October 8, 2003

PFMC ACTS TO CLOSE 2003 ROCKFISH SEASON, STUNNING CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

At the November meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the Council voted to close the entire west coast rockfish fishery for both sports and commercials from Mexico to Canada , out to 200 fathoms. The tragedy of this action was that it was again based on the notoriously unreliable ‘Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). The MRFSS estimates that led to this closure estimated that the catch and effort by private recreational boats in central and northern California during July and August were considerably higher than ever previously recorded, and led to overall estimates of catch by recreational and commercial fishermen in 2003 that were above quotas for canary rockfish, lingcod, and shallow and deeper nearshore rockfish.

All of us involved in the Council process felt blindsided by this action!

The Groundfish Management Team of the Council, in recommending the closure, stated that, “Combining these California recreational catch estimates with the estimated catches in other recreational and commercial fisheries coastwide produces a total mortality estimate for canary rockfish of 52 metric tons (compared to a 44 MT optimum yield [or quota]) and a total mortality estimate for lingcod of 956.4 MT, which exceeds the lingcod acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 841 MT.”

The Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP) of the Council, on the other hand, stated that, “The GAP – reluctantly, and with a great deal of frustration – recognizes the apparently unsolvable dilemma resulting from statistically-determined catches in a single fishery causing the optimum yield to be reached or exceeded for two species…A minority of the
GAP does not believe fisheries should be shut down coastwide on the basis of statistically unreliable data.”

For years the infamous “MRFSS” has forced restrictive management based on extremely questionable data that is based in part on what is known as a ‘random digit dialing' survey of California homes. As the result of ongoing complaints from recreational anglers representatives over the years, the entire MRFSS will be eliminated at the end of 2003, to be replaced in 2004 and beyond by a new data system. Unfortunately, this garbage system once again has led to a closure, based again on an estimate that makes no logical sense. For example, a survey by the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) in the same area and time estimated by MRFSS resulted in an estimate that was one tenth the magnitude of the MRFSS estimate!!

Unfortunately, the PFMC and NMFS are forced to take their management decisions based on the “best scientific information available”, and the infamous ‘MRFSS' was all the information that was available to the Council. The GAP, after looking at the RFA data, determined that the RFA survey was not sufficient to evaluate whether the methodology was sound. The result is that the coastwide rockfish season will close at midnight on Thursday, November 20, 2003 . In addition, since the 2004 rockfish season south of Point Conception will not start until March 1, 2004 , southern California anglers will be faced with another closure of over three months. Couple this with the eight months that were closed from November 2002 through June 2003 and the economic pain to my industry becomes apparent!

Prior to the PFMC action, there was a period of public comment by dozens of sport and commercial fishing representatives, and the tone of the comment was overwhelmingly one of condemnation for this worthless MRFSS data leading to the GMT recommendation for a coastwide closure. Recreational anglers must demand better from their government fisheries managers, and I encourage all of you to contact your state legislative representatives and express your dissatisfaction with the closure, being based as it is on such flimsy and suspicious survey information!

mentioned earlier that there will be a new data system in place in 2004 and beyond. It will be called the California Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (CRFSS), and the DFG assures us that it will be far superior to the old MRFSS. We can only hope that this is so, and SAC will definitely be meeting with the new Director of the DFG, when he or she is appointed, and will have the implementation of CRFSS high on our list of issues to discuss! Regarding the appointment of a new Director, SAC is working diligently to have some say in whom that individual will be, and we will update all of you once that decision is made. More later.