Category Archives: Fishing Politics

A Response to “Another View on Gulf Red Snapper Management”

In Response to “Another View on Gulf Red Snapper Management”
from The Fishing Wire

Recreational angling stakeholders recently released a joint one-pager on the potential impacts of bureaucratic decisions regarding the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of that release, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (Foundation) – not the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus – issued a press release on the current proposal before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) that looks to pit components of the recreational sector against one another. While coverage of the one-pager has been well-received, the release’s recreational angling outlook received a naïve assessment entitled “Another View on Gulf Red Snapper Management” as published in the July 24 edition of the Fishing Wire.

The author, a former representative on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, criticizes the Foundation and its partners for suggesting that the Council has not done a good job of developing real solutions to the challenges facing red snapper anglers. He states that, “In reality, the Council has been working on red snapper management alternatives for decades by implementing various management tools, such as bag and size limits, seasons, and quotas.” Unfortunately, the “reality” we’ve seen is shorter and shorter federal recreational red snapper seasons, culminating in the shortest ever: nine days in 2014. If sector separation (Amendment 40) is successful, the average recreational angler will likely see zero days in federal waters despite snapper populations that are more abundant than ever documented. How can the trend of fewer and fewer days to fish for the healthiest population of red snapper in history be considered successful management?

It is clear the author subscribes to the theory that separating the two identifiable components of the recreational sector will solve the problems for recreational anglers, especially the charter-for-hire (CFH) component. If you are a charter captain who was given only nine days to fish this year, having your own quota may seem like the silver bullet you need to make a living. Any business owner could sympathize with looking for an alternative lifeline. But one must question if it is really the salvation of the industry?

Although he states there is no comparison between the commercial sector’s catch share program and sector separation, later on he says that “each new recreational sector would be responsible for their quota.” How can a small, finite number of charter captains not be allocated some form of individual shares or quota? Although an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program for the CFH sector is not specifically part of Amendment 40, the 178-page amendment document makes several references where this form of catch shares would be an option for managing the new CFH sector if Amendment 40 is successful. That, combined with the current Head Boat Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) and the proposed Alabama Charter-for-Hire EFP, suggests that is exactly where this is headed – Individual charter captains holding individual shares of quota.

Charter captains need only to take a look at other sector separation and catch share programs to be concerned. In all catch share fisheries to date, over 50% of all fishery participants exited the fishery. Ultimately, if you don’t hold an initial share, you are out of luck to begin with. That’s what catch shares are designed to do … to reduce capacity by getting boats off the water. There will be winners, yes. But there will be losers as well. More losers than winners. Is it worth the gamble? Just ask an Alaskan charter boat captain how sector separation in the halibut fishery has worked for them.

The author points out that since the commercial sector’s individual fishing quota went into effect, that sector has not exceeded their quota once, while the recreational sector has exceeded their quota most every year. This is the same argument used by the commercial sector to emphasize how great the commercial IFQ program is while labeling the recreational sector “unaccountable.” Despite what the commercial industry and environmental groups proclaim, recreational anglers (both private and CFH components) have been accountable and abide by the law and the regulations. It is the federal system of fisheries management that has been “unaccountable” and has failed the recreational fishing public as a whole.

Finally the editorial states that, “Currently, there are two distinct components of the recreational fishing sector…” According to section 407(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which deals specifically with red snapper, there is just one. Private recreational anglers and CFH are distinctly treated as a single component and rightly so. One has the means of accessing red snapper on their own, whether they own a boat or know folks who do, while the other provides a service for the rest of the American public who does not. The recreational sector of the red snapper fishery is intended for any American to be able to go to the Gulf of Mexico and catch red snapper if they so choose. All other successfully managed Gulf recreational fisheries have the same two components of the recreational sector, yet they are successfully managed as one. Why do we need to split the two for Gulf red snapper to provide relief for a minority of the CFH captains?

In short – we don’t. The Council needs to get serious about managing the fishery as a whole. Trying to apply that same commercial model to the recreational sector has proven unsuccessful. Holistic management will require some controversial, but appropriate, choices like that of true re-examination of allocations, not just above 9.12 million pounds. The current quota of 49% recreational/51% commercial has not been updated in nearly three decades and was established at a time when recreational angling for red snapper was at an all-time low using survey methodologies that have since been replaced because of gross inaccuracies. That, in and of itself, begs for a new look at where we are today. Red snapper, and all our marine fisheries resources, belong to us all. Good government mandates that we make the best use of our public trust resources for the benefit of the nation as a whole.

We need to take a hard look at how the states would manage red snapper. The states have successfully managed recreational fisheries for a century, but not based on how the Council or NOAA fumbles with fisheries management. States have been successful because they manage on a rate of harvest and not by trying to squeeze every pound out of the fishery as does federal fisheries management with its concept of maximum sustainable yield. The Council needs to implement alternative, harvest-based management of the fisheries, or simply give it to the states which have more experience and better data.

Red snapper can be managed to benefit both recreational and commercial fishermen. However, sector separation will only ensure that there are a few winners and a bunch of losers. Sector separation is not the answer.

