Government moves slowly and often seems impenetrable. But when it lowers its guard and allows the public to address elected representatives directly, we witness one of the truest forms of the democratic process.
I was reminded of this on Feb. 2 when I attended a legislative hearing on the gamefish bill in North Carolina to protect red drum, spotted sea trout (speckled trout) and striped bass from commercial gill netting.
Representatives of commercial fishermen, who oppose the bill as a threat to their livelihoods, and recreational fishermen, who want to see the numbers of fish increase, were given a chance to state their cases. The bill would effectively ban gill netting for and commercial sale of these fish. It’s too early to say whether either side truly hit a home run with the committee during the hearing, but the recreational fishermen were better organized, outnumbered commercial representatives by 3-1, and delivered some of the more compelling comments.
A lobbyist, a seafood store owner and a radio personality spoke about how the bill would put hard-working commercial fishermen out of work and take red fish, speckled trout and striped bass off the plates of the public. They claimed the measure would essentially transfer rights to the three species as seafood from a majority of the state’s population to a small group of “wealthy, elitist recreational fishermen who live on the coast.”
Recreational fishing guides, store owners and a boat builder effectively countered these arguments by claiming their livelihoods also depend on these species, and that red fish, speckled trout and stripers only accounted for roughly two percent of the commercial fishing income from 2010 according to state figures. They also repeated state figures that the direct and indirect economic impact of recreational fishing for N.C. was over $2 billion, while commercial fishing represents a fraction of that.
They noted that gamefish status for these species has effectively worked in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana. Red fishing in Louisiana and South Carolina far surpasses that in North Carolina and Mississippi where gill netting for these species continues, they said. One charter boat captain put the disparity in stark contrast: “Anglers are leaving our state to catch our state fish.” The committee chairman publicly acknowledged another charter boat captain’s call to pay it forward so that his baby girl would have a chance to catch a redfish if she wants to when she gets older.
A recreational fisherman spoke about witnessing the decimation of the local fresh water herring fishery at the hands of mismanaged commercial fishing and the fear that the same could happen for these three species. He noted that aquaculture and other programs have made these species available to the public in seafood stores and restaurants in states where gamefish laws are in place.
Perhaps most poignantly, he touched on why recreational angling has such a universal appeal: “Angling is done to experience a moment between man and fish that cannot be duplicated. A moment so addictive, that thousands upon thousands seek it over and over, and pay to do it. Parents share it with their children. It is our heritage. The virtual world cannot duplicate it and it’s not available as an App on an iPad.”
At the end of the hearing, many of the recreational fishermen expressed confidence in having delivered a strong, united message that this bill would be an economic benefit by attracting more tourism dollars and making an economic engine even stronger. Representatives of the commercial side quietly expressed concern about the bill’s momentum before and after the hearing.
The Legislative Research Commission Committee on Marine Fisheries will discuss the issue again in March with no public comment. The stakes are high enough that both recreational and commercial fishing interests will likely be back.
Colles, feel you may be misleading the point of whom is in truth and reality catching and killing the vast majority of the three fish proposed for game fish status.
In a five year data spread (2004 thru 2009)
Striped Bass – Rec. harvest 12.5 million pounds, commercial harvest was 3.3 million pounds. Commericial harvest is capped at 480,480 pounds per season. There is no such cap on recreational harvest, So even though rec. may only harvest 2 fish per person per day there is no limit to the number of days those 2 fish may be harvest. The result is recreationals harvested 9 million pounds more fish during the same time period as commercials.
Speckled Trout – Same time period 2004 thru 2009
Recreational harvest 4.6 million pounds.
Commercial harvest 1.5 million pounds.
Yes, that is three recreational fish harvest VX. 1 commercial fish.
Red drum – Again, same time period 2004 thru 2009
Recreational harvest 1.5 million pounds
Commercial harvest 1 million pounds.
If the issue is centered on “protecting the fish”, fishing mortality rate in much higher across the board in the recreational fishery opposed to the commercial fishery.
This problem comes to light when you consider the catch and release senario proposed. When a boat with 4 recreational fisherman locates and targets a school of say red drum, there are are often as 60 or more fish caught and released.
The heart of the problem is 10% of the released fish die as a result of the encounter. With a 1 fish bag limit, the 4 recreational fishermen keep 1 fish each. With a 10% fishing mortality rate, 6 of the released fish will die. This small group of recreational fishermen has infact killed more fish in releasing them than they we legally allowed to keep and take home to eat.
The problem with commercials is they are forced to through back fish they catch simple because of outdated rules. In 2008, I sat on the Red Drum FMP Committee and the SPR (health of the fishery) was at 39.5% recovered. In March of 2011 the SPR was 45.6% and growing. The target for noting the fishery as recovered is 40%. All of these gains have been achieved while both user groups are fishing, so what is the point of eliminating one user group and allowing another to catch all the fish if that fishery continues to grow and expand, without any outside influences such hatcheries if I might add.
