OCEAN Saltwater Sportsmen's Show 2012

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > The Salty Dogs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2003, 07:54 AM   #1
Pilar
Mr. Carkington
 
Pilar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Not all that wander are lost.
Posts: 10,882
Default PFMC considers observer data on trawls

A short article appeared in the 'B' section of the Oregonian today about the PFMC meeting held this week in Vancouver.

I won't copy the article here but they are saying that new, more drastic reductions in trawl fishing are now likely based on bycatch numbers.

The actual bycatch observed by people on trawlers was some 4 times higher than the original estimates used. The trawl industry is disputing the science and lobbying for a delay in new restrictions while the validity of the science is reconsidered.

In the same breath they give the economic impact on the trawl fleet as a reason not to impose the new restrictions.

We will most likely hear more from our rep on the PFMC, Janice Green who has been at these meetings all this week.
__________________
"Never mistake motion for action"
Ernest Hemingway
"thud!"
Pilar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2003, 09:58 AM   #2
edsr
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,086
Default Re: PFMC considers observer data on trawls

Janis Green - If you are reading this forum thread, could you please give us your opinion of the PFMC meetings held this past week?

edsr
__________________
edsr
edsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2003, 10:07 AM   #3
Pilar
Mr. Carkington
 
Pilar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Not all that wander are lost.
Posts: 10,882
Default Re: PFMC considers observer data on trawls

Edsr, Jen just called her for an update. We can hope to hear from Janice after she has a chance to process the happenings this week.
__________________
"Never mistake motion for action"
Ernest Hemingway
"thud!"
Pilar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2003, 07:43 AM   #4
black magic
Chromer
 
black magic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Portland/Garibaldi
Posts: 801
Default Re: PFMC considers observer data on trawls

I have attended some of these meetings of the PFMC and I have the following comments (they may not be precisely accurate, but this is what I think I heard):

The main point of contention appears to be related to a predictive model developed by Dr. Jim Hastie of NMFS. His model attempts to predict into the future when bycatch limits will be reached based on actual landings more than observer data.The observer data is to be used later to adjust the predictive model to real time. The purpose of this model in my opinion is to avoid a complete closure of the trawl fishery. Since his model is predicting early attainment of bycatch limits they were proposing further area restrictions and/or trip limits in order to avoid complete closure about midyear. No one argued that the trend is not up in bycatch no matter which sets of data are used.

The big red flag for recreational fishers that I saw was some mention of stealing some of the 9.3 metric tons of canary from Oregon recreational groundfish bycatch (this is the 1 canary personal limit) to be added to trawl bycatch to extend their season. If recreational bycatch quota for canary goes to zero it would be very likely that recreational groundfishing would be closed midseason outside of 27 fathoms. I didn't see a lot of support for this idea, but it was mentioned and needs to be monitored. Janice testified on Thursday asking the council for permanent bycatch allocations for the different sectors of the fishery, which do not exist at present.This would prevent them from being taken away
I might say that all of us recreational fishers are extremely lucky to have Janice Green working for us. She is one of the hardest working, most dedicated, ethical and talented people we could have working for our interests in the PFMC and everywhere else for that matter.

So, thats it. Some good and some bad.

[ 04-12-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: black magic ]
__________________
A man's got to believe in something, I believe I'll go fishing.-Thoreau
http://www.rfaoregon.org
http://www.oregon-anglers.org
black magic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2003, 08:30 AM   #5
Mark Mc
King Salmon
 
Mark Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Corvallis
Posts: 7,413
Default Re: PFMC considers observer data on trawls

Thanks for that report Mr Holloway. You're right - this business of taking allowable bycatch away from sportfishers has been and still is a huge concern. It showed up last year in the groundfish plan. The current language allows for midseason adjustments if the maximum allowable take (of yelloweye, canary, & bocaccio) is achieved. This means that if the trawl fleet kills too many of the "endangered" fish, the PFMC says "sorry sportfishers, yes it's the middle of the summer but you can't bottom fish outside of 20 (or 27) fathoms."

In California, a situation arised where the commercial live fishers reached their yearly quota of cabezon by mid-year. So the regulators took something like 30,000 lbs FROM THE SPORT QUOTA and "gave" it to the commercials.

This kind of action really stinks, and we have to make a stink with the PFMC to make sure this doesn't happen. As Janice apparently asked, we should be demanding a separate quota (of allowable bycatch) for sportfishers.

Off soap box, back to coffee.
__________________

The fish are still......where you find them.

I want some Binnaga Maguro


"Anyone with a pulse can pass an on line test and get a boaters card" - anonymous CG member
Mark Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2003, 03:41 PM   #6
RFA Janice
Coho
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Umpqua
Posts: 91
Default Re: PFMC considers observer data on trawls

Hi Salty Dogs: I would have written sooner, but my laptop could only read. Old "computer challenged" here did not think to set it up to speak to Ifish, so had to wait until I got home. Thanks Black Magic for the kind words. Not sure I'm up to them. Am blushing. :blush:

Bottom line is we came out OK on canary, and will have 9.3 mt for sport groundfishery. This is a lot when compared to very small bycatches allowed in some trawl fisheries and overall for research. It is an amount that we can actually land, as our bag is 1 canary per day. BUT, canary are in trouble. Not our fault, but we have to live with it. (Same goes for yelloweye.) We have the bag only because it doesn't save any fish to tell us we can't retain canary. We would catch them, and then throw them overboard. Same impact whether dead overboard or dead landed. So our allocation is in fact kinda a bycatch allocation, and we should think of it that way. We should avoid canary every way we can. We shouldn't be landing one for every fisher. Better none, or one, per boat landing fish. If you catch a canary, move. Same for charters. The whole idea is not to catch them, but be able to land a fish if we make a mistake.

Yes, our allocation isn't in quite the category we would like. It is just an estimate of the number that will be dead if we fish as we have been. But if we can lower that, there will be more fish for research, or for some poor almost bankrupt fisher to take a few more arrowtooth flounder, or whatever.

We will work towards changing the amount to an allocation, for which there are certain protections under the PFMC rules, including that it takes two meetings to change the amount. Having guys who are facing bankruptcy look hungrily at your fish which might help them out a little ain't a great experience, but in my judgment our bycatch wouldn't help them for very long, and is worth preserving so that we aren't pushed inside 27 fathoms.

Other interesting news: ODFW Commission on Friday did adopt the "boat limit" rule, meaning that in the rec salmon fishery, all rods can stay in the water until all legal limits have been attained. The rule retains all restrictions on how many fish may be LANDED by any participant, so clearly the intention is that rods will be handed off to persons who have open tag slots and can legally land a fish. Bottomfishing did not have the requirement that rods be retired, because you might have your one canary (OOPS) but still be fishing for black rockfish, or whatever. However, again, what you LAND should be within your own limit. We were very pleased with this change in the regs, as it will make the situation of the one unlucky guy much more comfortable. You won't be faced with tooling around with one rod out while your unlucky friend sweats trying to fill his tag, the rest of you eating potato chips, drinking wine,and wishing you were ashore--or else breaking the rule. And charters won't have to wonder which fisherman is the undercover agent. It's a win for everyone. :grin: :grin: Commissioners were very conflicted about the issue, so anyone who can think of any way that one might abuse this privilege should think twice.
RFA Janice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Terms of Service
Page generated in 0.07537 seconds with 10 queries