Mike Nussman
American Sportfishing Association

Jeff Crane
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Pat Murray
Coastal Conservation Association

Steve Stock
Guy Harvey Foundation

Jeff Angers
Center for Coastal Conservation

Thom Dammrich
National Marine Manufacturers Association

Another View on Gulf Red Snapper Management

Red Snapper Catch

Red Snapper Catch

From William Teehan, Another View on Gulf Red Snapper Management

Here’s an alternate take on the current haggling over red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico. We may not necessarily agree with it, but Bill Teehan has been around fishery management a long time and has a lot of useful knowledge on the topic-here are his thoughts:

By William Teehan
from The Fishing Wire

As a retired Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission marine fisheries manager who represented the agency at Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council meetings, a July 15, 2014, Congressional Sportsman s Caucus press release published in The Fishing Wire entitled re e Congressional Sportsman Commission marine fisheries manager who represented the agency at Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council meetings, I’ve built up a lot of information about this issue, how it came about and why the Council is considering it. Frankly, I found the press release and its additional signatories the American Sportfishing Association, the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, the Center for Coastal Conservation, the International Game Fish Association, the Coastal Conservation Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation misleading. I would like to take this opportunity to debunk a few of the statements made in the press release.

Currently, there are two very distinct components to the recreational fishing sector, but the Caucus and its press release signatories do not want to recognize the differences. The recreational sector is comprised of anglers that hire federally permitted vessels to access the fishery and anglers that own private vessels and do not rely upon the for-hire fleet to go fishing. Under current management, these two distinct recreational angler groups share one red snapper quota.

The Caucus issue is with the Councils proposed Reef Fish Amendment 40, which will separate these two distinct fishing groups into their own sectors within the recreational red snapper fishery. Short story: Amendment 40 proposes looking at the catch histories of these two distinct components and making them their own sectors on equal footing with each other based upon their historical catches.

The Caucus states that Amendment 40 will divide the recreational quota e two distinct components and making them their own sfor-hire sectors. The Caucus is misleading this as the Council preferred alternative. In reality, the Council is considering establishing the private angler share as 54.1% and the for-hire share as 45.9% of the recreational quota. These allotments are based on average landings histories between 1996 through 2013. The Council has also requested new alternatives based upon different landings. All catch history alternatives exclude 2010 landings because of the broad closures resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. To see the full suite of allocation alternatives please see Council’s Sector Separation video.

The Caucus lays the blame for the red snapper situation squarely at the feet of the Council, going so far as to say that the Council is not working “to develop real solutions to the challenges facing the recreational red snapper management.a In reality, the Council has been working on red snapper management alternatives for decades by implementing various management tools such as bag and size limits, seasons, and quotas. The concept of separating the recreational sector components first arose in late 2008 when federal fishery managers, of which I was one, were required by the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization to get serious about ending overfishing in marine waters.

Before the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Acterfisauthorization, the red snapper fishery was severely overfished and substantial cuts were made to both commercial and recreational sector quotas to begin rebuilding the depleted stock. The commercial sector even adopted an individual fishing quota management tool to keep their fishermen on the water while protecting the red snapper resource. Since 2007, the commercial sector has not exceeded their quota once, while the recreational sector has gone over theirs every year, excepting 2010.

The Caucus attempts to compare sector separation to the individual fishing quota program presently used in the commercial sector. In reality, there is no comparison between the two sectors. The commercial quota program allots individual fishermen a share of the fishery based upon landings history; whereas, sector separation would split the overall recreational quota between private anglers and the for-hire sectors based upon landings histories of the sectors, not individual anglers. Each new recreational sector would be responsible for their quota, which will allow managers the flexibility the Caucus and its signatories ask for and allow the new sectors to use their quota as their fishery dictates.

The Caucus press release also suggests that sector separation will expand to other fisheries. But sector separation is only one type of management tool. In the case of Amendment 40, it is being discussed for the Gulf recreational red snapper fishery only. There are no plans to apply this tool to other fisheries at this time; however, it is available to use on as a species or a complex basis.

Finally, the Caucus press release would make you believe that sector separation is a done deal. It points the reader to the next two full Council meetings in August and October as the ock. hallenges frn the tide.r The reality is that the Council will be conducting public hearings in all of the Gulf States during early August to gather public testimony on a draft document, including suggestions for management alternatives. The Council will also be taking written comments on Amendment 40. Dates, times and locations for those hearings can be found here.

Is Ethanol Gas Damaging Outboard Motors?

Yes – Ethanol Gas Is Damaging Outboard Motors
from The Fishing Wire

Having been fortunate enough to enjoy amazing spring-like weather from the deck of a boat on Tennessee’s Douglas Lake, it was tough to get back to work after the first real weekend with cooperative weather in some time. Having spent a large portion of the weekend enjoying family and recreation reminded me why I love the outdoors in the first place.

Even under those pleasant conditions, it’s tough to stop being a reporter -or at least listening to conversations that wouldn’t interest most other boaters. There were a couple of items that I think bear more investigation and conversation from anyone who uses a boat in pursuit of their interests – personal or commercial.

First, what’s the real deal with the ethanol controversy? Today’s news section carries a release from the Boat Owners Association of the United States (BoatUS) taking exception with the Missouri Corn Growers. Seems the growers put out a call for a concerted push by consumers to get more ethanol mixed into gasoline as a quick-fix for high prices.

