COMMENTS BY BOB FLETCHER, PRESIDENT, SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA (SAC) REGARDING RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS

The Sportfishing Association of California (SAC) was formed in 1972 to represent the interests of the commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) industry in southern California. I became SAC’s President in 1989 after spending 6 years as Deputy Director and later Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish & Game, and before that time I owned and operated sportfishing charterboats in San Diego for 12 years. I have also served as a member and twice Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for 15 of the past 21 years. Having been on both sides of the regulatory fence, I think I can provide a rather unique perspective on the successes and failures of recreational catch data collection, and how the sportfishing industry has responded to these various approaches.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, and even into the early 1990’s, the collection of recreational catch information under the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) was very ‘pro forma’, and ended up being a snapshot of the previous years’ total catch for various species. Unfortunately for recreational fishermen, the rockfish declines of the later 1990’s forced the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to begin managing the commercial and recreational fisheries ‘in-season’, and that is when the problems began with this data collection system. A data system that was never intended to be used for in-season control of recreational anglers quickly became a system repeatedly taking anglers off the water. “MRFSS” quickly became a dirty word! Managers agreed with the system’s detractors, but always closed the argument with the statement that, “it’s the best ‘available’ data”! My response, to no one in particular, usually was, “garbage in, garbage out!”

Through the end of the 90’s and into the first few years of the 21 st century, recreational anglers groups in California became more and more outspoken in their criticism of the accuracy of MRFSS for managing recreational rockfish harvest. SAC was right there with them, pointing out example after example where common sense and the broad spectrum of anglers argued that the catches ‘estimated’ by the MRFSS were much higher that logic dictated. It just didn’t pass the ‘red face’ test!

In an effort to find a better way, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) lobbied Congress over several years in an effort to get funding to launch a more accurate recreational data system. Fortunately for recreational anglers in California, a Congressional funding arrangement was identified. The result is the California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS). Increasing the number of field samples, focusing the survey on fishermen and generating the landing information monthly allowed the CA Dept. of Fish & Game to generate recreational catch numbers that simply made sense. Charterboat representatives breathed a huge sigh of relief when the data was made public in early March of this year, because for the first time in years the level of catch matched up very favorably with estimates made by the skippers themselves. An independent survey done by a recreational angling group known as the ‘Coastside Fishing Club’ recently came up with catch numbers that were virtually identical, so close to the CRFS numbers as to be spooky!

The rise of a more accurate system of recreational catch accounting paralleled the rise in participation of recreational angling interests throughout the fisheries management process as a whole. In the old days, the PFMC would simply take recreational catch off the top, and then allocate up what was left between commercial fishing interests. Today all that has changed, as new interest groups demand a ‘cut’ of the fisheries pie, and the ‘Sustainable Fisheries Act’ (SFA) has been fully implemented. Starting in the late 1990’s, better science began generating multiple ‘red flags’ on the health of rockfish stocks, and managers became more precautionary with quotas, and the result was that recreational opportunity plummeted. As if this threat to our access and opportunity was not enough, recreational anglers also faced loss of access through implementation of a state law that would require adoption of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ throughout California coastal waters. Talk about galvanizing the recreational angler base, this one-two punch certainly did it!

This new approach to management demanded a higher degree of accuracy, and yet we were stuck with the MRFSS. The biggest complaint that recreational angling representatives had with the infamous ‘MRFSS’ was that it used a random digit dialing system in order to generate effort information. There are approx. 35 million citizens living in California, and only about 2 million of those are anglers. Not focusing on fishermen for effort surveys seemed to us a way to guarantee a sloppy result. Couple this with a mediocre level of field intercepts, and you had a system lacking the credibility necessary to have the angling communities’ support. Now enter CRFS, with three times more field intercepts than the level used with MRFSS, and with an effort survey focused on licensed anglers instead of ‘random citizens’, you are well on your way to credibility!

Recreational anglers’ representatives fully appreciate the downside to our wholesale support for this new data system. What goes up must come down, and there will be times when CRFS data dictates that recreational catch will have to be reduced. While that will be disappointing, it will have been done using catch and effort methodology that the recreational fishing community thinks is believable and realistic, not improbable.

In closing, I think it is important to point out that today the charterboat industry is fully engaged in the debates over the science of fisheries management, as well as the methods used to generate the numbers involved in making the tough fisheries management decisions. We are involved at all levels of policy, including having representatives as voting members of the PFMC, having members on most of the advisory committees and being represented on scientific review panels for stock assessments. I am an advisor to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and have been involved in lobbying Congress so as to identify the funding needed to get the CRFS up and running.

Back in the ‘good old days’, charterboat industry reps. could spend their time trying to keep the Coast Guard and the FCC off of the fleets’ back, and could always find time to go fishing when they were biting. Today the ‘good old days’ are pretty much gone. Today we are forced to work full time plus to understand the fisheries management process, and everything that feeds into it, including how to gather accurate and believable catch and effort information. SAC is comfortable with the CRFS system of recreational data collection, and can heartily agree with the Department’s statement that, “CDFG believes that the preliminary CRFS estimates are a reliable representation of catch and effort by anglers fishing from boats and the shore.”

We like the methodology used, and are ready to go where the data leads us. Thank you.