So lets now look at what took place in Florida and see if we can determine what exactly the truth is with respect to that red drum fishery.
In 1987, the red drum fishery in Florida and every other state was closed by federal intervention. As soon as this occured the Florida red drum fishery immediately began to recover.
In 1988, red drum were declared “not” gamefish in Florida, because there is no such designation in Florida. The fish may not be bought or sold, but they do not have a “gamefish designation”.
By 1991, Florida red drum population had an SPR value of 79%, a very healthy stock of fish to say none the least.
In 1991, Florida was allowed to reopen it red drum fishery. Keep in mind there has not been a commercial caught or landed red drum in the state of Florida since 1988, and nets continued to be fished thru 1991 when that fishery reopened to recreational harvest.
In 1994, nets were banned in the state of Florida, because CCA pointed the finger at nets as being cause of red drum population declines of approximately 20% in SPR value between the time period 1991 to 1994, even though truthfully and factually there had not been a single commercial harvested or landed drum in Florida since 1988.
So, here is the point of this exercise. What caused the declines in Florida red drum stocks between 1994 and 2004. Pay close attention now because there are no nets allowed in Florida waters, so CCA can no longer point the fingers at nets as being the cause can they?
The simple fact of the matter is recreational overharvest in conjunction with catch and release mortality is what wiped out the Florida red drum population between 1991 and 2004.
“Recreational Exploitation” is the term you are looking for. It has happened many times in may states. Every wonder why recreational bag limits and federal quotas on fish like flounder, red snapper, grouper and many others continue to be reduced year after year.
Its because the recreational fisheries have no season quota’s attached, and results in a “free for all” with no limitations other than a daily creel. So what you end up with is 1 fish bag limit 365 days a year and no annual quota.
If you don’t think the recreational sector can overharvest a fishery with a 1 fish bag limit, I invite you to view a graph taken from the Florida Red Drum fishery management plan as see the proof for yourself.
https://skydrive.live.com/?sc=documents&lc=1033#!/view.aspx?cid=546D30065D9251C2&resid=546D30065D9251C2%21157
Nets are not the problem with our fisheries, overharest is the problem and until recreational harvest is brought under control with an annual quota, the problem will persist and CCA will continue to point fingers at the group taking the least amount fish, using commercials as scape goats to acquire a 100% allocation of all fish while leaving the non-fishing public high and dry with no fish.
KMS
Colles, Sorry for the incorrect link, this one will take you directly to the Florida graph.
https://skydrive.live.com/?sc=documents&lc=1033#!/view.aspx?cid=546D30065D9251C2&resid=546D30065D9251C2%21198
Thanks Kenneth for your comment, and for providing a good representation of the commercial fishing industry’s arguments and logic regarding this bill.
You’re right…. It’s critically important to not mislead anyone about the numbers involved.
So let’s look at some of the points you’ve raised and put them in perspective.
Speckled trout – According to the latest N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries stock assessment, commercial fishermen harvested 1.57 million pounds of speckled trout from 2004 through 2009. Recreational fishermen harvested 4.6 million pounds.
Red Drum – According to the same NCDMF stock report, commercial fishermen harvested 1.01 million pounds of red drum from 2004 through 2009. Recreational fishermen harvested 1.51 million pounds. Here, I’ll echo a statement from an earlier blog post that comes from DMF statistics: North Carolina accounts for nearly 90% of all commercial landings of red drum nationally, but only 1 percent of recreational landings. Recreational anglers release nearly 85 percent of the red drum they catch.
Striped Bass – As you probably know, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages and counts striped bass. The most recent ASMFC Striped Bass Landings Report states that recreational fishermen in North Carolina landed 938,703 pounds of striped bass in 2008 while commercial fishermen landed 288,410 pounds in the same year.
I stress landings versus harvest because there is a significant difference between landing and releasing a fish, and killing it. More on that later. Regarding your statement that there is no cap on recreational harvest of striped bass, I’ll direct you to the ASMFC state regulations for N.C. under “Managed Species/Striped Bass.” While there is no quota for recreational fishermen in the ocean, there is a quota of 137,500 pounds for the Albermarle Sound and the same quota for Roanoke River, where much of the recreational fishing for striped bass occurs. As you state, there is a 480,480 pound quota for commercial fishing in the ocean and a 275,000 pound quota in Albermarle sound.
I reiterate most of the numbers you mention to highlight a couple of discrepancies. While it’s true that recreational fishermen have landed or harvested more fish than commercial fishermen, the numbers of fishermen for both groups tell a different story. According to the DMF, the state sold 5,179 commercial fishing licenses, of which 2,522 were bought by active commercial fishermen. The state reports that more than 800,000 recreational fishermen were licensed to fish in the same year.