BoatUS puts forth the now-familiar warning that more ethanol is virtually certain to damage small engines like those on outboard boats, as well as lawn mowers, motorcycles, generators, gas-powered blowers and any one of the myriad of gasoline-engined devices we all use on an almost-daily basis.

They cite the fact – not the assertion- that since the inclusion of ten percent ethanol in gasoline there have been increased problems with those engines. Their argument is focused on boats, but I have spoken with enough small engine manufacturers and repair shops to know that the ethanol is definitely the one change blamed for many of the fuel, fuel line and fuel system problems that have turned formerly-reliable pieces of equipment into recyclables.

At this point, the EPA has specifically prohibited the use of the newly-proposed E15 in marine engines, but not the multitude of other small engines. That raises the very real concern that distributors may accidentally dispense E15 to docks and marinas. Fuel mistakes have caused documented aircraft fatalities, and I realize that’s an extreme example that’s perilously close to fear-mongering. But I’d also argue that having an engine conk out in the midst of a rapidly-deteriorating weather situation is a life-threatening situation in the marine environment. The Coast Guard might also back me up on that argument, too.

But the hazards of this new fuel isn’t just the worst-case scenario. Our society seems fixated on “actionable” situations, those times when something breaks and your lawyer says there’s someone to “look to” for responsibility. If the quick mart where you normally buy gas for your mower switches to E15 and doesn’t clearly label the change, you could find your power tools, motorcycle, ATV or boat paying the price. At that point, it’s normal for people to “lawyer up” and go looking for someone to make them whole again.

I don’t think that’s the intent of E15, but it’s hard to judge motivations in a legislative and regulatory world where it seems the thicker wallet has the best odds of getting changes made in their favor.

So I’m encouraging everyone to do a lot of investigating before even considering saving those pennies per gallon on gasoline.

And if there’s a definitive answer to the question, I’d invite you to share it with me. In turn, I’ll share it with our readers. After all, none of us is as smart as all of us.

What Is the Land & Water Conservation Fund?

Land & Water Conservation Fund: A Program We Can All Agree On
Randy Newberg
from The Fishing Wire

In today’s political world, rare is the program over 75% of Americans can agree on. To have that support, it must be a Red White and Blue idea.

Well, one such idea exists. It’s existed since 1965; the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Fifty years ago, back when people actually solved problems, the oil and gas industry, along with hunters and anglers, agreed on a program to mitigate the known impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration.

It was decided, and supported by all, that some of the offshore royalties would be earmarked to this new account, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The purpose – Use those funds to restore habitat and enhance public access. Imagine that. A good idea supported by all sides, even Congress. There was a time in this country when good ideas were not the enemy of politics.

Roll forward fifty years. The LWCF has invested $13 billion dollars into public access for hunters and anglers, in the process, helping all outdoor recreation. Millions of acres of public access has been acquired or improved. Thousands of boat ramps, fishing piers, and fishing access sites have been funded.

Yeah, Congress has managed to pilfer $17 billion dollars from the fund for other uses, but I guess we’ve come to expect that. Congress can make amends for past sins by reauthorizing this popular program in 2015. Hopefully placing the funds in a trust account, reducing the temptation of diversion.

A 2013 survey of Americans showed that LWCF enjoys a popularity quite the opposite of Congress. Over 85% of those asked want to see LWCF continue; marking 93% approval among Democrats and 78% among Republicans. The support in 2013 has grown from 81% support in the 2009 survey.

Congress could do something that almost all Americans support; reauthorize LWCF. I suspect the oil and gas industry prefers that a small fraction of their royalty payments stay earmarked for something beneficial, such as LWCF, versus tossed to the dark abyss of Congress.

Hunters are the greatest beneficiary of LWCF. Especially seeing the NSSF survey shows that losing “places to hunt” is the top reason people are hunting less. LWCF has provided more places to hunt than any program, ever. LWCF is the quiet program that provides matching funds to states, conservation groups, and local agencies to fund hunting and fishing access.

In my back yard of Bozeman Montana, the Gallatin National Forest has had over 200,000 acres of access acquired or improved by LWCF. All who hunt and fish can probably find a similar LWCF story in their back yard. Maybe your favorite spot.

In the coming year, Congress will face reauthorization for LWCF. Hunter, anglers, and the groups who represent us need to pressure Congress to reauthorize our most important access program, LWCF. In 1965, our legacy of hunting and fishing was handed a gift in the form of LWCF. Now is the time to make sure we can do the same for those who come after us.

Randy Newberg is the host and producer of Federal Premium’s Fresh Tracks with Randy Newberg, making him the voice of self-guided public land hunters in America; where he shows the common hunter uncommon experiences available on our western public lands. You can catch his show on Thursday nights, only on Sportsman Channel and you can get more details about his hunts on his forum www.HuntTalk.com

Why Did the National Marine Fisheries Service Publish Misleading Information?

Federal Fisheries Agency Adjusts Misleading Economic Information on fishing
from The Fishing Wire

(Editor’s Note: Just when you thought you had seen it all, the National Marine Fisheries Service has now admitted a key fisheries economics report showing commercial fishing of greater value than recreational fisheries in the U.S. included billions in foreign imports! Here’s a closer look from the American Sportfishing Association.)

