Immediate Action Needed Marine Fisheries Reform

[Gerry Zagorski]

If you're frustrated by the way our fisheries are regulated and managed, I would strongly encourage you to get involved right here right now and support the efforts underway by the RFA and ASA to make some much needed changes.

A meeting/webinar will be held on Monday 3/28 at 6 - 8 PM discussing Marine Fisheries Reform and alternate means of managing our fisheries into 2023 and beyond. It includes the potential for multiyear regulations instead of doing it one year at a time and taking stock status and other key indicators into consideration when setting regulations.

Right now the regulations are set each year by comparing the previous year’s catch to next year’s quota. MRIP data is used to measure the catch and it's then compared to the quota. If the catch data exceeds your quota you get more restrictive regulations, if it's less you get more liberalized regulations. However, the current system does not take stock status into account. Take what recently happened with Black Seabass... A fishery that has been totally rebuilt and yet because of last year’s highly speculative MRIP data we were are forced to take more restrictive measures this year. Fluke on the other hand had lower MRIP catch numbers compared to our quota but is not totally rebuilt and yet we're looking at a liberalization this year.

Kind of screwy right? Stock status need to be figured in so decisions can be made based in some part on the health of a fishery and we should be able to set regulations for multiple years rather than make knee jerk reactions every year based solely on last year’s data.

ACTION ITEM 1 Register to attend the 3/28 meeting here https://register.gotowebinar.com/rt/1135657394291955982 select the 3/28 meeting from the drop down and support the efforts of the reform

ACTION ITEM 2 Sign this petition developed by the ASA in support of the reforms https://keepamericafishing.org/actio...3101%2fRespond

ACTION ITEM 3 Share this post with others by copying and pasting this link https://www.njfishing.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=117879

So here is an abbreviated version of the 5 options that will be discussed. If you'd like to read more about each you can find that here in an overview http://www.asmfc.org/files/PublicInp..._March2022.pdf. There is also a Decision Tree developed by the ASA and the RFA which is meant to help people like you and I understand each of the options and make a more informed decision https://keepamericafishing.org/wp-co...ndum-Final.pdf

A) No change and keep managing as we have in the past with no consideration given to stock status which includes other key measures.

B) A plan that will consider both quota/vs MRIP and stock status

C,D and E) Rely on model approaches that are still under development and set different tiers/bins of measures of which take stock status into account but also use some combination of other measures like, recruitment, fish mortality, MRIP catch data etc to determine regulations. While that might sound great, the process has been defined in all these options but the measures that result after the process have not been defined and that is cause for concern. One of the proposed models that could be used in all 3 options for determining measures is highly dependent on MRIP so these options could reform the process but the devil could be in the details.

Just so you all know, the RFA is supporting option B because of the current uncertainly in C, D and E.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I've been writing a lot recently about the action items needed to try get people involved in influencing our regulations and fisheries. The reason for the increased frequency is because I learned over time, if you don't get involved early and at key points in the process, many of the most important decisions have already been decided. Let me give you an example...

Most like me used to get involved in the meetings and take an interest in the spring when NJ met to decide our Fluke and Seabass regulations. By the time that meeting occurred the feds and the regional committees already decided what the regulations options would be and the State as well as you and I had to choose from the options that passed federal and regional reviews. At those meetings you'd hear things out of frustration like "Why don't we have a slot Fluke" or "Why are we getting penalized with a 27% reduction on Seabass when the fishery is totally rebuilt"?

I'll tell you why, it's because we got involved too late in the process.

Thankfully we got involved earlier this year due in large part to the convenience of webinars which I hope will continue. We now have a Slot Fluke Option on the table for the first time ever. We went from a 27% reduction in Seabass to a 20% reduction. Do we claim a victory here? No, but it is movement in the right direction and you can't turn a big ship on a dime.

All those action items for those meetings helped but we are talking about the "Mother of All Action Items" here, Recreational Reform. Timing is everything and when opportunity knocks for larger changes that's when you can affect the most change. This reform could actually change the way fisheries are analyzed and managed at a federal level where all the key decisions are made and long before the options get to a state or regional level when it's too late.

If you were to only choose one thing to get involved in the next few years, this would be the one.

There are people at a state and regional levels as well as national organizations like the RFA and the ASA that are trying to support you and me and we need to support them. Please put some wind in their sails and get involved right now.





​

[Joey Dah Fish]

Done

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Done

Thanks brother at least there's 2 of us

[Detour66]

Let's get the ball rolling!!

DONE and shared on varies FB NJ saltwater fishing groups!

[Pennsy Guy]

DONE

[togzilla]

Done. I have not been to involved in the politics of fisheries management over the past years with work and kids but I am fed up and ready for a fight. Something has to change now!

[dales529]

Registered, signed and shared. Thanks for your work on this Gerry!
This is the kind of change we have been after for years. Hope it comes about but it shouldn't be from a lack of effort on Recreational fishermen.

Les go boys and girls, sign on to change!

Gerry you'll take exception to this post but I've never been one to not share what I believe in. First we had Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA, then we had the Reauthorization of the MSA, then we had the Modern Fishing Act in 2018 which was going to save the recreational fishery, then we had Trump and Wilbur Ross who were going to save the day and now we have the Recreational Reform Initiative "RRI" which is the newest call to arms flavor of the day' "Mother of all Action Items" which in my opinion will result in another sounds good does nothing form of legislation. As I've said many times before, these legislation without tangible change in fisheries management is the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

In the 80's and 90's when most stocks were healthy, prolific and showed no signs of failing, we had MSA which was legislated in 1976. Other than the winter fisheries cod, ling, whiting, mackerel etc which our own government bartered with Russia and destroyed, fish stocks in general were healthy.