So if 5,179 commercial fishermen (best-case scenario) account for 1.01 million pounds of harvested red drum, and more than 800,000 recreational fishermen account for 1.5 million pounds, which user group has the largest per-user impact on the resource?
When we look at the economic benefit to the state for both user groups, according to DMF statistics, here are the numbers: Commercial fishing accounts for $88 million while recreational fishermen account for $1.6 billion, not including $1.2 billion in durable goods revenues. Extrapolating that on a per-user basis, each commercial fisherman accounts for $16,991 in revenues on average (assuming 5,179 fishermen actively sell their catch, which they don’t). That same per-user contribution for recreational fishermen is $2,000. So, in order for the commercial industry to have the same economic impact in one year as the recreational side, the state would have to license an additional 94,167 commercial fishermen to achieve $1.6 billion. Only problem is, there wouldn’t be enough resources to meet that demand.
Now let’s turn to your catch and release scenario. First, I can tell you as a longtime angler, your scenario of four guys catching 60 fish in one school is unrealistic at best. Redfish, like speckled trout and stripers, are not stupid fish, particularly in shallow water. Even with bait, you might get 20 fish (depending on the school size and if you’re extremely lucky) out of one school. Fish get increasingly cagey when others keep sending out stress signals, and it wouldn’t be long before they either clam up, bolt or both.
As for the mortality rate, the ASMFC projects 8% (not 10%) for these species when released. That is a conservative estimate, and probably a bit high in practical terms. So, in this unlikely scenario, four fishermen keep four fish and release 16, of which one fish (8% of 16) might die.
Now, let’s look at the commercial side. Commercial fishermen are allowed to keep 10 red drum as bycatch (they can’t target them specifically). So, if the same school of 60 fish swimming in a channel that has been strung with a gill net, 10 fish will be legally allowed to be sold. That is the reported landing and harvest. What happens to the rest caught in the net?
Playing by the rules, they are left dead in the water and contribute no value to the state, except food for crabs, etc. The DMF term for that is “wanton waste.” So these fish that have been caught and killed in the net, and left in the water do NOT get reported. Other bycatch may include turtles, (not allowed), sturgeon (endangered, and such encounters would shut down all gill netting in the state), water fowl (not allowed), dolphins (big no-no) and other non-targeted species.
The Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) figures you quote actually include Virginia, Maryland and Delaware as part of the ASMFC management plan for red drum. So there is no exact SPR for North Carolina alone, according to the DMF. However, the DMF says the margin of error on SPR is +/- 10%. So the figures may not be as strong as anticipated, and often are predicted on the optimistic side for Fisheries Management Plans. But SPR numbers aside, if the N.C. red drum fishery is so strong, why can I drive to Georgetown, S.C. and see schools of fish in the hundreds much more frequently than I can along the N.C. coast under the exact same tide, weather and light conditions? The answer may have something to do with the fact that gill nets are banned in S.C., where redfish are listed as game fish.
It’s interesting that you point out Florida as a case in point of how recreational fishing alone has led to “Recreational Exploitation” in your words. Here is a link to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Press Release from November 2011 essentially upping the bag limit on recreationally caught redfish from one per day to two per day per fishermen in the state’s two northern regions because the escapement rate has exceeded the 40% management goal. This is particularly noteworthy because in 2010 and 2011, the state experienced a massive kill off of a variety of species, including redfish, speckled trout and snook, due to unseasonably freezing temperatures.
Apparently, well-managed recreational fishing seems to work in states that have no gill nets targeted to redfish.
So thanks again, Kenneth for proving my point that this is an emotional issue
that begs for debate and logical thinking. I’ll go back to my original statement that mismanagement could set all three species on a precipitous downward spiral, where just as it was 20 years ago, drastic measures (eliminating all harvest, etc.) were the only reason redfish and striped bass barely escaped an all-out stock collapse.
It’s interesting that the commercial fisherman were un-organised in comparison to the recreational fishermen, with seemingly more at stake you’d assume a larger representation and better execution of such a hearing. Either way, it’s good news for eco-friendly fishing and sustainable waters & well done to those fishermen that stated their case so well.
“Per user Impact” Really? Commercial fishermen fish for the public. Recreational fishermen fish for themselves. “Per user impact is not a valid argument. How many households and restaurants get their fish from commercial fishermen? All of the besides those 800,000 recreational fishermen you site. And I’ll bet at least a few of them enjoy a good seafood meal at home or at a restaurant, too. One commercial fisherman does not equal one consumer. One recreational fisherman, who by law retains the fish he catches for his own personal use equals one consumer.