After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.

“When seafood imports, industrial species, shellfish and fish that aren’t caught by recreational anglers are removed, recreational fishing generates $33.3 billion dollars more than their commercial counterparts while taking far fewer pounds of fish,” said Ted Venker, Conservation director for the Coastal Conservation Association. “That is the apple-to-apples number that needs to be considered when we are talking about management decisions that impact domestic fisheries, and it is important that NOAA corrected the data.”

In late April of this year, NMFS released its Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 with the headline “NOAA Reports Show Strong Economic Gains from Fishing, Continued Improvement in Fish Stocks,” but there was no indication that the agency had changed the way the economic impact data were compiled in the report. Previously, NMFS separated imports from domestic industry figures and reported each separately. In the latest report, the agency eliminated that distinction and simply published a total that included domestic and imported seafood. As such, topics such as imports from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, 75,000 pounds of shark fins and shrimp harvested by practices that the U.S. has banned were included in the totals for the domestic commercial sector.

“It was important to set the record straight because people naturally use this report to compare the two sectors, and combining imported seafood with domestically caught seafood gives an overinflated and incorrect representation of the economic impact of this country’s commercial fishing industry,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “This is particularly risky if this information is used to halt progress on important management decisions such as how fisheries are allocated between the two sectors. More than 64 percent of the total sales of seafood is generated by imported product which should have no bearing whatsoever on allocation discussions.”

Recreational fishing and boating organizations including the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association recently met with agency officials to request a correction. The agency refused to reprint the report, but did release a web query that allows individuals to remove imports and generate an accurate report on their own.

Do We Need Another Marine Sanctuary?

More Marine Protected Areas on the Way?
Jim Shepherd
from The Fishing Wirerd

President Obama says he’s planning to create the world’s largest marine protected area in the south-central Pacific Ocean. The announcement comes from the White House during Secretary of State John Kerry’s Oceans Conference underway this week in Washington. And like presidents Bush and Clinton, he’s doing it without the approval of Congress.

“Growing up in Hawaii, I learned early to appreciate the beauty and power of the ocean,” he said, “And like Presidents Clinton and Bush before me, I’m going to use my authority as president to protect some of our most precious marine landscapes, just like we do for our mountains and rivers and forests.”

Not everyone is a fan of the president’s use of the executive action, especially since he has already used the Antiquities Act of 1906 as grounds to designate eleven new national monuments on land, closing millions of acres of land.

Opponents of his actions are quick to bring up the fact that his actions block any commercial activities on vast regions-including oil and gas development. More evidence, they say, of his obsession with alternative energy, despite the disasters of Soylindra and other administration-championed boondoggles.

Representative Doc Hastings, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, was direct in his opposition to the plan in a statement released after the announcement: “Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities that include fishing, recreation, conservation and energy production. It appears this administration will use whatever authorities -real or made up – to close our ocean and coastal areas with blatant disregard for possible economic consequences.”

The administration’s response is that with the latest marine protection area it appears will “only” impact commercial tuna fishing. And there’s are still a few details that remain to be worked out. The White House says it has yet to determine the size of the new protected area- or determine what statute it would be created under.

They also say there will be meetings and consultations with outside groups including environmentalists, the fishing industry and elected officials. Privately, fishing industry leaders tell me they expect to have the same voice in the decision-making process that the firearms industry was given in the administration’s drive for more stringent gun controls after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

If that’s the case, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that there will be no fishing- commercial or recreational- allowed inside those protected areas. Ditto other recreational activities as the administration is moving to “protect the oceans” from “overfishing, pollution, and climate change.”

Additionally, Secretary of State Kerry is calling for the creation of a “global ocean strategy”. That, too, is resonating with environmental groups who have pushed for the closure of huge chunks of land and sea to virtually all human interactivity.

In these latest announcements, it sounds as if the administration isn’t really differing from prior ones in their moves to protect our natural areas, but there is a key difference. When the Bush administration, for example, created a 140,000 mile marine area, it was designated a marine sanctuary not a marine protected area. According to the World Conservation Union definitions, there are several important differences: a sanctuary is an area designated free from hunting, while a protected area may have prohibitions on fishing, hunting or development- meaning the laying of cables or oil drilling.

Under one designation, the species of the area are protected from overfishing or other harmful practices. Using the other; designated areas are off-limits to virtually any access beyond surface transit. That, too, may be strictly regulated or prohibited entirely.

Protection of our natural resources is a responsibility each of us must share.

Prohibition of the use of those resources, however, is not something we should permit.

Responsible use and protection are not mutually exclusive.

Is HR 4742 Good For Fish, Fishermen & The Recreational Fishing Industry?

HR 4742 Is Good For Fish, Fishermen & The Recreational Fishing Industry

While a fair number of conservation and fishing groups were “underwhelmed” by efforts of Congress to improve the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Jim Hutchinson of the Recreational Fishing Alliance sees more good than bad in the bill. Here’s his take:

By Jim Hutchinson, Jr.
from The Fishing Wire

The Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (HR 4742) introduced by House Natural Resources committee Chair Doc Hastings (R-WA) is an effort to improve and strengthen provisions of the current Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens).

