I appreciate the interest that people are showing in this action. I would like to take the time to explain this so everyone has a better understanding of the intent and what it means to each of us.
To start, yes, this amendment is a bit difficult to understand. Sadly, the days of plain language, simple choices are slowly going by the wayside in management as we get deeper into the functions and mechanisms of the process and its components. Those who live under and follow the NEFMC, especially i the groundfisheries, have seen this over the past few years.
This amendment is part of an overall action of Recreational Reform Management Actions. It began with the harvest control rule, which evolved into the Recreational Measures Setting Process Framework/Addenda which we are in the process of finalizing. I started a thread on that in this forum and tried to start a discussion and elicit public participation, but that fizzled. It is progressing well, and is a better method of setting measures. But that's another thread.
We also now have the Recreational Demand Model, which does mitigate some of the MRIP problems a little, but is certainly not a solution to it. Now we are at the last part of rec reform, which has a couple of things that are meant to improve management of the rec sector.
That said, this scoping document was really great for the issues this amendment is addressing. Yes, it is complex, but if you take it a paragraph (section) at a time, and highlight each phrase as a choice, it becomes more consumable. So, this is the Recreational Sector Separation and Data Collection Amendment. Let's take them in two parts, since they are two separate things.
Sector Separation- This part of the amendment is asking if we will separate the recreational sector into smaller sectors. This can be separated into private and for-hire, as is popularly discussed here. It can also be private, for-hire, and shore-based anglers. Or, it can be status quo, meaning nothing changes. Now, the over-riding drive for this part of the amendment is coming from the for-hire sector. It is a fact that the for-hire sector suffers more severely from strict regs, as is shown by the sharp drop of businesses of=ver the past twenty years along the coast. However, that is not all.
Even before then, those of us that were around saw that as regs became more strict, there was strong disagreement and even battles between the for-hire and private sectors about what the regs should be each season. That is simply because each sector had different views of what worked for them. From a management standpoint, sector separation isn't necessarily about giving more fish to the for-hire sector as it is about giving each sector regs that are more suitable to their individual needs or desires.
Next in this part of the amendment, after we choose if we want separation and how (no separation, for-hire and private, or for-hire, private and shore-based), if a separation is chosen, is how it will be managed. One way to do this, which I think most people assume is how it will work, is b y separate allocations. That means that we take a sample period of time or another qualifier, and cut the rec allocation up between the designated groups based upon that. For example, in the past fifteen years, according to MRIP (sigh), the for-hire sector has an average of 11% of the harvest, private boats 64%, and shore-based anglers 25%. Fairly ridiculous numbers, but let's use them as an example. If we went to allocation-based sector separation, then each sector would get that percentage of each year's rec allocation (I'm using broad terms here. I use allocation to represent a few different management terms to avoid confusion, but the general principal is the same). If it were only for-hire and private, then it would be 11% and 89%, right? Either way, each group would get their own regs based on their percentage of the rec allocation. Make sense?
However, most people that have taken the time to study this do not want to do it this way. More on that later. What is more popular than separate allocations is to regulate by separate measures for each sector. What does that look like? That is how we are regulating bluefish right now. When it comes time to set rec measures, the Council and Commission meet jointly and set measures for scup, BSB, and summer flounder. For bluefish, it is a discussion whether to give the for-hire sector different regs to help them out due to the low allocation on the rec side. Instead of having that discussion each time we set measures, the joint meeting would understand that each sector would need to have regs set separately. They would not necessarily have to favor the for-hire industry, and they would not necessarily need to be different from each other , but the measures would have to be considered for each sector. In a perfect world, when there is decent allocation for the rec sector, there could be the same regs for all sectors.
So let's leave that part of the amendment for now, and let's see what questions and comments it generates and go from there. But understand that the preceding discussion is basically one topic, and the following is a different topic, so take some time to formulate opinions on the above before you move on and cloud your thoughts with a different topic.
Now let's discuss the Data Collection part of the amendment. It was previously called Recreational Accounting, but a lot of people confused it as meaning it was a move to hold the rec sector accountable for all of the perceived overfishing indicated by MRIP. In actuality, it's about improving the data that comes out of the rec sector. Incase anyone hasn't figured it out yet, the biggest issue affecting the rec sector, and to some extent the commercial sector, is the uncertainty and erratic data coming out of MRIP.
The method and results of rec data collection has been a red button topic for decades, and I am not going to get into it here except to say that it is in fact the biggest negative effect on the management of the rec sector, mainly due to its inconsistent nature.
This part is fairly easy. I say it's easy because it is an immensely complex and overpowering topic. This part is asking for ways to improve the reliability and accuracy of data collection in the rec sector. Whether you separate for-hire and private or not, there is a need for improvement and validation in both sectors.
Even though the for-hire has VTRs, because they are filled out by one party and not verified by another, they do not carry the weight of a commercial vessel's VTRs (different topic, so let's just leave it alone to avoid derailment). So, when staff asked if enhanced VTRs would be better, almost everyone (at the New York hearing anyway) said no, because they already take too much time to fill out. Those were fair comments, but they missed the mark. The real question, albeit cloudy, was is there a way to change, add, or modify the VTR and the process to provide better, more accurate, and more verifiable data? That is a great question, and although staff has some thoughts, the best answers will come from industry.
Likewise, in the private and/or shore-based sectors, there is terrible data coming out. MRIP is easy to blame. If MRIP were properly funded (each state is tasked with funding MRIP), perhaps we would have more consistent data. Consistency would really be a great improvement, because whether it was consistently high or low, we could regulate from there. The inconsistency is what does the most damage to what is allocated. So, this part of the amendment is asking the private anglers what they think, and more importantly, what are they willing to do to get and provide better data.
I hear what everyone is saying in the above posts, but the rest of the sector is not necessarily in agereement. I have proposed that we try to incentivise better data from private anglers by giving an extra or smaller fish to those who participate in enhanced reporting platforms, but I was met with severe resistance. Why, because to give some people better regs, you need to minimally reduce regs for the rest of the sector (a few days off one end of the season). Anyway, what staff wants to hear are ideas that private sector anglers are willing to try to test and develop better ways to get more accurate data from that sector. This is your chance to step up and try to fix the problems that we have all been complaining about.
CaptMike28, thank you for attending, preparing, and thinking about your position. Understand that either speaking at the hearing or writing an email both carry the same weight. I spoke with many people after the hearing, I don't think I spoke with you. But if you, or anyone else wants to talk about this, have questions, or want to be included in emails about this and future actions from the council, let me know. I like when people agree with me, but I like it more when they make their own decisions based on good, complete information. I am always available by text or email to help anyone understand the process and the issues. I'm not going to debate things on a public forum, but I am here to help.
I look forward to good-natured discussion on these issues. These actions will shape the foreseeable future of fisheries management for the rec sector, and that is one reason why it is going to take two years to complete. It is a slow process, but that gives everyone time to comment and see what is going on. I honestly think that we can do the first half of it in three months, but that's not how the system is set up. The second part, getting good data, I don't know if we will ever get that right, but we need to make it better or none of us will recognize recreational fishing five years from now.
