A Collaborative Approach to Improving Stock Assessments Recreational Meeting Summary April 28 th, 2015 Plymouth, Massachusetts Radisson Plymouth Harbor
I. Introduction The primary objectives of the Fish Tank series, Collaborative Approach to Improving Stock Assessments, were: to increase dialogue between fishermen and scientists on the best approaches to scientifically robust stock assessments; to provide fishermen with a forum to voice their observations and recommendations around improving both fishery independent- and dependent- data; and to develop collaborative research priorities. To facilitate these objectives, we kept meeting sizes small, had minimal presentations (if any) and allowed fishermen participants to choose which topics discussions would revolve around. The meetings opened with introductions and a brief overview of the stock assessment process. Discussion began with a brainstorming session in which fishermen identified perceived gaps in the stock assessment process and offered potential solutions to address these gaps; gaps were then grouped under larger categories for discussion. Following the brainstorming session, participants chose two to three topics to focus the main discussion on. Dialogue revolved primarily around fishermen observations, concerns and recommendations, with scientist and/or manager input when necessary. The last portion of each meeting focused on discussing recommendations for improving NOAA s communication strategy around stock assessments. The structure of this meeting summary follows that of the meeting. Stock- specific gaps and/or recommendations pertain to Gulf of Maine cod, unless otherwise noted. II. Attendees Fishermen/Industry Representatives: Antonino, Rich; Black Rose Fishing Charters Paquette, Patrick; Basic Strategies, Pierdinock, Mike; Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, CPF Charters Wade, Charlie; Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association Waldrip, Dave; Relentless Charters Scientists/Managers/Facilitators: Anoushian, Walt; NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Ayer, Matt; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Baukus, Adam; Gulf of Maine Research Institute Brown, Russ; NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Dayton, Alexa; Gulf of Maine Research Institute
Grant, Mark; NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Hudson, Mary; Gulf of Maine Research Institute Joyce, Jessica; Gulf of Maine Research Institute Meredith, Earl; Northeast Fisheries Science Center Peros, Jonathon; New England Fishery Management Council Perra, Paul; NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Pershing, Andrew; Gulf of Maine Research Institute Rago, Paul; NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Zemeckis, Doug; UMass School of Marine Science and Technology III. Gaps Identified The initial brainstorm at the Plymouth meeting identified a myriad of gaps and concerns. These gaps generally fell into the following topics: MRIP surveys: Belief that the MRIP survey does not result in an accurate estimate of fishing effort and catch. Cod/haddock catch ratios: Uncertainty over methodology and accuracy of how science determines cod/haddock catch ratios for the recreational fishery. Discard mortality: Confusion on how science estimates recreational discard mortality and the desire to further understand how gear affects discard mortality. Management/regulations: Frustration over perceived randomness of regulations (e.g. 17 vs. 21 size limit, 3 haddock- bag limit) and inconsistency between state and federal regulations. Business impacts: Concern over economic viability of businesses as well as safety at sea in the face of strict regulations (e.g., bag limits, spring and fall closures). Compliance and enforcement: Concern with noncompliance in the recreational fishery, particularly amongst private anglers. IV. Major Discussion Themes & Gaps Of the gaps initially identified, the group focused the majority of their discussion on gaps in MRIP surveys, and dedicated a smaller segment on compliance and enforcement. The major gaps identified under these themes are: MRIP surveys: o Double counting occurs in intercept/phone surveys by interviewing fishermen/customers multiple times. o How VTR data is used is unclear o VTRs only on for- hire vessels (not private anglers) o Scale of MRIP survey (nationwide) is too large and as such is not accurate for GOM cod.
o Survey over- estimates not only catch, but discards as well. o MRIP changes too often and is hence unable to compile consistent data sets. o For- hire customers grossly overestimate catch, especially with the time lag from their trip to the phone survey. o Survey is chasing dwindling population of people fishing for cod; number of angler days are way over estimated. o Small center console boats (private anglers) are not going way offshore for groundfish; yet survey results show high effort in this area. Compliance and enforcement: o Lack of knowledge in regulations results in noncompliance and subsequent overages, especially among private anglers. o No incentive to keep an honest logbook; lack of enforcement o Uncertainty in which regulations to follow causes noncompliance V. Industry Recommendations Throughout the main discussion of gaps in MRIP surveys and compliance and enforcement, several recommendations were made by industry to reduce the gaps identified: MRIP surveys: o Have an independent data collection system to augment/verify MRIP. o Interview people who are representative of actual fishing activity, not the private angler that fishes two times a year. o Compare catch/discard estimations from intercept surveys against VTR estimates. o Use VTRs and Gulf of Maine fly over survey to estimate effort. o Sign- up for an online app for reporting when applying for saltwater fishing licenses. Not just for- hire vessels, but private anglers o Make VTRs an app to streamline reporting and data o Crowd source recreational fishermen using apps etc., to get better data on catch. o There is infrastructure at the community level to collect more data; we just need scientists and money. o Have a kiosk at dock for fishermen to submit catch data. o Link GPS to phone for more accurate location reporting. Compliance and enforcement: o Survey should be tied to accountability, e.g. incentives for compliance o Data collection needs to follow those who are compliant o Enforcement needs to be at the dock for check and balances
Check VTRs and coolers Collaborative Research o Study the haddock/cod catch and bycatch ratios for both the charter/for- hire fleet and private anglers. o Develop cooperative research project to test different methods of data collection. Ensure NOAA will accept results prior to project o Develop projects that model people as well as fish, for example, a bio- economic model. VI. Improving Communications Several suggestions were made in response to the question: How can NOAA improve communications and collaboration with the recreational fleet? Educate anglers on regulations and best fishing practices by: o Targeting younger license holders o Education component through schools o Presence at trade shows o Email and VHF blasts o Notices at gas docks and tackle shops Outreach with recreational community at sportsman shows Provide public outreach on where to avoid key species, e.g. cod. Provide regulatory information when people get their permits/licenses.