None of the above legislation has really done much to improve the management of fisheries. It's my biggest issues with these legislations. We focus on sound good initiatives which never translate to actionable items or philosophical improvements to better manage the stocks that help the stocks themselves as opposed to the commercial sector.

Here's a link for RRI

https://www.mafmc.org/actions/recrea...orm-initiative

Tell me what the three Management Actions are going to do to address the issues I've laid out for summer flounder. Actually first explain what the three initiatives even mean other than spin doctoring. Answer is nothing. Have to love #3, sector separation, which translated means for-hire and party boats who have wanted for years to separate themselves from the regulations of the recreational sector will be up for consideration meaning being governed by separate regulations and further divide the sector. It's what we all know as "Divide and conquer".

This is all rhetoric and like previous legislative enactments, the fishery still reports up under the Commerce Department and decisions will be based on economics and not the health of fisheries. How will RRI address ridiculous recreational size minimums, how will it address a 50% decline in the female population of the stock, how will it address a 40% decline in the spawning stock, how will it prevent harvest by commercial operators decimating the spawn, how will it address monumental weight disparities between sectors valuing annual landings, how will it address discard rates that could choke a horse. It won't.

Gerry in your own words how will RRI be any different than the other flavor of the day legislative pronouncements over the last two decades guaranteed to improve fisheries management and provide greater access rights to the sector . MRIP will continue which is a major problem. Marine fisheries is trying to quantify something that quite simply can't be quantified.
Recruitment can't be quantified due to resource limitations, a statement from a Commission Member, fix that. Discard mortality from Federal observers reports 200% to 300% greater percentages than numbers reported through the honor system by commercial operators on vessel trip reports and the numbers are ignored, fix that. We don't need new legislation, we need management to start using the data science has provided us and change the data which is obviously wrong as in MRIP catch statistics

When commercial feels like they've been screwed with policy decisions, they don't go to Congress and create another feel good act, they take legal action to get what they want and it works. The recreational sector and organizations which supposedly support that sector need to take a page out of the commercial sectors play book as opposed to authoring another sound good legislative pronouncement which has zero impact when you consider the provisions and limitations or restrictions of MSA.

You believe RRI is a game changes and is going to change fisheries management, it's not.

Here's another link from ASA:

https://saltwaterguidesassociation.c...5#comment-5017

Here's an excerpt from the ASA article:

"The Council and Board were quick to approve a 16.5% liberalization in the summer flounder fishery, despite signs of decline in recruitment. Recruitment has remained generally below average this past decade, and the reason is not known." 16.5% liberalization will be absorbed with higher levels of discard mortality and bad MRIP catch statistics. "Signs of decline in recruitment", ten years of well below average recruitment taking the fishery back to 1980 levels is not signs, it's reality. Reasons unknown, a child could figure out the reason, the data is there but unfortunately doesn't fit marine fisheries narrative and is being ignored.

Apparently you need to be blind and or incompetent to be part of fisheries management. Recreational size limit increases destroyed this fishery and NMFS won't admit it until it's too late. Identify another fishery that targets the harvest of the spawning stock with a preference for large female breeders, kills recruitment in the process, operates at unprecedented levels of discard mortality and provided no protection to the spawn and then tell me how ASA, NMFS or anyone else can make the statement recruitment has been below average for years and the reason is unknown. The answer for below average recruitment is as plain as could be and we don't need a hundred scientists spelling it out. Kill the spawning stock, kill recruitment, kill the fishery. How will RRI change our approach to fisheries management which is the question everyone should be asking. Until politics are put aside, fisheries management is just a catch phrase used when conveniently needed to cover someone's ass.

Going to send my email to Hughes, Leonard and Waine from ASA to address specifics which need to be addressed in one fishery, not sign a petition which will create another feel good legislation to save the world so some politicians can get re-elected and line their pockets. I'll bet you today RRI gains no traction as past legislation has not and does little if anything to improve the rights of the average recreational fisherman other than further divide the sector with this sectional separation. That approach has been tried for years without luck, it's been long overdue to change the approach.

And to your statement "The current system does not take stock status into account", I disagree with that statement. Read the article in the attached link from NOAA and how OFL "Over Fishing Limits" are arrived at which are based on stock assessment in fisheries where stock assessments are performed. Then look at the attached chart from marine fisheries which graphically explains the process in which quotas are set, even though they deviated from it for 2022 by going from landings based to catch based in certain situations.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/south...mit-monitoring.

We still focus on quotas, season lengths and allocations, none of which are managing fisheries. You can have all the reauthorizations, new legislation, access and RRI's of the world but in my opinion until we address stock health and start managing fisheries instead of political and industry driven agendas, nothing will change and personally I want no part of it because it's just smoke and mirrors and a monumental waste of time.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Tom I can understand your frustrations and you are absolutely correct, the system is broken and its been broken for a while.

Should we be concerned that the Recreational Reform is just another way to perfume the pig for the sake of change and nothing will change? Absolutely and Adam expressed the same concern which is why he and the RFA want others and the public to get involved to support option B and not C, D or E because they are not fully baked. There's a lot of uncertainty in them that when the details do get filled, we very well could be back close to where we were in the past.


As far as Stock Status, I think we are both correct, they do figure into setting quotas as you mentioned, but are not a factor when setting measures as I tried to say.

Lastly, I think in the end we're both looking to do the same thing, change the way the fisheries are managed. You can continue down your path and do what you believe is best and I won't question it because it's one path . I'll continue to go down my path and would appreciate you not dissuading people from taking it. We're both trying to get to the same place, just taking different paths.