In the days since this bill successfully moved out of committee, scores of recreational fishermen and industry professionals have reached out to the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) for perspective. Having lobbied for 7 years to incorporate some limited management flexibility in the law while highlighting the bureaucratic problems with meeting restrictive congressional mandates using “fatally flawed” data, RFA sees HR 4742 as a terrific step towards addressing many of the problems faced by saltwater anglers today.

One portion of the bill would allow an extension to the time required to rebuild a fish stock beyond the existing 10-year requirement in certain cases. This language is similar to rebuilding language included in legislation previously introduced and supported by the RFA, except that HR 4742 does not include limits on the length of the rebuilding extension.

“We have always argued that the arbitrary deadlines created by Congress didn’t make sense for rebuilding periods, but RFA never supported open-ended rebuilding time frames either,” said RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. “There are, however, existing provisions in Magnuson Stevens related to ending overfishing that pretty clearly protects the fish stocks while allowing this deadline flexibility.”

RFA has argued against the rigid and inflexible nature of fixed rebuilding deadlines since the last reauthorization of Magnuson Stevens, when a three-year extension in the summer flounder rebuilding deadline was plugged into the law in the 11th hour to address a rapidly approaching deadline for that Atlantic Coast fishery. The three-year extension proved that fisheries could be rebuilt with a little bit of management flexibility while anglers continued to access a fishery.

“The fisheries management councils are now asking for this flexibility, and after dozens of hearings in the House Natural Resources Committee, members now understand the need for change,” Donofrio said.

HR 4742 would also make modifications to allow the regional fishery management councils to set ‘annual catch limits’ in consideration of changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of fishing communities. It would also permit councils to set multiyear annual catch limits to afford some stability in recreational specifications. RFA explains that this section is important given that there is no data collection program in existence today that can estimate recreational landings on a level accurate enough to reasonably apply annual catch limits to the recreational sector.

“The methodologies used by NOAA Fisheries were designed to show trends over multiple years and broad geographic ranges, which is precisely why RFA has argued for exemptions in the recreational sector from enforcement of these annual catch limits as written under the present law,” said Donofrio.

Under this portion of the bill, regional councils could exercise some flexibility in setting annual catch limits in the recreational sector, which could assist our beleaguered red snapper fishermen in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In specifically addressing the red snapper issue, Rep. Hastings’ bill also directs federal funding through the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act towards development and implementation of a real-time reporting and data collection program for Gulf of Mexico red snapper.

“The data collection problem is horrible, and the Hastings bill would make use of existing federal funding to improve data-poor fisheries in the Gulf and South Atlantic,” Donofrio added. “There’s also a section of HR 4742 to extend the seawards boundary of coastal states in the Gulf out to 9 miles for the purposes of managing the recreational red snapper fishery and allowing states to make better local decisions based on their own data collection.”

As referenced above with regard to the open-endedness of timelines along with other issues, Donofrio said the Hastings bill is good but not perfect. “There’s a piece that gives the Secretary of Commerce the ability to increase the length of emergency regulations and interim measures from 180 days to 365 days–that’s a free ticket to declare fisheries closed without public participation and input,” he explained.

However, having spent the past 7 years pushing Congress to consider legislation to incorporate limited management flexibility in the law, RFA is hopeful for change despite trepidation by some members of the recreational fishing industry. “I know some members of the community are adamant for example that Magnuson-Stevens includes a national policy for recreational fishing, but NOAA Fisheries is presently working to create a national policy so let’s not bog that down in a broken congress,” Donofrio said.

Another debate has emerged of late with regard to something known as ‘ecosystem-based’ fisheries management, specifically managing those ecosystems for forage base. While Donofrio said anglers may understand ecosystems and bait, putting that onus on Congress to define the terms for NOAA Fisheries to follow is another bureaucratic logjam waiting to happen.

“Imagine if the folks at Pew or Oceana decide that there may be special corals at your favorite sea bass or red snapper reef, next thing you know you’re not allowed to fish on that particular ecosystem,” Donofrio said.

Some of the Pew-supported groups have tabbed the Hastings bill as the ’empty oceans act’ claiming the legislation will roll back vital conservation measures necessary for healthy and sustainable fisheries, which Donofrio calls gross exaggeration.

“RFA’s team of experts, scientists, policy professionals and attorneys looked at HR 4742 very closely, and they see this legislation as addressing 80 to 90 percent of what’s at stake for our recreational fishing community right now.”

“If we could get together and get 80 percent of what we need in a bill to get fishermen fishing again, in this congress, we should do it,” he added. “Even with HR 4742 missing some industry wish list items, this is a bill worth supporting.”

With key amendments added to the Hastings bill by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), there’s a lot to be excited about with HR 4742; but now comes the tough part getting the House and Senate together on a conference bill which the President can sign into law which will truly benefit the fish, the fishermen and the fishing industry.

Are Federal Fish Hatcheries Fine For Now?

Federal Fish Hatcheries Fine For Now

Editor’s Note: Over the past year, The Outdoor Wire Digital Network has been following the continued efforts of some government administrators to close the nation’s fish hatcheries. The battle to keep the hatcheries running has been an ongoing for several years. More than once, only the actions of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have kept the story in front of the public-and the hatcheries funded. Seems Senator Alexander has once again managed to secure funding for the hatcheries-and the assurances that those operational funds can not be used to close them.
from The Fishing Wire

Etta Pettijohn has the latest on the campaign to save the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatcheries operating.

