting

[black magic]

I attended the Garibaldi Meeting last night and gave this testimony to the Marine Resources group:

Fishery Harvest Cap Reduction Proposals
January 28, 2003
Garibaldi, OR


John Holloway
Oregon Anglers
6823 SW Burlingame Ave
Portland, OR 97219
503/245-1281
manleydesign@attbi.com

Marine Resources Program Personnel ODFW,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I am a sportfisher and I wish to address concerns that I have regarding the nearshore harvest cap reduction proposal of 20% below 2000 levels plan for 2003.

I do not see a need for a change at this present time for the following reasons:


1. The revenue situation for the state is not good at this time and nearshore stock data collection is not a priority for the state general fund. Fish stock data collection is expensive but necessary to achieve sustainable harvest levels. The majority of funding for this purpose will have to come from ?other funds? such as user fees to help with costs and provide possible ?seed? funding to acquire grants of additional revenue. Unfortunately some harvest of the resource is needed to generate revenue for these user fees.


2. I am particularly concerned about the impact that harvest reduction might have on the charter industry. Many are operating large vessels with high capital investments in equipment for normal operations and Coast Guard safety requirements. There is also a high percentage of owners that have decades of investments in their business and thus a large stake in their local communities. A decrease in allowable harvest may reduce customer volume enough to cause some to be forced to leave the industry. I as a sport boat operator do not want to see one charter go out of business. I need their support to help create a sustainable nearshore fishery.


3. Recreational/charter nearshore harvest of Selected Marine Species has been declining since the mid to late 90?s and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so in the near term. The excellent salmon runs of the last two years has helped with the reduction of recreational effort on the nearshore groundfishery.


4. The nearshore Fisheries Management Plan already calls for a reduction of the commercial effort by 50% which is designed to further reduce the harvest.


5. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council is scheduled in the near term to do assessments/studies on two nearshore species; black rockfish and cabezon. These studies could lead to a clearer picture of the stock health of these species and serve as a good indicator of the assumed health of other nearshore stocks.

I am in favor of a precautionary approach to nearshore management, but I believe economics must play a role when the effort and harvest are already declining. We are in a ?Catch-22? where the resource users must maintain financial health to remain in a position to help successfully manage the fishery. I am only suggesting that this issue be moved to one year from now to be revisited with new and better data.

[Fishplay]

Short term economics does not concerne me.

If we overfish our shoreline as California has there will be no fishing for anyone.

We all know how much money sportfishing brings to the state and coastal communities.

If our Nearshore is lost we will see an economic crisis of devistating proportions.

Not to mention we will lose a sport we love and for some of us a heritage.

I was at the early meetings and hearings where the overwhelming majority asked that ODFW take appropriate mesures to ensure that the California nightmare not repeat itself up here.

There were representatives from the charter fleet present and they were asking for the same thing.

The message was:
If we are to error lets make sure we error to the conservative side.


Untill we have sufficiant data that we can base a sustainable fishery upon we should be extremely conservative with our regulations.

I urge all of you to support this 20% reduction!

Thank You
Greg J. McMillan