Alexander Once Again Secures Hatcheries Funding

Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R-TN) has secured funds to keep the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) hatcheries operating-as well as a stipulation that none of the Interior funding be used to close these hatcheries-in the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2014.

The “omnibus” spending bill defuses the threat of another government shutdown, and provides some relief from the FWS’s relentless efforts to shutter the agency’s mitigation hatcheries.

The legislation, signed by President Barak H. Obama last week, contains 12 of the annual bills that provide funding for discretionary federal programs, and funds the government until October 2014.

An administrative provision in the Corps of Engineers (COE) budget includes $4.7 million to reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to operate the Erwin and Dale Hollow hatcheries in Tennessee; and more than $46 million to continue operations at every hatchery in the National Fish Hatchery System as requested. Also, none of the funds in the Interior bill may be used to terminate operations or to close any facility.

The FWS has attempted in recent years to close the hatcheries, claiming budget shortfalls, etc. However, Alexander in 2012 and 2013 secured funding for the operations from both the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Corps of Engineers (COE).

Despite this funding, the agency has persisted with its plans to shift the operation of these to stakeholders like state fish management agencies, and these two federal agencies.

Provisions in the appropriations recognize the reimbursable agreements the FWS has entered into with the COE, TVA, the Department of the Interior’s Central Utah Project, and the Bonneville Power Administration, in order to continue to operate mitigation hatcheries, and have provided the requested funding in the Energy and Water Development division of the CAA.

Red Snapper Anglers Get Lowered Amount of Allowed Catch

Amendment 40 – Anglers Get Dumped

Today’s feature comes to us from Ted Venker, CCA’s Conservation Director, who notes that anglers who want their share of the red snapper fishery had better step forward, now, before it’s too late.
from The Fishing Wire

By Ted Venker, CCA Conservation Director/TIDE Magazine Editor

It’s called the “Friday news dump.”

The White House, other federal agencies and even public corporations have often set the release of bad news and unflattering documents to late Friday afternoon in the hopes that whatever is being released will be ignored or missed or forgotten over the course of the weekend.

Got a scandal? Dump it on Friday.

Got a controversy? Dump it on Friday.

Got a federal policy disaster? Dump it on Friday.

The concept has lost effectiveness with the demise of traditional media. You could get away with it when all you had to avoid was the newspaper on Saturday morning (which no one read because they all had better things to do on the weekend), but the internet never sleeps and so the Friday news dump has become a sad cliché. There is even a website dedicated to it – fridaynewsdump.com. Nonetheless, old habits are hard to break.

So if the jig is up on Friday news dumps, what are you left to do? Well, you up your game and go for the holiday news dump.

Got something wildly unpopular that has been soundly rejected time after time, but you’re going to advance it anyway because it makes your job easier? Dump it on….Christmas Eve!

And so it was that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council announced on Dec. 24 that it is proceeding with an extremely controversial amendment for sector separation. That followed on the heels of an announcement about an equally controversial pilot program to let a handpicked set of 17 headboats fish year-round for red snapper using their own personal allocation of fish beginning January 1. Releasing information like this on the afternoon of Dec. 24 brings the art of hiding controversial news to a new low.

CCA members have been asked to comment against these schemes many times. The public has already sent literally thousands of comments against concepts that attempt to funnel access to marine resources through a very few select businesses. The response to these concepts has been wildly skewed in opposition, as it is commonly realized that the only people to benefit from them are the businesses that will use those public resources for their own financial gain.

However, just like when you played football as a kid in the field by your house, somebody didn’t like the results and called “Do-over.” None of those previous comments apparently counted. Not even the ones from Texas Governor Rick Perry. Nope, sorry Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, yours didn’t count either.

The Council let it be known with its stealth release on the afternoon of Christmas Eve that this time, for sure, they really want to know how you feel about Amendment 40 – Sector Separation. And, at the same time, they announced that they don’t really care what you think about sector separation because they went ahead and launched the Headboat sector separation pilot program already.

What’s the purpose of this public comment thing again?

The only thing more disingenuous than the Christmas Eve News Dump is the charade of public comment in federal fisheries management on this issue. There is nothing in the glorious history of sector separation that indicates the general public matters in this arena. If it did, then these plans to give away fish to private businesses would have been dead and buried long ago.

Why should we care if yet another comment period is open on plans to divide up the recreational sector and give another small group of business-owners an insurmountable advantage over the general public in the red snapper fishery? The uncomfortable truth is that if we flooded the Council website with comments in opposition to this nine times in the past and washed our hands of it on the 10th time, that 10th time would forever be held up as evidence that this is what the public wants.

As sorry as this whole episode is, we can’t let that happen.

We must fight this all the way to the end. You have done your part repeatedly and you’ve done it well. This is a battle in which we are struggling not because we are wrong or apathetic, but because the system doesn’t work the way it is supposed to. We are up against a system that does not understand recreational angling and often acts like it doesn’t want to. You need look no further than the fairly insulting decision to release an announcement of the most controversial federal fisheries amendment in recent history on Christmas Eve.

This comment period is a chance to oppose sector separation one more time, and we should take it. But more significantly, it is an opportunity to send the message that millions of recreational anglers cannot be oh-so-casually dismissed. We deserve far better treatment than this.

The comment period on Amendment 40 – Sector Separation is open until Jan. 23. Click HERE to submit comments electronically or submit written comments to:

Peter Hood
Southeast Regional Office, NMFS
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

The next meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will take place February 3-6, at the Westin Galleria Hotel, 5060 W. Alabama Street in Houston, Texas.

CCA Louisiana is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the state. Entering its 31st year with more than 30,000 members and volunteers in 26 local chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. Visit www.CCALouisiana.com for more information.

Why Do People Fish and Hunt?

Factors Related to the Recent Increases in Hunting and Fishing Participation

This study was administered by the American Sportfishing Association under Multi-State Conservation Grant F12AP00142 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
from The Fishing Wire

After two decades of decline, hunting and fishing participation among Americans increased between 2006 and 2011, and a recent major research study pinpoints 10 major reasons for the increases. Hunting and fishing participation rates are up due to: 1) the economic recession, 2) higher incomes among some segments of the population, 3) hunting for meat and the locavore movement, 4) agency recruitment and retention programs, 5) agency access programs, 6) agency marketing and changes in licenses, 7) current hunters and anglers participating more often, 8) returning military personnel, 9) re-engagement of lapsed hunters and anglers, and 10) new hunters and anglers, including female, suburban, and young participants.

The Background

Throughout the latter half of the 2000s, numerous state-level trend surveys conducted by Responsive Management consistently showed increases in hunting and fishing participation. Given this clear pattern emerging across multiple states and regions, in 2011 Responsive Management initiated a project with the American Sportfishing Association, Southwick Associates, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife under a Multi-State Conservation Grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify and better understand factors related to increases in hunting and fishing participation throughout the United States.

“The fact that a variety of factors was responsible for the increases should not take away from the importance of each individual factor. The research isolated each of these factors as having a notable impact on the increase in hunting and fishing participation between 2006 and 2011.”

–Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director of Responsive Management

The Indicators

Two major data sources are available for measuring hunting and fishing participation trends on a national level: license sales data collected by the individual states and compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which are known as “Federal Aid” data, and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted every 5 years since 1955 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

At the time the grant proposal was submitted in 2011, the only available measurement supporting the research team’s hypothesis of a nationwide increase in hunting and fishing were Federal Aid data measuring license sales for the two activities from recent years; the other critical indicator, the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, had not yet been released. However, shortly after the grant was secured, results from the 2011 National Survey determined that, between 2006 and 2011, hunting participation among Americans increased 9% and fishing participation increased 11% nationwide.

The Research Methodology

With the evidence in hand, Responsive Management and its partners began implementing the study, which entailed a combination of quantitative and qualitative research components. To examine factors responsible for the upswing in hunting and fishing participation, the researchers collected data from multiple stakeholder sources, accounting for perspectives ranging from agency professionals to hunters and anglers themselves. Overall, the study methodology included a comprehensive review of past research examining hunting and fishing participation; personal interviews with and a survey of fish and wildlife agency personnel representing hunting, freshwater fishing, and saltwater fishing divisions; a multivariate analysis of national hunting and fishing license sales data; and a scientific telephone survey of hunters and anglers in the states with the most notable increases in participation between 2006 and 2011.1 For the telephone survey component, a total of 1,400 interviews were completed with hunters in seven states that saw some of the most growth in hunting during the period of interest (Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, and South Dakota) and anglers in seven states that experienced some of the largest increases in fishing participation over the same period (Alaska, Idaho, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington). The survey of hunters and anglers explored various demographic and behavioral characteristics of new and returning participants in the two activities and also measured the relative importance of various factors that influenced participants to either take breaks from or return to the activities.

The data were collected and analyzed over an 18-month period, with the results from each study component examined independently and as a whole. The overall data eventually revealed that hunting and fishing participation increased between 2006 and 2011 not because of a single major reason, but because of a combination of factors, a perfect positive storm of reasons ranging from nationwide economic conditions to efforts on the part of individual state agencies to the confluence of key participant groups entering or re-entering the sports. Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, notes, “The fact that a variety of factors was responsible for the increases should not take away from the importance of each individual factor. The research isolated each of these factors as having a substantial impact on the increase in hunting and fishing participation between 2006 and 2011.”

Reason 1: The Economic Recession

The study found a negative statistical correlation between hunting license sales and increases in housing starts–as housing starts decline, hunting participation increases.2 The mortgage crisis and economic recession that took hold of the country at the end of 2008 resulted in fewer housing starts as fewer building permits were issued. Because some of the top occupations of hunters include building-related fields (e.g., construction, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and craftsman), a disproportionate percentage of hunters were under- or unemployed during the period between 2006 and 2011, leaving them with more free time in which to hunt. This is in contrast to Responsive Management research conducted during the height of the housing boom, when many hunters were not hunting due to a lack of time because of work obligations.

Reason 2: Higher Incomes Among Some Segments of the Population

Interestingly, the research indicates that hunting and fishing increased because of both the lower end of the economic spectrum as well as the upper end: the multivariate analysis also identified a positive association between increasing per capita income and participation in one or both outdoor activities, suggesting a scenario where some hunters and anglers have more to spend and can thus afford to take more hunting and fishing trips.

Reason 3: Hunting for Meat and the Locavore Movement

Somewhat related to the country’s economic downturn was growth in the segment of sportsmen motivated to hunt or fish primarily for the food: the period between 2006 and 2011 saw an increase not only in the proportion of participants who hunted or fished as a means of putting meat on the family table, but also in the percentage of “locavore” hunters and anglers, that is, individuals who go afield for reasons of self-sufficiency and a desire for organic, local, chemical-free meat. When hunters in the survey were read a list of factors that may have influenced them to go hunting, the top factor that was a major or minor influence was interest in hunting as a source of natural or “green” food, with

Camp ASCCA, Creative Commons License

68% of hunters naming this as an influence. When a similar list was read to anglers, 51% said that fishing as a natural or “green” food source was an influence in their decision to go fishing. Finally, in an open-ended question (where no answer set was read and respondents could name anything that came to mind), 56% of hunters said that they hunted for food, and 32% of anglers fished for fresh fish to eat. The desire for food, whether for economic reasons, locavore motivations, or a hybrid of both, played an important role in the recent increases in hunting and fishing participation. (Click here for a summary of research examining the growing motivation of hunting for meat.)

Reasons 4 and 5: Agency Recruitment and Retention Programs and Access Programs

A few key efforts on the part of individual state fish and wildlife agencies also helped clear a path for more robust participation in hunting and fishing. Of particular importance was the implementation of hunting and fishing recruitment and retention programs, which provide instruction to participants of all age levels and, in many cases, offer program events year-round. After a decade of states’ implementation of recruitment and retention programs, the intended results are beginning to manifest. (Click here for more information about Responsive Management research on recruitment and retention programs.)

More hunters also made it into the field thanks to programs that opened up access to hunting lands: the analysis revealed that the percentage of hunters in the state rating the quality of overall access to hunting lands as excellent or good had a positive effect on participation. Access is one of the most important issues that acts as a constraint to hunters; when access is good, participation is unimpeded. With ample research on the potential value in these types of programs having been conducted in recent years, the study was able to show definitively that these efforts are now taking effect and producing results. (For more information, please visit Responsive Management’s summaries of research on hunting and fishing access.)

Reason 6: Agency Marketing and Changes in Licenses

Many agencies in the survey and personal interviews emphasized the importance of their marketing efforts in recent years, not only for programs designed to boost participation but in the advertising of new or repackaged hunting and fishing licenses. Additionally, hunters and anglers were also asked about factors that prompted them to hunt and fish. Among hunters, 22% said that marketing efforts collectively had been an influence in their decision to go hunting. Among anglers, 20% said that marketing had been an influence in their decision to go fishing.

The marketing aspect of efforts to increase sales of hunting and fishing licenses dovetails with previous Responsive Management research that has established a correlation between increases in license sales and changes in license structure (i.e., the availability of new or modified hunting and fishing licenses). Such changes, which can include repackaging of licenses or a recombination of various privileges, can have the effect of marketing because the hunter and/or angler may perceive that a better deal is available, that the license is “new and improved,” or he or she may simply be reminded of the opportunities to hunt and fish.

Reasons 7 to 10: Key Groups Driving the Increases

In pinpointing the specific markets that helped drive the increases in hunting and fishing participation, the survey was able to isolate several groups of particular importance: current and longtime hunters and anglers simply participating more often, returning military personnel resuming their participation in the activities, the reactivation of former and lapsed hunters and anglers, and new female participants.

The project examined the characteristics of these new and returning hunters and anglers. Crosstabulations of established hunters and new/returning hunters highlighted some differences that help reveal who the new/returning hunters are. Compared to established hunters, these new/returning hunters are slightly more often female, are somewhat younger, are more often in the military or college, are slightly more suburban, have not been living in the same state for as long, and are more often hunting to be with friends.

Michael J Zealot, Creative Commons License

Likewise, compared to established anglers, the group of new/returning anglers again are slightly more often female, are markedly more often retired with new free time, are slightly more often identifying themselves as homemakers, are slightly more suburban, have not been living in the same state for as long, and are more devoted to fishing in freshwater (i.e., did not fish in saltwater as much as established anglers–because anglers could fish in both types of waters, established anglers fished in freshwater about as much as new/returning anglers, but they fished in saltwater much more often than did new/returning anglers).

The full report for the study is available by clicking here or by visiting
www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/Hunt_Fish_Increase_Report.pdf.
Responsive Management is planning additional research to continue exploring the impacts of each of the factors and variables uncovered in this study.

Study Methodology

Personal interviews with state fish and wildlife agency personnel.
Surveys of fish and wildlife agency staff regarding hunting and fishing participation and license sales data for hunting, freshwater fishing, and saltwater fishing.
Multivariate analysis of license sales data.
Review of past research on hunting and fishing participation.
A survey of hunters and anglers in states with large hunting or fishing participation increases according to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Final evaluation and analysis of all data together and completion of final report.
States surveyed with marked hunting participation increases: Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, and South Dakota.
States surveyed with marked fishing participation increases: Alaska, Idaho, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington.