M I N U T E S

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND MEETING

TAMPA, FLORIDA

APRIL 27-28, 1989

The one hundred and second meeting of t h e Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council was called t o order by Chairman William Chauvin at 8:30 a.m., April 27, 1989. Council members in a t tendance were:

VOTING MEMBERS

William Chauvin Mary Kumpe Joseph Angelovic George Brumfield Je r ry Clark (Designee for Virginia Van Sickle) Julius Collins Joe Gill (Designee for Vernon Bevill) John Green Armand DeKeyser Walter Fondren Alex Jernigan Gary Matlock Edward McCulla Sherman Muths Russell Nelson Walter Tatum (Designee for Hugh Swingle)

NONVOTING MEMBERS

Frank Richardson (Designee for James ~ u l l i a m ) Ron Lukens (Designee for Larry Simpson)

Lt. Ron Falkey (Designee for Admiral Merlin)

STAFF

Wayne Swingle Terrance Leary Tony Lamberte Douglas Gregory Cathy Readinger Beverly Badillo Stephanie Kelley

Louisiana Florida NMFS Mississippi Louisiana Texas Mississippi Texas Alabama Texas Florida Texas Louisiana Mississippi Florida Alabama

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf S ta tes Marine Fisheries

Commission United S ta tes Coast Guard

Executive Director Biologist Economist Statistician/Biologist Administrative Assistant Secretary NOAA General Counsel

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Captain Ray Odor, Lutz, Florida Les Smith, Atlantic Sport Fishing Association, Natick, Massachusetts Stephen Meyers, Gulf Sta tes Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Mississippi Bob Zales, Zodiak Char ter Fleet , Panama City, Florida Ron Schmied, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida Je r ry Schill, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Bayboro, North Carolina Charlie Hardison, Golden Meadow, Louisiana Bob Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida T. H. Crane, Por t Salerno, Florida William Niles, Summerland Key, Florida George Niles, Summerland Key, Florida Eddy Owl, Key West, Florida Richard Waites, Key West, Florida William Gibson, Jr., Key West, Florida Raymond Berard, Key West Florida William Gibson, Sr., Key West, Florida William Carter , Key West, Florida Je r ry Khirir, Osprey, Florida Bobby Benldey, Osprey, Florida Marla Taylor, Bradenton, Florida Sistes Quesado, Jr., Key West, Florida Robert Harmony, Key West, Florida Sistes Quesado, Sr., Key West, Florida Brad Brown, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida John Roussel, Louisiana Department Wildlife & Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Howard Larsen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, Florida George Thompson, Stuart , Florida Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida Ray Campbell, Kodiak, Alaska John Porter, Savannah, Georgia Lee Weddig, Washington, D.C. Mario Esposito, Pompano, Florida Larry and Joyce Meyer, Pompano, Florida Terry Conner, Long Key, Florida Gary Pf lueger, Miami, Florida Robert Hickman, North Miami, Florida Billy Sandefur, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Eric Keitel, Sarasota, Florida George McKinney, Gulf Reef Fish Conservation Association, Destin, Florida Terry Jones, Marathon, Florida A1 Pflueger, North Miami, Florida Robert Sierpiejko, Boynton Beach, Florida Richard Nielson, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Brad Kenyan, Odessa, Florida Randy Ruzicka, Largo, Florida Mike Dunsizer, St. Petersburg, Florida Ken Hinman, Savannah, Georgia Eric Prince, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida Robert Spaeth, Madeira Beach, Florida

OTHER PARTICIPANTS (continued)

Larry Goins, Key West, Florida Wilson Hubbard, Madeira Beach, Florida Jon Grant, Madeira Beach, Florida Tom Murray, Tampa, Florida Dick Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida Mark Taylor, Bradenton, Florida Seth Macinko, St. Petersburg, Florida Mr. and Mrs. James Carmy, Largo, Florida Gary McMillin, Chokoloskee, Florida Bill Henderson, Apollo Beach, Florida Jeff Smith, Tampa, Florida Reynolds Bryan, Riverview, Florida Todd Reynolds, St. James, Florida Michael Maccini, St. Petersburg, Florida Mike Justen, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida John Warren, Tampa, Florida J i m McCallum, Washington, D.C. Bob Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida Buck Byrd, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida

- - Dah-wen Shieh, Council of Agriculture, Taipei, Taiwan Basil Arend, St. Petersburg, Florida Mike Kitchen, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida Jack Greenfield, St. Petersburg, Florida Martin Fisher, Madeira Beach, Florida Glenn Delaney, Alexandria, Virginia Ray Hogarth William McLeod Roger Koske, Madeira Beach, Florida Car l Anderson, Bay County Charterboat Association, Panama City, Florida Ed Maccini Bill Moore, Big Pine Key, Florida Mrs. W .A. Brunthoover, Lakeport, Florida Robert Robinson, Everglades City, Florida

o Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted as written.

o Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held in Miami, Florida, March 15-16, 1989, were approved with the following changes:

Page 27, f i f th paragraph, should indicate Ms. Kumpe being the maker of t h e motion and not Mr. Richardson.

Page 24, fourth paragraph, the word should be replaced by the word "fisheries1'. Also on page 24, tenth paragraph, Mr. Gordon's s t a tement should read "felt the Council should not promote a fishery tha t is determined being conditional since . . .I1

o Reef Fish Amendment 1

Mr. Chauvin noted the re were numerous members of the public who requested t o speak and suggested testimony be limited t o five minutes per individual. He invited t h e public t o speak:

Mr. Bob Zales, charterboat owner, Panama City, Florida, supported the 20-inch s ize limit on grouper and t h e five fish bag limit. He also supported t h e 13-inch s ize l imit on red snapper, and opposed the t e n fish bag limit. Red snapper should not be included with other snappers for bag limit purposes since someone could c a t c h t e n vermilion snapper, and if they were able t o ca tch t e n red snapper on the same day he would have gone over the bag limit resulting in waste of fish. He favored t h e 12- inch size limit for gray, mutton and yellowtail snapper and t h e eight-inch s ize limit on lane and vermilion snapper. He suggested another approach b e taken on t h e bag limit for snappers. Vermilion snapper in the Panama City a r e a a r e not considered stressed or overfished, and he fe l t a 20 fish bag limit for vermilion snapper would be feasible. The th ree fish amberjack bag- limit and 28-inch s ize ,limit was acceptable, however, he favored a two fish bag limit and 24-inch size limit. Amberjack a r e not depleted, but he fe l t i t was much easier t o maintain a management s t ra tegy in regulating a fishery tha t is not yet in a n endangered state. He supported t h e bag limit for trawl vessels. The commit tee changed the bag limit from a daily limit t o a t r ip limit; h e fe l t the daily limit should be retained. He owns four boats and c a n make multiple trips in one day and t ake advantage of t h e multiple t r ip limit resulting in circumvention of t h e intent of the measure. A daily l imit for anglers was much more reasonable than a t r ip limit. Multiple day t r ip limits should be allowed; in his a r e a there a r e a number of boats tha t depend on two-day trips. Enforcement would not be a problem; if someone pays for a two-day trip, h e would not t ake them out for only one day. Also, h e would not allow someone t o c a t c h two- days worth of fish for only a one-day payment. Verification based on receipts would be easy t o determine. The advantage of a two-day tr ip is tha t t h e person g e t s t o travel further in hopes of catching bigger fish. The change in t h e fishing year f rom July t o June is reasonable. He fe l t t h e permits including t h e char terboat income stipulation was reasonable and will eliminate what the fishermen te rm as "weekend warriors" and people who a r e part-time char ter fishermen. He suggested t h e Council should educate the public as t o the advantages of the plan and help them t o understand t h a t t h e proposals will be beneficial long term.

Dr. Matlock asked if there was an incident where a reduction in t h e amount of t a k e was imposed on a char ter fish fishery resulting in char terboats going out of business. Mr. Zales responded he did not have any documentation.

Mr. George McKinney, Gulf Reef Fish Conservation and Management Association, submitted a wri t ten s ta tement and s ta ted t h e association was formed six weeks ago t o give a l l users of t h e reef fish resources from Key West t o Brownsville a common point of contact for working with t h e Gulf Council and other agencies in formulating regulations and taking other appropriate measures t o ensure conservation and optimum use of reef fish and other Gulf resources. Their current paid membership

numbers slightly over 200 and has been increasing exponentially since formation. Due t o the limited t ime available, his comments d o not fully ref lect coordinated association positions. They a r e based on the more significant concerns expressed by members. Properly coordinated specifics, with minority reports as required, will be provided a t la ter s tages of the review process. The major problem which requires a plan amendment is the inability of stocks t o replenish themselves in t h e f a c e of existing conditions in t h e Gulf. Some of the i tems listed as "problems" such as fishing pressure, pollution and habitat destruction a r e "root causes" of t h e problem. Others, such as user conflicts and use of cer ta in types of gear a r e merely ramifications of t h e problem - if stocks were replenishing themselves we would not be concerned with who is harvesting them or t h e methods used. H e suggested reworking this section into a problem-cause-effect format. The same rationale applied t o management objectives listed in the plan. Restoring stocks t o X percent spawning stock biomass per recruit can be directly linked t o solving t h e problem of inadequate replenishment. Other s t a ted objectives a r e at best tangential t o t h e basic problem. To b e meaningful, t h e restoration objective should be linked t o a t ime frame; a reasonable t ime such a s the year 2000 is preferable t o mit igate near- t e rm impacts on users while still moving toward a concrete objective. Also, t h e plan amendment should contain a s expanded tutorial on SSBR and how i t is measured t o enhance understanding of approval authorit ies and especially those t o be effected. He commented on proposed additions t o t h e management unit t h a t t h e administrative and scientific proprietg,of.including what may be non-reef species in a reef fish fishery management plan. Previous comments on t h e advisability of expanded explanations of SSBR apply t o definitions of optimum yield and overfishing. Procedures for determining allowable biological ca tches and to ta l ca tches a r e of immense concern, particularly if the products a r e t o be used in a framework approach which would authorize future al teration of t h e provisions of t h e plan by notice action. This is a n a r e a where the association desires exceptionally close coordination with the Council a s specifics of such procedures a r e finalized. The committee's recommendation on red snapper size and bag limits is vastly superior t o proposals contained in the draf t amendment and str ikes a much be t t e r balance between concern for the resource and concern for those who currently depend on the resource fo r their livelihoods. Their recommendations also t ake a positive s t ep in the a rea of grouper size limits and quotas, however, they d o not go f a r enough. First , a smaller size limit should be set for red grouper. These fish mature sexually at a smaller size than blacks and gags, and, therefore, c a n safely be harvested at a length at least two inches shorter than blacks and gags. Secondly, given a significant increase in minimum grouper size, quotas and bag limits a r e not required and thei r use, particularly during t h e first year of plan implementation, would consume resources (for monitoring) t h a t could b e be t t e r used elsewhere. Amberjack quotas and bag limits a r e totally inappropriate at this time. He expressed appreciation for t h e Council's concern tha t fishing e f f o r t may turn toward th is species as restrictions a r e placed on snapper and grouper, however, "may" is t h e operable word and restrictions based on conjecture lessen credibility of t h e plan as a whole and by inference t h e more urgently needed management tools contained therein. Imposition of the proposed size limit will adequately protect stocks until more information is available on what is admittedly a n emerging fishery. Regarding t h e other snappers, t h e Council has failed t o consider t h e severe impacts on a substantial head boat fishery, primarily located in t h e Florida Panhandle, of limiting customers of this f l ee t t o ten pan fish (i.e., vermilion snappers and red porgies) per day. New available da ta indicates tha t vermilion a r e sexually mature at six inches, so a n eight inch size limit will offer substantial protection. The eight t o ten inch

mingo is the primary fish taken by head boat customers, and a limit of t e n would yield less than five pounds of edible meat. These fish a r e not stressed, particularly in this area , and increased harvest may be necessary t o enhance comeback of red snapper stocks which could be impeded if vermilions and porgies t ake over red snapper habitat. He strongly urged inclusion of wording which would allow recreational fishermen t o t ake up t o at least 20 vermilion snapper and/or red porgies per trip. In summary, he requested the Council clarify t h e problem s ta tement and t o expand explanations of biological t e rms t o enhance comprehension. H e suggested establishment of commercial quotas and recreational bag limits for groupers and amberjack is not required in conjunction with increased minimum size limits, and he requested adequate recreational limits on reef "pan1' fish t o continue t o make head boat fishing a t t r ac t ive t o a sizeable portion of the populace. Finally, he offered t h e auspices of t h e association t o t h e Council and others who undertake projects and programs which ultimately benefit reef fish resources and those who depend on them for their livelihoods and leisurely pursuits.

Dr. Matlock asked if t h e Gulf Reef Fish Conservation and Management Association had any information t o lead the Council t o a different conclusion concerning amberjack and the emerging fishery tha t is developing tha t people will not a t t e m p t t o c a t c h more of these fish. He questioned if the Council's conclusion was wrong t h a t this will not occur. Mr. McKinney responded i t would be difficult t o provide d a t a t h a t something w.ill not happen. ..Dr. Matlock added the re was testimony f rom previous s t a tements indicating &his will occur. He asked if Mr. McKinney's association would be more comfortable if language were included in the document t h a t this llwilllt occur based on testimony instead of "may" occur. Mr. McKinney responded he would be as uncomfortable with this contention based on conjecture as he would be on t h e contrary conjecture tha t i t will not occur. Dr. Matlock also asked if Mr. McKinney1s association fe l t the Council should not t ake any act ion t o manage any species until i t was demonstrated t h e fishery was overfished. Mr. McKinney responded this was not his association's position. He subsequently submitted a writ ten response t o Dr. Matlock's question which was no, however, management tools should be in proportion t o scientific (biological) indications of periential overfishing not t o conjecture i t may occur.

Mr. Terry Connor, commercial fish trapper in t h e Florida Keys, offered his t i m e t o speak t o Ms. Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida.

Mr. Charlie Hardison, char terboat fisherman in Louisiana for 33 years, noted t h e Council has a tremendous job t o accomplish but f e l t the wrong approach was being used. The problems in Florida should be addressed in Florida, the problems occurring in Mississippi must be addressed in Mississippi, etc. The problem in Louisiana is not with grouper, lane, or vermilion snapper; the problem in Louisiana is with red snapper since t h e fishermen in the charterboat industry in this a r e a totally rely on these fish for their livelihood. Eighteen years ago there were 19 char terboats on Grand Isle, and there currently is not one boat char ter fishing. The various fac to rs such as insurance costs, fuel, and employee salaries has put them out of business. A boat goes in June and July and October and November off the S t a t e of Louisiana and pulls in 60 t o 110 feet of water. Sometimes, approximately 200 shrimp boats move into t h e same a rea pulling four 50-foot nets. There is no way a boat could c a t c h anything following behind a shrimp boat. He suggested a 15 per day, per t r i p bag limit. There is no way t h e Council could make the same regulations apply t o t h e

ent i re Gulf. A limited entry system must be instituted in order for t h e fisheries t o survive.

Mr. DeKeyser asked if the boats part icpate in other commercial fishing during t h e winter months when t h e boats a r e not under charter. Mr. Hardison responded he has a commercial mackerel permit. One year in just two days two of his boats took 39,000 pounds out of the Gulf using rods and reels. He then informed his employees not t o a t t e m p t t o c a t c h any more king mackerel since i t was damaging t o t h e fishery.

Mr. Ray Hogarth s ta ted at the Madiera Beach public hearing closed seasons for reef fish were discussed since some of t h e fishermen related they could fill t h e quota by September. This would allow a four-month closure of al l commercial fishing for reef fish. Therefore, the fishermen fe l t a two-month closed season would b e a n advantage t o everyone. The only way t o manage reef fish is t o close t h e fishery during the spawning season. He opposed t h e 50 percent income requirement. There is no difference whether t h e fishermen sell their fish or gave i t t o a neighbor, he st i l l took t h e fish. He quoted proposals submitted t o t h e S t a t e of Florida: "We, t h e membership of the part-time commercial fishermen of Florida realizing the re is a move underway t o limit commercial fishing in the S t a t e of Florida t o special interest groups by way of limited entry, the unconstitutional income percentage basis; and recognizing tha t our objectives on.a.part-time basis a r e .equally productive

- - in providing fresh Florida seafood t o t h e consumer, we do as of this d a t e make t h e following request: whereas t h e residents of t h e S ta te of Florida a r e granted t h e same inalienable rights provided by the Constitution of the United S t a t e s of America t o pursue part-time, half-time, or full-time engagement or employment in any industry for f r e e enterprise and t h e taking for sale of any marine seafood resources in the S t a t e of Florida is deemed t o be one of the major industries in t h e S t a t e o f Florida, we recognize tha t part-time fishermen of Florida must be governed by t h e same licensing s t ructure as any individual in t h e S ta te of Florida so w e do hereby request tha t any resident in t h e S t a t e of Florida wishing t o engage in the part-time, half-time, or full-time pursuit of any legally accepted marine seafood resource o f t h e S t a t e of Florida be given equal consideration with al l residents t o t h e S t a t e of Florida without regard t o any percentage of monetary basis of their income relating t o issuance of t h e standard seafood products license on payment of s e t fees." He added the big-time operators a r e being given a big shovel and told t a k e all you want as along a s you make over 50 percent of your livelihood. He requested t h e 50 percent income requirement be removed from t h e proposals in the amendment.

Dr. Nelson asked if someone had t h e right in the S t a t e of Florida t o open a liquor s tore anywhere they desired. H e expressed no one has t h e right t o any fish; they a r e a common property resource and a r e t o be used t o t h e common good of a l l t h e ci t izens of the United States. H e did not feel t h e "big-time'f operators a r e under t h e impression tha t they have been given a shovel and told t ake a l l you want. Mr. Hogarth responded any person who could afford a longline boat and t h e expense of t h e gear could t ake their harvest. The part-time fishermen were only requesting t h e equal right t o pursue t h e fish.

Mr. Eric Keitel informed h e attended many of t h e public hearings and at the Madiera Beach public hearing the room was overcrowded and there was insufficient t i m e for everyone t o speak. He s ta ted t h e commercial fishermen as a group did not have a n opportunity t o voice their opinions, five minutes is not sufficient t i m e t o address a l l

t h e issues in t h e amendment. He commented Amendment I a s writ ten will result in t h e dea th of the industry. There a r e many management options available t o t h e Council which have not been discussed. One is limited entry into t h e commercial fishery and gear limitations. Limited entry is now seriously being considered by t h e New England Fishery Management Council, and he fe l t i t should b e carefully examined by the Gulf Council prior t o making recommendations on t h e amendment. The 50 percent income requirement is not considered a form of limited entry. Many of t h e long-time fishermen in t h e Gulf feel the Council has commit ted a gross oversight in i t s responsibilities t o t h e fishery and the fishermen in not considering gear limitations and the e f fec t s on t h e fishery. He wrote t h e Council a detailed le t ter in September, 1988, listing ideas and observations on how this type of program could and would work and how i t may a f fec t t h e fishery with regard in trying t o achieve the s t a ted management goals. He detailed a series of enforcement procedures t h a t could be handled by enforcement officers much more easily than t h e measures proposed. None of these observations have been discussed before t h e Council. He totally objected t o Amendment 1 as currently written. H e was a recreational fisherman and a party boat captain for ten years, and intends t o be ac t ive in stopping implementation of t h e regulations.

Mr. Green asked if Mr. Keitel agreed or disagreed tha t t h e fish in t h e ocean a r e a common property resource. Mr. Keitel responded he agreed. Mr. Green commented in this case, limited entr,y .would deny t h e right,of many people t o fish. He asked if determined tha t 100 reef fish fishermen can officially, profitably, and without damage t o t h e resource achieve optimum yield of the resource, would he be willing t o bid into tha t fishery. Mr. Keitel responded no, but this was a question which needs careful consideration and perhaps has some merit.

Dr. Matlock expressed concern with the public's opinion t h a t they were not given adequate opportunity t o comment. He asked if Mr. Keitel was denied access in any way in providing input in writ ten form or any other way. Mr. Keitel responded he submitted writ ten documents t o the Council and fe l t i t probably has not been read by Council memberes since i t has not been discussed. He fe l t this was a form of being denied access. He was told a t t h e Naples and Madiera Beach public hearing t h a t h e could not speak longer than five minutes.

Dr. Nelson pointed out at t h e Madiera Beach public hearing, Mr. Williams began t h e meeting by asking if the re was anyone in the audience who fe l t t h a t they could not state their views within five minutes. He asked why Mr. Keitel did not protes t at t h a t point. Mr. Keitel responded he was aware of this s t a tement being made. He had spoken with Mr. Williams at t h e Naples public hearing and did not choose t o speak at t h e Madiera Beach public hearing; h e only attended t o see how the meting was run. Dr. Nelson noted the meeting adjourned before t h e th ree hours was over and a f t e r a l l the speakers were finished, additional opportunity was given above t h e five minutes for anyone t o again speak. Mr. Keitel concurred.

Mr. Car l Anderson represented t h e Bay County Charterboat Association and expressed the re was insufficient da ta t o support a ten fish limit on vermilion snapper and requested a 20 fish limit with i t being lowered in subsequent years if t h e d a t a indicates i t needs reduced. He expressed concern in disallowing t h e multiple day bag limits. In t h e northern Gulf and t h e Florida Panhandle there a r e numerous two-day trips. A large number of boats depend on two-day tr ips especially in t h e spring and fall. The association supported separation of red snapper from t h e other species of

snapper and fe l t the five fish bag limit on red snapper was sufficient. He personally disfavored a limited entry system since t h e country was based on freedom and f ree enterprise.

Dr. Nelson asked how a party boat operator could document being out on a two-day t r ip t o the satisfaction of a n enforcement officer. Mr. Anderson responded the re were a number of head boats tha t take two-day trips. He fe l t i t could be documented through the logbooks plus by peer pressure. Fishermen who obey t h e law will not to lera te someone e lse breaking the law. He fe l t enforcement of th is would not b e a problem in t h e Florida Panhandle. Dr. Nelson pointed ou t Coas t Guard regulations require more than a single licensed captain on board if t h e boat was out for more than a cer ta in t ime period, Mr. Anderson commented on t h e ce r t i f i ca te of inspection i t s t a tes tha t t h e boat is not t o be operated more than 12 hours in any one 24 hour period without a double crew.

Mr. Gary McMillin quoted from a le t ter writ ten by David Horan who was retained t o a t t e m p t t o move t h e stressed a r e a in t h e Everglades City area. Mr. Horan s t a t e d in t h e l e t t e r t h a t his la tes t conversation with NOAA personnel convinced him t h a t most of t h e commercial fishermen a r e now considered t o be t h e enemy. With t h e incredible amount of money NOAA has and i ts possible use of s ta t is t ics and blind studies t o validate a commercial fishing position in coming t o this conclusion, Mr. Horan conducted extensive. research on the..Eishe~men's Protection Act and i t s legislative history and t h e National Standards under the Magnuson Act. As fa r as t h e United S ta tes is concerned, t h e recreational fishermen will in t h e next t e n years have exclusive control of al l fishing in t h e terri torial waters of t h e United States. Based on the past few years, the recreational fishermen will also dominate t h e federal fisheries management council with the only possible exception being Alaska, t h e Pacific Council. What comes very clear is tha t today's younger commercial fishermen bet ter s t a r t learning t o be guides and all the children of commercial fishermen give up any hopes of taking over their father's business. Mr. McMillin s t a ted t h e amendment indicates the re a r e 377 fish trappers. Out of this the re a r e supposedly 94 act ive fish trappers in t h e S t a t e of Florida. The s ta t is t ics as t o t h e location of grouper and information from Dr. Moe and Dr. Goodyear a r e invalid. There a r e more recent reports developed by t h e University of Miami t h a t t h e Council could review. He was c i ted for a violation and was never given a day in court. His day in cour t consisted of a telephone conversation with NOAA General Counsel who reduced his fine from $5,000 for a first offense t o $2,500 plus confiscation of his gear. He expressed concern with t h e way enforcement i s handled. H e requested a 14 t o 15-inch size limit on grouper since t h e fish a r e smaller in t h e northern part of Florida Bay. The recreational fishermen a r e catching th is s ize of fish, and t h e commercial fishermen should also be allowed t o c a t c h t h e same size. He favored the stressed a r e a line be brought in off Everglades Ci ty since the re a r e not t h a t many recreational fishermen who use the area. He suggested closing t h e season when the fish a r e spawning instead of instituting size limits.

Mr. Collins asked if Mr. McMillin was str ict ly a reef fishermen. Mr. McMillin responded he fished for grouper May 15th through September Ist , and then he fishes for stone crab.

Mr. Green asked if the re were fewer or greater number of fishermen using fish t r aps than 94. Mr. McMillin responded this was probably an accura te figure, however, he was not positive.

Mr. Brumfield asked if Mr. McMillin fished during t h e spawning season. Mr. McMillin responded no.

Mr. Todd Reynolds related a larger size limit for amberjack would be more appropriate than having a quota since i t would be bet ter management t o allow t h e fish t o grow t o t h e size at which they spawn. A quota would place more burden on NMFS and the Marine Patrol. A 32-inch size limit is adequate and would be easy to manage. Jewfish should also be allowed a chance t o spawn.

Mr. Robert Hickman donated his speaking t ime t o Joan Butler, OFF.

Mr. Richard Nielson, commercial fish trapper in Ft . Lauderdale, asked t h e current proposals on fish traps. Mr. Chauvin responded t h e commit tee has recommended allowing up t o 100 fish t raps with a larger mesh size t o allow escapement of undersized red grouper. Mr. Jernigan pointed out the Council's present position is t o prohibit fish traps; t h e commit tee only has recommended this t o be changed t o 100 fish t r aps with a larger mesh size, however, this has not been adopted by t h e Council. Mr. Nielson s ta ted Public Law 94-265, April 13, 1976, finds tha t t h e fish off the coast of t h e United S ta tes consti tute a valuable and renewable natural resource. The fishery resources contribute t o t h e food supply economy and health of the nation a n d , t o provide recreational opportunity. H e " i s a full-time commercial fish t r ap fisherman since 1978. The proposed amendment banning fish t raps in t h e ent i re EEZ is deplorable. Over a two year period, fish trappers have a t tended public hearings and Council meetings entirely at their own expense. This was t o give input and information t o the Council so tha t they would have documented fac t s hopefully leading t o a fair and equitable regulation on fish traps. In 1983, fish t r a p regulations became reality. Now, there is another fish t r ap ban proposal. H e referred t o t h e Second National Standard and related i t t o t h e fish t r ap ban in which t h e best scientif ic information available must be used. There a r e two studies available t o t h e Council, one of which was a wire fish t r ap study for Dade and Broward Counties, 12/79 - 9/80. Research publication number 40 of t h e Florida Department of Natural Resources was performed by NMFS biologists aboard his vessel. He recommended no limit on t h e number of traps and no change on existing mesh regulations already in place.

Mr. Fondren asked t h e number of t raps per boat fished by Mr. Nielson. Mr. Nielson responded h e fished 200 traps and has one boat. Mr. Chauvin asked how many t r a p fishermen have more than 200 traps. Mr. Nielson responded very few have more than 200; most fishermen fish with t raps t o supplement for o ther types of fishing. There a r e probably five or less in the ent i re S ta te of Florida t h a t have more than 200 traps.

Mr. McCulla asked t h e type of fish being targeted with the traps. Mr. Nielson responded primarily snapper and grouper (mutton snapper and gag and black grouper). When t h e studies were conducted in 1980, the fishermen were not using t h e underutilized species of fish - grunts, porgies, triggerfish, etc. However, currently the re is an established market for these fish. There a r e very few species of fish caught in the traps which a r e discarded.

Mr. DeKeyser asked how many t imes per day the traps were run. Mr. Nielson responded fish trapping is prohibited in s t a t e waters resulting in a lengthy trip.

Usually the re a r e usually 40 fish traps hauled per day a f t e r a seven-day soak period.

Mr. Brad Kenyan, Odessa, Florida, s t a ted he has been a part-time commercial fisherman for most of his life. The income he derives from fishing par t t ime is very important t o him financially, however, does not equate t o 50 percent of his t o t a l income. If the 50 percent income requirement is approved, he fe l t i t would only be fa i r t o prevent any person from doing anything on a part-time basis. He fished t h e Middle Grounds this weekend and on Monday morning h e had t o wait t o sell his 300 pounds of reef fish until a long-line boat finished unloading 10,000 pounds of fish. The proposed measures a r e supposed t o be designed t o protect and preserve t h e reef fish. He fe l t actions need t o be taken t o relieve the pressure on reef fish, however, restr ict ions should be shared equally by commercial, sport and part-time commercia l fishermen alike. He favored closing the fishery two t o three months a year during t h e spawning season, taxing imported fish, and subsidizing full-time commercial fishermen during t imes he cannot fish. Closed seasons have worked for snook, lobster, and red fish, and h e fe l t would work well for reef fish. All t h e fish he catches a r e caught with a rod and reel, and he is highly successful at releasing undersized and unwanted fish. He fe l t his fish a r e a fresher quality due t o t h e shorter trips. He submitted a petition of approximately 40 names opposing t h e 50 percent income requirement. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Kenyan's profession. Mr. Kenyan responded h e was in the ca r business.

Mr. Randy Ruzicka also submitted a petition opposing the 50 percent income requirement. He fe l t the 50 percent income requirement was unconstitutional and would not hold up in court. He has approximately $60,000 t o $70,000 invested in his boat, and his costs a r e approximately $1,200 t o $1,500 per month fo r boat payment, insurance, gas and oil. If t h e 50 percent requirement were instituted i t would result in him losing or having t o sell his boat. This would also place a hardship on t h e boating industry a s no one would be able t o afford t o buy a boat. Allowing t h e people who a r e doing the most damage t o t h e resource t o t a k e t h e fish, and disallowing t h e fishermen who a r e only taking less than f ive percent is not conservation. He favored closed seasons during t h e spawning season, and re la ted i t takes five years for a black grouper t o reach spawning size at which t ime they a r e approximately 8; t o 10 pounds. The 18 t o 20-inch size limits on the fish will not protect t h e spawners, which is one of the proposals listed in the amendment. He did not feel t h a t most of t h e proposals were in t h e best interest of everyone.

Dr. Nelson asked how long Mr. Ruzicka has been fishing. Mr. Ruzicka responded since 1980. Dr. Nelson asked how many pounds of fish h e landed. Mr. Ruzicka responded approximately 12,000 t o 15,000 pounds.

Dr. Matlock asked how many people were in the Gulf who were similar fishermen t o Mr. Ruzicka. Mr. Ruzicka responded probably several thousand.

Mr. Mike Dunsizer, commercial fishing equipment salesperson and owner of Fisherman's Ideal Supply House, s ta ted h e s tar ted his business over 12 years ago which has increasingly grown in tha t time. He described the vessels who have purchased i tems through his business over the last 12 years was 1,026. Of th is number, 5 5 percent a r e documented vessels (570), 263 o r 26 percent a r e businesses t h a t possibly have set up boats, and the remaining a r e Florida registered boats, 19 percent o r 193 boats. This was a s of this past week. As longlining, bandit fishing,

and commercial fishing has continued t o develop and increase, his business consequently has increased. As of 1988 (fiscal year) the average per month of receipts were from 383 boats, businesses or Florida registered vessels. Of t h e to ta l 100 percent, 40 percent of t h e boats (157) were longliners on a n average monthly basis; six percent of 23 boats on a n average were rod and reel and/or bandit fishermen; t h e remaining percentile which is 54 percent which consti tuted indirect sales t o vessels which were out-of-state vessels, out of the country sales t o vessels, and businesses themselves, tackle shops and fish houses. He could not earmark these as t o the particular vessel. For tha t year, 46 percent (178 vessels) of t h e commercial people who c a m e through his business were longliners and bandit fishermen. If his business consti tutes 50 percent of the longliners in t h e Gulf, which he seriously doubted, then his competi tors within t h e geographical a r e a such as Peninsula Marine, Florida Fisherman Supply, Hooker's Supply, Tampa Marine, C a r r Enterprises, and Sigma Marine t ake up the other 50 percent in t h e Gulf. He seriously doubted those names plus his constituted 100 percent. Within t h e state the re a r e Atlantic and Gulf, Howard Tackle, Mirror's Marine, McCleanls Seafood, S&L, Longline Fisherman Supplies who also have a percentile of t h e market. He summarized t h a t whatever number was indicated for t h e longline industry, bandit industry or commercial fishermen as a business is understated. He fe l t the re were more. He re i tera ted h e was unsure a s t o the percentage his business represented in the industry. Even if i t were 40 percent, the other business were doing a lot of business as well.

Dr. Nelson asked what type of equipment Mr. Dunsizer's business sold t h e most and t h e type of fishery being targeted. Mr. Dunsizer responded h e would have t o d o a run-down on a boat-by-boat basis, and the boats change fisheries.

Mr. Green asked if according t o t h e sales there was a n indication of shift f rom swordfish t o reef fish t o shark. Mr. Dunsizer responded this occurs, but they d o shift back and forth.

Mr. Gary Pflueger relinquished his speaking t ime t o Joan Butler, OFF.

Mr. A1 Pflueger, commercial fish trapper in Miami, related he presently owns 264 fish t raps and lost 36 fish traps within six years. He ca tches grouper, snapper, triggerfish, porgies and grunts. He fe l t h e produces a good quality fish for t h e market using fish traps.

Mr. Collins asked how much of the fish caught in traps was wasted. Mr. Pflueger responded h e currently utilizes everything even t h e cowfish from which he receives $7 per pound.

Mr. Robert Sierpiejko, commercial fish trapper in Boynton Beach, noted fish t r a p fishermen produce a quality product for t h e market and also produce a grea t deal of t h e underutilized species such as the cowfish and grunts, which relieves some of t h e pressure off snapper. If fish trapping were discontinued, t h e price of snapper and grouper would probably increase tremendously. In providing an escape gap large enough t o allow a 20-inch grouper t o escape, i t would also allow t h e underutilized species t o escape t h e traps. Most of the fish released a r e tropical fish and porcupine fish, a l l the others a r e usually sold.

Mr. Jernigan asked t h e depth of water Mr. Sierpiejko fished. Mr. Sierpiejko responded he currently fished approximately 160 feet. He does not fish t h e Gulf but does have tags for the Gulf. H e hoped the Gulf would remain open as a n opportunity for him t o fish in t h e future.

Mr. Brumfield asked how many tags Mr. Sierpiejko held for t h e Gulf. He responded he currently has 200 tags for each side but only has 80 t raps in t h e water.

Mr. Green noted the fish t rap fishermen who have made s ta tements seem t o be concentrated in t h e Atlantic. He asked if the re was fish t r ap effor t in t h e Gulf. Mr. Sierpiejko responded he heard of ef for t in t h e Gulf and was fishing in t h e Atlantic due t o the regulations placed in the Gulf, and he was more familiar with t h e Atlantic waters.

Mr. Robert Spaeth, President of the Southern Offshore Fishing Association, represented a significant number of t h e longline and bandit fishermen in Florida. He s ta ted t h e fishermen understand tha t the red snapper fishery is in danger. The d a t a supposedly indicate red grouper a r e also in danger. He referred t o t h e model on page 218, and questioned t h e analysis of the Z of 5.81. Other da ta indicates t h a t 35 percent of red grouper a r e caught outside 50 fathoms. Most fishermen know t h a t red grouper a r e not caught outside 50 fathoms. He quoted from the SSC comments which s ta ted the re .is a .ser,ious deficiency..in ,the,,data especially for grouper. The research effor ts for estimating age- mortality of t h e Gulf stocks should strongly be encouraged. Without be t t e r data, i t becomes probable t h a t overfishing cannot be detected until i t becomes too severe t o reverse without restr ict ive measures. His association does not oppose measures tha t will benefit everyone. By t h e Council's

I estimates, the proposed measures will reduce ca tches 33 t o 50 percent in t h e short- run. The Council is only targeting a 20 percent reduction, however, t h e fishermen a r e going t o lose 33 percent of their income. According t o the Council's s ta t is t ics the re a r e 242 bottom longliners in the Gulf of Mexico. He fe l t about half the commercial landings have been slipping through t h e s t a tes in the reporting process. He a t t empted t o prove mathematically o r disprove this theory. If the re a r e 242 longliners and they each make 12 trips per year (2-week trips) and average 5,000 pounds, t h e ne t result would be with four crew members, t h e c rew member would make $6,910, t h e boat itself a f t e r repairs, maintenance, and debt service, etc., would end up with approximately $6,000 profit per year. If this were true, the re would probably not be any longliners. If there were 350 boats and each caught 5,000 pounds and made 12 tr ips i t would result in roughly 20 million pounds. He opposed t h e quota and fe l t t h e size limits would be more appropriate t o regulate t h e fishery until more da ta were obtained.

Dr. Matlock noted the other portion of t h e SSC report reads t h a t Moe es t imated mortali ty at .32 in t h e 1960s so the es t imate of .58 tha t the Council staff has been using was not out of line. Generally, t h e Council needed t o be as conservative a s t h e d a t a supported, and the re were no alternative analyses proposed. H e asked based on th is information, if Mr. Spaeth still f e l t t h e analyses presented by staff was inappropriate. Mr. Spaeth responded h e still fe l t i t was inappropriate because t h e Z t h a t high was for grouper. He asked why i t was not done for red snapper. Dr. Matlock asked if Mr. Spaeth fe l t tha t t h e state reporting systems were inadequate o r whether people a r e violating t h e law from his s ta tement tha t half t h e landings were slipping through t h e states ' reporting process. Mr. Spaeth responded i t probably was a combination of both. There a r e landings tha t slip through t h e system when t rucks

haul t h e fish t o other states. He reiterated the re was a very serious reporting system problem. He emphasized tha t if t h e Council inst i tutes a quota, a number of longline fishermen would b e placed out of business.

Dr. Nelson pointed out if Mr. Dunsizer's business represents one-third of a l l longliners and each t ake 12 trips per year, this figure divided into t h e 1 2 million pounds results in approximately a 3,000 pound average tr ip for al l t h e longline vessels in the Gulf. This calculation deducted 25 percent off for the assumption t h a t not a l l were targeting reef fish. Mr. Spaeth emphasized this proved t h e Council's figures were in error. The expense t o t ake a vessel out (approximately $3,000 solely for bait , fuel, ice and groceries) f a r exceeds t h e amount a 3,000 pound c a t c h would bring. The average tr ip results in approximately 5,000 pounds; the re would not be 350 longliners in t h e business if they were only catching 3,000 pounds per trip. Dr. Nelson noted this also assumed tha t no one was going out of business and t h a t no one was making less money than i t takes t o stay in business. Mr. Spaeth commented the re have been no new longline entries, and he was unaware of any new boats being built.

Dr. Nelson expressed he strongly supported t h e 50 percent income requirement. An es t imate of 1,000 part-time fishermen taking 12,000 pounds a year would result in 12 million pounds of al l fish being harvested by people who would be prevented f rom harvesting fish commercially by the, 50 percent income requirement. This would leave this same figure available t o t h e commercial longline industry. Assuming one- t en th of t h e 12 million pounds was grouper would give 1.2 million pounds t o longliners.

Mr. Spaeth s t a ted if you divided the 242 boats into t h e current quota, i t would result in only 3,800 pounds per boat. Longliners cannot survive on t h e proposed quota. He es t imated the quota would be reached within four t o six months.

Mr. Green asked what the longliners' position would be t o a provision t h a t those people who historically have reported their landings would b e eligible for permits. Mr. Spaeth responded t h e income tax forms would be required t o determine t h e 50 percent income requirement; if someone does not report his fish he probably has not reported them on his income t a x form. Mr. Green re i tera ted through t h e t r ip t i cke t system where bottom longliners a r e landing their fish in t h e S t a t e of Florida t h a t those people who have historically reported their landings should b e given t h e permits. Mr. Spaeth responded his was not totally opposed t o this idea. Mr. Green asked if Mr. Spaeth fe l t tha t a man who violates t h e law and bootlegs his fish and does not report his landings would indicate this on his income tax. Mr. Spaeth responded no.

Mr. DeKeyser s t a ted one of the proposals in t h e amendment is a July 1 - June 30 fishing year. He asked if Mr. Spaeth's organization approved of th is fishing year if quotas a r e developed. Mr. Spaeth responded one of t h e reasons for t h e advisory panel suggesting a July 1 fishing year was t o fill t h e quota prior t o spawning. The high market t ime is January through March during t h e Lenten season. It is suspected t h a t this also coincides with the roe season. If you t ake 30 t o 40 percent, i t would result in gett ing $2 per pound instead of $1.50 resulting in one-third of income being taken away.

Mr. Mario Esposito, fish trapper, s ta ted he initially fished t h e Gulf a r e a and then moved t o t h e Atlantic due t o the problems of t h e longliners interfering with t h e t r ap fishermen. He also owns a fish market. The Gulf Council is proposing t o increase the opening in traps t o allow a 20-inch size grouper t o escape. Fish trapping is a lucrative business, but must be done right in order t o be successful. Traps a r e t h e best method t o c a t c h fish on a regular basis. He fe l t if t h e Gulf was closed t o t r ap fishing and longlining, the fishermen will then move t o t h e Atlantic causing tremendous congestion in tha t area. He related law enforcement officers somet imes mistreat the fishermen.

Mr. Jernigan asked how many traps Mr. Esposito fished. Mr. Esposito responded he fished 160 traps and was ready t o place 20 more traps in the water. The t raps a r e pulled every five days. Mr. Jernigan asked if the re currently was a grea t deal of t raps in t h e Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Esposito responded yes, t h e Gulf provides more fish than t h e Atlantic especially reef fish; however, t h e method of fishing is different. The t raps a r e placed on the bottom of the ocean, and a longline pulls the t raps up when the line comes up resultin in damage t o the trap, and he then g e t s t h e c a t c h from t h a t trap. The t raps cost f 45 t o $50 each. Mr. Jernigan asked how many t raps were in t h e Gulf, Mr. Esposito responded he was unsure, however, if everyone fills out t h e report, then NMFS would have t h e exact figure.

Mr. Larry Meyer, f ish-trapper in-.the,Elorida Keys and .member of OFF, advised he fished in t h e Atlantic a few years ago and moved t o the Gulf and holds 200 Gulf tags; however, he does not currently fish in t h e Gulf. He s ta ted the re a r e qui te a few other fish trappers who hold Gulf tags tha t a r e not fishing the t raps for these tags. He supported and used biodegradable panels. He is a commercial diver and dives for his gear if t h e line was c u t or damaged. This past year he lost a lmost 90 t raps t o Hurricane Gilbert. He also has a problem with shrimpers dragging in t h e a r e a where h e places his traps. Traps cost from $45 t o $100 t o build depending on t h e type of fish being targeted. He utilizes almost every type of fish caught in t h e t raps except for the tropical fish. The few fish tha t a r e not wanted and a r e thrown back in the water do survive. As a diver h e has observed fish swimming in and o u t of t h e traps. He opposed t h e Gulf being closed t o fish trapping and did not f ee l the situation was a s drastic as presented.

Mr. Collins asked the f e e for t h e tags. Mr. Myer responded these were issued by NMFS. Mr. Collins also asked if Mr. Myer would st i l l apply for t h e tags if they cos t $10 each. Mr. Myer responded yes because they a r e valuable.

Mr. Green asked t h e comparison between t h e Atlantic and Gulf in the amount of fish t h a t can be taken and t h e soak period for the traps. Mr. Myer responded his soak t i m e averages seven days, and a l l t h e traps a r e rota ted in th ree days. He usually pulls 100 t o 200 traps per day depending on the weather. H e has been very successful in catching grouper and mutton snapper during cer ta in t imes of t h e year in t h e Gulf. There is not much difference in catch between the Atlantic and Gulf depending on the species being targeted. The average poundage per pull per t r a p in t h e At lant ic is approximately five pounds, however, the re a r e exceptions.

Dr. Matlock asked why Mr. Myer moved from the Gulf t o the Atlantic. Mr. Myer responded h e fishes very close t o t h e Gulf, from Marquesas down t o t h e Dry Tortugas. He has a regular route tha t he takes and is familiar with t h e t ime i t t akes t o g o this route. Dr. Matlock asked if h e could conclude t h a t t h e reason Mr. Myer

moved f rom t h e Gulf t o the Atlantic was tha t this was where t h e fish are. Mr. Myer responded yes.

Mr. Jernigan asked t h e number of traps Mr. Myer fished. Mr. Myer responded he currently fished 250 traps.

Mr. Robert Robertson donated his t ime t o Bill Moore.

Mr. Martin Fisher s ta ted he has been fishing for grouper since 1979. He expressed concern with bottom habitat destruction either due t o bottom longlines, trawl, hand, or anchors. The longline industry uses stainless s teel cable because i t does not break in t h e coral. When the longliners f irst s t a r t ed in the inshore fishery for red and black grouper they used a cotton line which was very successful in t h e offshore fishery because i t was mostly mud bottom or shell. When they moved inshore t o t h e hard corals they had t o switch from t h e cotton line t o galvanized cable and then t o stainless s teel cable which is 118 inch in diameter and weighs approximately 150 pounds per 5,000 feet. Longline clips a r e spaced at intervals along t h e cable which falls t o t h e bottom; some fishermen use weights depending on t h e bottom. The interval of t h e cl ip depends on t h e type of bottom and t h e type of fish being targeted. A typical longline vessel, by his estimation, averages se t t ing gear approximately six miles; some se t two miles of gear and some set 18 miles of gear per boat. The clips average approximately 1,800 t o 2$000 clips per six miles at 30 or 15-foot intervals; however, they a r e placed where the fish a r e and a r e sometimes set every five feet . He expressed concern with t h e longline fishery in utilizing th is type of cable since a great deal of coral is being destroyed. If the re a r e 200 boats longlining in t h e Gulf and if they set their gear th ree and one-half t imes per day and i t averages six miles, this calculates t o 21 miles per day per boat; they usually average 20 fishing days per month which would result in 440 miles per boat per month, multiplied by 200 boats which equates t o 88,000 miles of line laid across t h e Gulf of Mexico. He suggested some type of research be conducted t o determine t h e e f f e c t of bottom longliners, anchor fishing and the e f f e c t of trawling. He concurred with Mr. Spaeth tha t based on the amount of current effort , t h e quota probably will be filled within the first four t o six months of t h e year. There must be some e f f o r t made t o provide a n equitable formulation for everyone t o be able t o continue t o make a living fishing. He was not opposed t o recreational fishermen selling thei r fish if they can prove they have done so for the past th ree years. He suggested every commercial fishing vessel pay a user fee, and tha t every recreational fisherman pay a user fee. The funds generated from these fees could be used as an endowment t h a t could either buy out commercial fishing vessels and/or research in t h e fishery or a hatchery program. He supported closed seasons and limited entry. Longlining has been claimed as being the most efficient fishery; Mr. Spaeth made t h e comment tha t 3,000 pounds of fish would result in the boat hardly breaking even. If someone caught 3,000 pounds for a bandit boat using a $2 per pound figure equates t o $6,000; t h e boat's share of 40 percent would be $2,400; an average of $800 for expenses (fuel, bait, ice and groceries) leaves $2,800; 3 5 percent is a good c rew share which would be $980; so the captain would make approximately $1,700. In his best year he landed 52,000 pounds, and the to ta l gross revenues at t h a t particular t ime was $77,000. In the first six weeks of this year he landed 12,000 pounds of fish in th ree separate trips, one tr ip was 9 days, one was 12, and one was 5 days. Approximately 6,800 pounds of the to ta l landings was not reported due t o t h e

person t o whom he sold the fish not reporting the fish. They were all bought in one lump sum, and this situation is a normal occurrence in t h e fishery. Recreational fishermen also sell their fish t o neighbors which is also not reported.

Mr. Larry Goins, Key West, s t a ted he fishes both the Atlantic and Gulf, approximately 60 percent140 percent, respectively. He and his son derive 100 percent of their income from t rap fishing. He expressed grave concern in t h e Council prohibiting fish trapping in the Gulf. The Council indicates tha t t h e t r a p fishery is small, and ghost trapping is a problem. He has been fish trapping for th ree years and uses biodegradable hinges preferably of jute and a degradable latch. He has not seen any evidence of ghost fishing. He has found t raps t h a t have been lost fo r two t o th ree months and the re have been no fish bones inside t h e trap. A NMFS study of South Florida fish t rap fishing grounds using a submersible c r a f t resulted in locating 23 wire traps, 18 were found derelict traps with no signs of ghost fishing. The five remaining traps located were act ive fishing traps, but four were in a trotl ine and were being fished without a buoy. All the fish were al ive in those traps. H e contended tha t these were act ive traps. He a t t empted t o acquire information from NMFS t o determine t h e permit holders so he could cal l them and find out if they were active. NMFS refused t o give him t h e information. He wrote two le t t e r s t o t h e Council expressing his concern.

Dr. Nelson asked where -Mr,. Goins fished. Mr,+.Goins .responded h e currently has 34 t raps in t h e Gulf south/southwest of t h e Big Light Loggerhead, and also fishes in t h e Atlantic. He t a rge t s different fish. The fish migrate so h e t r ies t o reach the migrating fish rather than the fish on a rock bottom. Dr. Nelson re la ted the commi t tee recommendation was t o allow fish trapping provided the re was a mesh s ize t h a t would be adequate t o allow undersize grouper t o escape. He asked what size mesh would be necessary t o allow a grouper less than 20 inches t o escape. Mr. Goins responded he fishes deeper water t o catch larger s ize fish. H e has experienced frequent ca tch of vermilion snapper from 130 f e e t out t o 260 feet . Currently, h e has exploratory t raps set in 550 feet water depth targeting gray o r mutton snapper. Dr. Nelson asked what size grouper Mr. Goins catches when he fishes in t h e Gulf. Mr. Goins responded very few a r e 20-inch grouper. In trapping along t h e bottom of t h e reef in 100 f e e t of water you will c a t c h small grouper. The minimum depth he fishes and catches grouper is approximately 150 t o 170 f e e t and ou t t o 240 feet . The average grouper he catches probably weighs 12 t o 15 pounds. Smaller fish such as black grouper a r e caught inshore. Dr. Nelson asked how long t h e escape panel would last. Mr. Goins responded he has some t raps t h a t a r e wire which were used in a special use project. A wire, .030, was used on t h e escape latch and did not have zinc. The wire lasted on some of these traps for four months. The .030 wire depending on t h e salinity and temperature of the water lasts too long. Wire is easier t o work with. The S ta te of California did research on cotton, which was determined also t o last too long, up t o six months.

Mr. Tatum asked over t h e last three years if there have been any t rends in c a t c h such as decreases or increases. Mr. Goins responded he preferred catching a more even c a t c h and does not desire t o t a rge t one particular species such as black grouper. He preferred a variety such as black grouper, mutton snapper, and now fishes for yelloweye snapper and gray tilefish. There is very l i t t le red grouper being targeted. Gag grouper is a migratory fish and is present in his a r e a at this t i m e of t h e year, moving both eas t and west depending on t h e current and wate r temperature. His c a t c h has not decreased in the last three years probably primarily

because he targets d i f ferent fish, He s t a r t s at Key West and runs 56 miles before t h e f i rs t t r ap is placed in the water. His average soak t ime is f ive t o seven days and the re a r e very few dead fish in the traps. He fe l t research studies have indicated t h a t survival r a t e has been a s high as 85 percent. He fe l t t h e reporting system should be similar t o the state's system. H e suggested sending NMFS a duplicate copy of t h e state's reporting report.

Mr. Green asked what a rea of reef in the Gulf Mr. Goins fished. Mr. Goins responded south of t h e Big Light, 10.2 miles, which is t h e s t a r t of t h e Gulf of Mexico; any a r e a t o t h e east of tha t point is considered the Atlantic. Most of t h e bottom south/southwest of tha t a rea really s t a r t s at about 135 fee t , and at Riley's Hump i t is 84 f e e t and drops off t o 170 feet . He fishes in the a r e a f rom 170 f e e t outward. Mr. Green asked if Mr. Goins files a report with NMFS on the 35 t raps he fished. Mr. Goins responded h e filed for six months with NMFS, and then became disillusioned about t h e report. He planned t o continue t o file a report with NMFS. Mr. Green noted the regulations c i t e t h a t cer ta in information must be submitted within seven days of completion of each trip. He asked if Mr. Goins complies with th is regulation. Mr. Goins responded he was advised by a staff member t h a t the re appeared t o b e some problem with this reporting form. Mr. Gregory commented he received information f rom NMFS tha t the logbook program was not enforceable, and they were not enforcing i t o r following up because of this. This was t h e reason for one of t h e measures in-the reporting requirement. t o require negative reporting. Mr. Green commented tha t any apparent violation of the regulation was not the fau l t of t h e fishermen but was with NMFS. Mr. Gregory responded h e was unsure but any comments made t o Mr. Goins or any other fisherman was not t o discourage reporting or lead anyone not t o report.

I

Dr. Nelson asked if fish traps were t o be included with longlines in prohibiting t h e use of the gear inside the 20 fathom line, what e f fec t would this have on t h e amount undersized grouper tha t could be caught. Mr. Goins responded t h e a rea he fished does not have many small grouper; most a r e larger migrating grouper. H e f e l t i t would have a significant e f fec t on fishing northward.

Mr. DeKeyser related t h e Council was proposing a 100 t rap limit on t raps in t h e Gulf; h e asked t h e economic e f f e c t this would have on Mr. Goins. Also, if conditions were ideal, how many t raps could be worked. Mr. Goins responded in t h e Gulf the re a r e two systems of fishing; one is t o t ake t h e t r ap out, eight or t en units, and fish them for a longer period. The other system is t o have t h e 50 o r 70 t raps on the boat t o place them in areas usually where the re is a higher concentration of fish, which i s primarily done with red grouper. These a r e pulled two, th ree t o four t imes per day. He did not f ee l t h a t reducing t h e number of traps would be a problem. Most boats cannot haul more than 100 traps at one time.

Mr. Wilson Hubbard, owner of party boats and a marina, s t a ted h e is t h e host of a television show on sa l twater fishing. For t h e past month he has mentioned t h e Gulf Council on his show, and has received numerous phone calls protesting t h e 50 percent income requirement. He has read a great deal of mater ia l on fish traps; Jamaica is a typical example in tha t the re a r e no fish lef t a s a result of t h e fish traps. The only fresh fish available in Jamaica a r e pelagic fish. He f e l t i t was a mistake t o allow fish traps t o be introduced in Florida, however, now t h a t they have entered into this fishery, they should be able t o make a living. Due t o t h e l ife cycle of a grouper, as long as fish traps a r e kept f a r enough offshore, the re is l i t t le

possibility they will ca tch small grouper. All grouper migrate into shore in t h e spring and summer in t h e pelagic stream, and se t t l e in the grassy estuarine a reas during t h e nursery period. As they ge t older they migrate off t h e grass and go offshore, and change sex a t around five years old and become male. From t h a t point on they continue t o migrate offshore, which is why most of t h e larger grouper a r e caught offshore. Often some of t h e best product relative t o reef fish available in restaurants and re ta i l markets a r e from part-time fishermen and recreational fishermen. He owns a restaurant and receives tremendous compliments on t h e quality of fish served, probably because he buys most of t h e fish from his own party boat. He averages buying approximately $1,000 worth of fish per t r ip from t h e people who fish on t h e boat. The boat averages 80 trips per year, resulting in $80,000 worth of fish per year from t h e one party boat, Many of the people who fish on his boats a r e re t i rees on limited income. If they were not allowed t o sell pa r t of their ca tch, they could not afford t o go fishing. He fe l t the 50 percent income requirement was a form of limited entry.

Mr. Bill Moore, Reef Fish Advisory Panel member and member of OFF, presented a fish t r a p for t h e Council t o view. He has fished traps previously, however, he currently was not fishing with traps as he was waiting for t h e grouper season. Prohibiting fish t raps in the Gulf would severely impact a tremendous number of fishermen. He used t o pull 100 traps every day in t h e Tortugas in both the Gulf and the- Atlantic. Jhe-Atlant ic fishery* is-totallyA.-different from t h e Gulf; t raps a r e .pulled in t h e Gulf two t o three t imes-per day for about five days, whereas in t h e Atlantic they pull their traps every five t o seven days. Limited entry is necessary due t o a l l t h e restrictions placed in t h e fishery. Some of the Texas fishermen and fishermen who fish in t h e Tortugas a rea will be put out of business if the multi-day bag limit is disallowed. The advisory panel recommended documentation of multi- day tr ips through the vessel's log. He currently has 100 Gulf tags and 100 Atlantic tags. A number of fishermen have tags, however, not all a r e using them. When t h e rumor was spread tha t limited entry was going t o be instituted into t h e t r ap fishery, every fishermen made application for t rap tags. He owns 200 tags, but t h e most he will fish is 25 t o 30 traps in t h e Gulf. He explained the t r ap was a standard t rap used by t h e Gulf red grouper fishermen. H e pointed t o the funnel noting a fish c a n swim in and out of t h e funnel. The door is held on with jute and will fal l off probably within two t o th ree weeks. There is iron in t h e bottom so t h a t i t will sink t o t h e ocean bottom. The zinc prevents t h e t rap from eroding. The one-half by one- half inch mesh size did not ca tch very many fish; t h e one by one-inch mesh also did not ca tch very well; the one by two-inch mesh caught very well and so did t h e one and one-half inch by one and one-half inch hexagonal. The one and one-half inch square caught fairly well. The two-inch square caught very little. A larger mesh s ize would destroy t h e t r ap fishery. H e explained the s tab net was approximately 100 yards long and sinks t o the bottom and catches gray snapper. He requested t h e Council allow t h e fishermen t o remove t h e heads and tails off amberjack in order t o relieve some of t h e bulk and weight, and i t would also bleed t h e fish resulting in a be t t e r product. The two by two-inch square mesh with t h e funnel is very appropriate in protecting the smaller fish and is suitable for the fishermen. The fishermen need the 16-inch red grouper, which only ge t s t o be 25 pounds; black grouper a r e a different animal and ge t t o be approximately 100 pounds.

Mr. Jernigan asked the portion of grouper tha t a r e under t h e 20-inch s ize limit. Mr. Moore responded i t is approximately 30 t o 35 percent. Mr. Jernigan also asked why a fish would not enter a t rap tha t had a larger mesh size. Mr. Moore responded a f t e r

a t r a p s i t s in the water a f t e r th ree weeks t o a month silt covers the t r ap and once this occurs i t stops catching, This is why the term "ghost" traps is used. The small f ine mesh collects the silt quicker and disallows t h e traps from catching.

Mr. Brumfield noted the opening in t h e t rap appeared t o b e small. He asked t h e s ize of fish tha t would go into the trap. Mr. Moore responded a 40 pound grouper can en te r t h e trap.

Mr. Swingle asked if t h e effectiveness of t h e t r ap would be changed drastically if the two by two-inch window was increased t o two by four inches. Mr. .Moore responded i t probably would not make a great deal of difference except t h a t i t would allow the lane snappers t o escape.

Mr. Tatum asked how much the t r ap cost t o make. Mr. Moore responded i t cos t approximately $10 in materials plus th ree hours in labor. He recently built 30 t raps and i t took two people one week t o complete the job.

Mr. Green asked if Mr. Moore disagreed with the s ta tement in t h e summary t h a t f ive percent was caught by t raps and one percent of this figure were grouper. Mr. Moore responded he was unsure; however, the unreported catch is tremendous. He f e l t t h e percentage was probably accurate.

Dr. Matlock asked if t h e regulations tha t a r e currently in place for t raps have been consistently supported by OFF. Mr. Moore responded yes. Dr. Matlock asked if t h e fishing e f fo r t has increased in t h e past few years. Mr. Moore responded e f fo r t probably has decreased.

Ms. Joan Butler, Organized Fishermen of Florida, commented on Problem 2 in t h e summary, alarming growth in fish t r ap effor t has occurred since FMP implementation. She related this s ta tement should be removed since i t was in error. The growth was based on the number of tags issued, which a r e issued on a cumulative basis since t h e process was started. A grea t deal of fishermen have 200 tags and a r e not utilizing them. There is ample documentation in t h e amendment t h a t the number of persons participating in the t r ap fishery is much lower than t h e number of permits. Table 7.1A shows fish t r ap effor t decreasing over t i m e through 1986. NMFS information provided t o t h e Council in June, 1988, describes fur ther reduction in effor t with only 94 fishermen identifying themselves as ac t ive fishermen or intending t o fish with traps in t h e 1987-1988 fishing year. A port agen t did a canvas of ports t h a t reported t rap catches and identified only 45 boats as having actively fished during the past several months. She suggested t h e Council replace the referenced problem s ta tement with a sentence s t ructured t h a t t h e current permit and t ag system does not provide a n accura te es t imate of t r ap effort . She referenced Problem Statement 3, longline gear introduced in to t h e fishery, this also should be removed or reworded since i t does not refer t o a problem and only concludes tha t longline gear has been introduced into the fishery. Problem Statement 10, which states tha t fishing pressure has increased dramatically in t h e past decade, seems t o cover all aspects concisely. I t entails longline gear, increase in recreational fishermen, etc. The Council needs t o control e f fo r t in t h e fishery, and she suggested seeking and supporting projects t o lay the groundwork for limiting e f fo r t on t h e commercial sector. The Council also needs t o develop methods t o control t h e to ta l aggregate sport fishing effort. Bag limits a r e not going t o control this. The red snapper fishery is in serious trouble, much more so than t h e red drum

fishery o r any fishery managed by t h e Council. The Council has been advised t h a t if dras t ic actions a r e not taken, there will be a serious decline in abundance in th is fishery. Organized Fishermen of Florida recommend a th ree red snapper bag l imit fo r sport fishermen with no size limit. This may reduce the mortali ty of trading smaller fish for larger fish. They recommend a 14-inch s ize limit for t h e commercial fishery. The commit tee adopted a motion t o increase t h e bag limit t o 10 fish and have a 25 percent reduction in effor t in the red snapper fishery. The other fisheries in the plan such as grouper, amberjack, etc., a r e not in t h e depleted condition as t h e red snapper stocks; however, t h e Council is approaching these o ther species with stringent restrictions. She suggested the same approach and regulations taken with t h e red snapper fishery be taken for t h e other fisheries as well. She recommended with t h e grouper fishery beginning with reasonable size limits which will reduce t h e fishing mortality. For black, gag, yellowfin and Nassau grouper, O F F recommends a n 18-inch size limit; for red grouper, a 16-inch s ize l imit i s recommended. The amendment s t a tes tha t the maximum yield of red grouper at 33 percent release mortality would occur at a size of about 17 inches, which indicates t h a t if a larger size were chosen for red grouper, the maximum yield would be reduced. A 50-inch size limit is recommended for jewfish. For black sea bass, a n 8- inch to ta l length size limit is recommended. For mutton and yellowtail snapper, a 12-inch to ta l length size limit is recommended; an &inch to ta l length s ize limit i s recommended for lane, vermilion, and gray snappers. The Council proposes a 28- inch size limit and a quota,for. greater, amber-jack;.OFF suggests a 32-inch s ize l imit which is t h e s ize indicated-at which maximum yield occurs, and a quota would not be necessary as t h e 32-inch size limit would yield a 30 percent reduction. She f e l t quotas should not be implemented on grouper at this point o r t h e prohibition on longlining inside 20 fathoms. The Council proposes prohibiting fish t raps and entanglement nets. The committee's recommendation is t o allow fish t raps but require a larger mesh size t o allow a legal size red grouper t o escape. The Council appears t o b e holding fish t rap fishermen t o a standard but not other gear. No o ther gear is required t o only ca tch a legal size fish. An undersize fish can be released; of a l l t h e gears used, traps release fish with less damage and less mortali ty and injury. The t raps in t h e Gulf a r e pulled on a n hourly basis. There a r e ample studies t o show t h a t t h e release mortality of fish released from t raps is extremely low, less than 20 percent. Fish traps, according t o data, only harvest less than f ive percent of t h e reef fish landings, which is probably less than 2.5 percent of t h e commercia l landings. She suggested the Council implement an annual t rap permit and annual t a g permit, which would give the Council a n accurate idea of t h e e f fo r t in t h e fishery. Fish t raps a r e the most highly regulated than any gear managed by t h e Gulf o r t h e South Atlantic Councils. In t h e Reef Fish FMP, 12 out of t h e 17 management measures apply t o fish traps. There a r e excellent regulations in place pertaining t o design, construction, and use of traps. Some fishermen suggested t h e Council require jute t o be used on the doors. Organized Fishermen of Florida have numerous fishermen in their organization and would entertain Council and staff members conferring with them t o a t t empt t o develop optimum regulations t o manage the fishery. The Council proposes t o prohibit entanglement nets. There a r e numerous fishermen who traditionally fish sink nets in the a reas of t h e Florida Keys. They harvest generally mangrove snapper and other species. The Reef Fish Amendment 1 contains l i t t le da ta o r rationale t o prohibit these nets. They harvest less than one percent of the commercial landings, and effor t is extremely low. If t h e Council is serious in managing reef fish, t h e major gear such as bandit rigs, hook and line, t h e longline, etc., should be closely reviewed. Organized Fishermen of Florida strongly oppose t h e Council's proposals for t h e t r ap and entanglement ne t fisheries. Da ta

indicate annual harvest by trawls has only been 220,000 pounds. She f e l t i t may be appropriate t o limit the bag limit t o red snapper harvested from t rawl vessels, but t h e o ther species should not be restricted. The crew on shrimp vessels handline during t h e day, and their c a t c h is an important par t of their income. The longline prohibition inside 20 fathoms seems t o be an unnecessary measure. The Council is proposing t o implement size limits on grouper. She fe l t s ize limits were more appropriate. The 20-fathom prohibition is unnecessary t o keep longlines off immature fish; inside 20 fathoms the re is a great deal of legal s ize fish. The Council s t a r t ed with the 50-fathom longline ban t o prohibit longlining on mature red snapper; somehow this was applied t o t h e ent i re Gulf and then t h e Council realized th is was unnecessary off Florida since they were targeting grouper. Organized Fishermen of Florida strongly support t h e 50 percent income provision with t h e qualifying condition t h a t more than 50 percent of t h e earned income must be derived from t h e sa le of seafood products. This i s a first s tep toward limiting e f fo r t in t h e fishery, and Council should maintain this posture. OFF also recommends t h e annual char te r and head boat permit fo r d a t a collection purposes. She fe l t the re was no rationale for extending t h e stressed a rea boundaries off Texas 30 fathoms and off Louisiana 10 fathoms. She suggested these measures be deleted. She requested t h e Council review thei r request on moving the stressed line in off Florida particular southwest Florida since the t r a p fishermen in tha t a rea must g o over 45 miles t o fish resulting in sa fe ty problems. There a r e appropriate size limits so moving the line inward should not be a problem. Relative t o - t h e stressed-area. .line off t h e west coast of

.Florida, t h e t r ap fishermen a r e allowed t o fish sea bass traps in state wate r s but cannot fish in t h e large a r e a of federal waters in the stressed area. She requested this line also be moved inward. The fishermen prefer a January 1 fishing year as i t would be economically beneficial t o fishermen if the re were closures.

Dr. Nelson s ta ted according t o t h e da ta available, if t h e Council desired a 16 inch minimum size limit on red grouper instead of quotas tha t will reduce current levels of harvest against fishing mortality by 20 percent, you would then need a reduction of 40 percent. Ms. Butler commented t h e Council is being advised t o seek an appropriate reduction in red snapper t o achieve a 75 percent mortali ty reduction. The Council is proposing a graduated approach for red snapper, and she suggested the same approach be used for grouper since i t is not as distressed. A cer ta in s ize limit could be chosen initially and gradually move t h e s ize limit up resulting in less economic damages, but ensuring t h e rebuilding of the fishery. If the fishermen a r e a l l at once banned, t h e imports will t ake over t h e market making i t difficult t o regain. She fe l t t h e fishermen would be more supportive in the Council easing into restrictions.

Mr. Green asked if a stipulation relat ive t o revocation of a permit for nonreporters would be appropriate. Ms. Butler commented at this point i t would not be appropriate because tha t situation has been confused. Mr. Green clarif ied i t would s t a r t with a new permit and require annual fish tags. Ms. Butler f e l t this should be applied t o a l l gears, not just fish t raps because they a r e only a minor portion of t h e fishery. She fe l t the fishermen would support this if i t applied t o other gear. Mr. Green asked t h e reasons for the fishermen requesting t h e stressed a r e a line be moved inward because they had t o go 45 miles offshore t o fish. Ms. Butler responded the reasons were economic reasons and safety; t h e boats a r e not large boats, approximately 3 5 t o 40 feet . The stressed a rea application t o t h e a r e a off southwest Florida does not actually mee t t h e Council's cri teria. I t is a low population area, and the re is l i t t le fishing effort. Mr. Green asked if this should also

be applied t o vessels who have t o go 60 t o 100 miles offshore. Ms. Butler responded yes.

Dr. Clark noted one of the most important issues was t h e fishing year. Testimony has indicated t h a t January and February was t h e best market t i m e for these fish. Also, t h e spawning t ime for most of t h e reef fish is March through August. During t h e commi t tee meeting, t h e notion was t o s t a r t t h e fishing year July 1 with t h e idea t h a t it would remain open through January and February, and close in March or April which was t h e spawning time. An alternative would be t o open t h e fishing year in December and close i t in March and April and reopen later in t h e summer. Ms. Butler commented this probably would be more preferable than a July 1 fishing year. In addition, the Council should not institute quotas on grouper at the present time. Quotas will result in a concentration of fishing and more gear added t o t h e boats so t h a t each fisherman can ge t his fair share of fish. Dr. Clark asked if March also was par t of t h e highest value period. Ms. Butler responded yes, i t is still pa r t of t h e Lenten season.

Dr. Matlock asked if the suggestion was t o allow no vessel t o g o fishing during t h e closed periods, or t o prohibit t h e retention of fish or just t o close cer ta in areas. Ms. Butler suggested having size limits on grouper at this point. She fe l t closing during t h e spawning season would be a closure of fishing targeting those species. This wou1.d be difficult since i t i~wo.uld -anta i l the , s t a tes .having -no-sale provisions and imports filling t h e markets.

Mr. Roger Koske s ta ted according t o the Council's stat ist ics the re a r e 852 bandit and longline boats in t h e industry. A 9.209 million pound quota would result in 10,808 pounds per boat per year. This figure divided by 17 tr ips taken by the bandit boats would be 635 pounds per boat per trip. If the longline boats each took 15 t r ips per year, i t would result in 720 pounds per boat per trip. This would be approximately a 316 percent reduction in the current catch. The average on some of t h e smaller boats is from 3,500 t o 8,000 pounds per boat with about 69 percent of t h e c a t c h under 18 inches of red grouper. A lot of the boats southward t a k e smaller fish. He did not feel a quota would be workable. If t h e bandit or longline boats were t o stay in business, they could not be under a quota. He reviewed his t r ip t i cke t s for t h e past 12 years and the average poundage of snapper was 80 pounds per t r ip only because h e had two tr ips which were over 1,000 pounds. He opposed t h e implementation of quotas on grouper and amberjack until t h e impact of s ize l imits a r e assessed. He fe l t s ize limits would be the appropriate method for initial action. Fishermen cannot afford another expense such as a f e e for a permit. H e has a video t a p e showing a longline on a reef which does not damage coral and o ther habitat bottom as s ta ted by Mr. Fisher. He opposed the 50 percent income requirement. Almost al l of his income taken from fishing is invested back into his boats for repairs, remodeling, or t o buy new boats. He fe l t t h e t r ap fishermen were catching more fish than was being reported.

Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Koske agreed with the figures for the number of pounds caught per t r ip with handline and longline gear in Table 7.2, which indicates t h a t in 1984 the average c a t c h per longline vessel was 4,617 pounds; in 1985 i t was 4,172 pounds; and 2,628 pounds in 1986. Mr. Koske responded t h e 1985 level was probably t h e most accurate. He fe l t the 1986 figure was not indicative of ca tches f rom his boats; c a t c h has basically remained t h e same from 1985 t o 1986.

Mr. Tatum s ta ted t h e Council must have accurate stat ist ics t o make appropriate regulations, which requires cooperation of the fishermen. Mr. Koske commented a great deal of t h e information could be obtained through t r ip t ickets f rom t h e fish houses. The current structure of t h e reporting system does not accurate ly re f l ec t t h e actual to ta l landings because a number of wholesalers can buy fish and do not have t o sign tickets.

Mr. Ed Maccini, longliner, s ta ted he has been longlining for seven years and has never been asked t h e amount of fish he has caught. He favored the 20-inch s ize limit, but opposed t h e 20-fathom curve and quota. All the large fish he caught during t h e summer were inside 20 fathoms. If this a rea were closed, he would have almost been put out of business. The largest fish he ever caught was in 18 fa thoms of water, which was a 32 pound red grouper. On his last trip, in eight days he caught 5,300 pounds of fish in 18 fathoms of water, and 300 pounds were undersize and 150 were under 20 inches. If the 20-inch limit were imposed, t h e 150 pounds of fish would have been released. If a quota would have been instituted this January, i t probably already would have been filled. Each year with the exception of last year his ca tches progressively increased. From October t o April, probably more red grouper were landed than in any other year since he has been fishing. When a fisherman fills out the tr ip t icket and has a good catch, more than likely he will no t specify where he caught the fish because if t h e fish buyer owns boats, h e will g o ou t and c a t c h in tha t area. Gonsequer;ltly, ithis,is-why the~f i shermen were s t a t ing they caught t h e red groupers outside 50 fathoms. He has not filled out a t r ip t icket in four years.

Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Maccini received a copy of t h e tr ip t icket . Mr. Maccini responded no, t h e fish buyer fills out t h e t icket and gives him a receipt and a check for t h e fish. Dr. Nelson asked if he had a blue card. Mr. Maccini responded yes. Dr. Nelson proceeded when t h e fish were sold at the market was a copy of the fisheries information system t icket given t o the fishermen. Mr. Maccini responded no.

Mr. Esposito commented he regularly fills out the t r ip t icket , and Mr. Maccini's comments were not typical of o ther fishermen.

Mr. William McLeod, fish buyer, s t a ted t r ip t ickets a r e filled out a f t e r t h e t r ip was made and then were sent t o DNR weekly. If the fishermen want a copy of t h e t icket , they can pick i t up. He did not think t h e DNR form had a particular copy for t h e fisherman. He commented h e did a recount over one year on t h e e f fec t s of a 20- inch s ize limit. The results would be a 24 percent reduction in red grouper. H e fe l t th is would be appropriate and sufficient for reductions. He expressed concern in implementing a quota because i t probably would be met in five o r six months. If t h e Council f e l t constrained t o insti tute a quota, he requested a proviso be included t h a t states t h a t t h e numbers may not be completely accurate, and if t h e quota was m e t quickly then close for perhaps two and one-half months at t h e end of t h e season. There is a grea t deal of t ime spent on the fish tickets, and t h e various species a r e not lumped together. He reiterated t h e size limit would be a more appropriate regulation.

Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. McLeod fe l t landings have been reported more accurate ly during t h e years t h e t r ip t icket system has been in place excluding t h e f i rs t year. Mr. McLeod responded yes if they have been stable. Dr. Nelson asked for a suggestion for spreading t h e quota out t o keep t h e continuity of supply t o t h e

markets. Mr. McLeod responded he was unsure, except for his previous s t a t e d proviso.

Mr. Terry Jones, net fisherman, opposed banning entangling net devices. He added most of t h e fish caught in the s t a t e a r e caught in these types of nets. He fe l t if t h e Council prohibits t h e use of entangling nets, then t h e Florida Marine Fisheries Commission would also ban them. There a r e a grea t deal of ne t fishermen in Florida, and they do sometimes fish in federal waters. He read in a n a r t i c le t h a t approximately 80 percent of edible finfish were caught by recreational fishermen, and yet only 30 percent in t h e state utilize t h e sport fishing privilege. H e fished in t h e winter in the Florida Keys in Florida Bay, and in t h e summer he fished in Mississippi.

Mr. Richard Waites fe l t if t h e gear were regulated, t h e quota would not be necessary. Gear regulations would be simple t o enforce. He has longlined since 1981, and h e does not run any more gear at the present t ime than h e did in 1981. He suggested t h e Council limit the gear so tha t longliners could only run two miles of gear and 400 hooks and an 18-inch size limit; a quota then would not be necessary. When eight miles of gear a r e laid over eight miles of bottom, i t t akes every individual fish in the area. He landed 8,000 pounds of fish using th ree miles of gear and 600 hooks. In 1981 h e unloaded 10,000 pounds of fish using th ree miles of gear and 600 hooks. The people who are-:damgging t h e industry a r e those who use nine miles of gear.

o Committee Recommendations

Mr. Collins advised t h e commit tee reviewed t h e comments from t h e public hearings, advisory panel and scientific commit tee meeting. He referred t o t h e document enti t led "Reef Fish Management Commit tee Recommendations on Amendment 1" dated April 24, 1989. He then referred t o Section 4.2.2, page 20 under "Problems Requiring Plan Amendment". He moved t o adopt problem I through I4 without modification with the addition of another problem which would be number 15 and would read: "Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stock in the Gulf of Mexico." The problems a re listed a s follows:

I. The adult population of red snapper has declined. The current snapper fishery is supported primarily by younger fish ages one t o three and the spawning season is severely depleted.

2. An alarming growth in fish trap effort has occurred since FMP implementation.

3. Longline gear has been introduced in the fishery since the FMP was written; this gear needs t o be recognized as a segment of the fishery. If longlines a r e used in areas where other gear have been traditionally used, an increase in the level of fishing mortality and conflicts among user groups may result.

4. The geographic extent and limitation on fishing effort within the stressed area require modification t o address fishing mortality and user conflicts.

5. Some reef fish species are growth and recruitment overfished.

6, Management measures specified in the FMP t o establish a data base for management have not bee successfully implemented. Statistical data for many species have been aggregated which has made i t difficult t o assess the condition of specific stocks adequately.

7. A significant portion of the catch in the reef fish fishery consists of species not in the fishery management unit.

8. Present definition of OY for the reef fish fishery does not provide adequate protection for the resource.

9. Mortality t o juvenile red snapper ctue t o trawl bycatch reduces potential yield.

10. Fishing pressure has increased dramatically in the past decade due t o increased number of vessels, greater use of sophisticated electronic equipment, and increased use of more efficient gear by all sectors of the fishery.

11. Definitive research is needed t o determine whether artificial reefs contribute more t o overfishing or t o the rebuilding of the reef fish resource in the various Gulf of Mexico habitats.

12. The user groups utilizbg .and dependent on ?the reef fish resources need t o be identified and their m.ioeconomic and sociocultural characteristics delineated to enable analysis of their respective impacts on the resource and the differential impacts alternative management measures may exert on the various user groups.

13. The stock boundaries of reef fish are unknown.

14. Overfishing of the reef fish stocks is the result of directed and nondirected recreational and commercial fishing mortality.

15. Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Brumfield offered a substitute motion to remove Problem 2 and approve the other problems including the additional new problem regarding habitat. Testimony has indicated t h a t t h e t r a p fishery is not a s abundant a s previously thought due t o fishermen not utilizing their tags.

Mr. DeKeyser concurred adding there does not appear t o be an alarming growth in fish t r a p effort .

Substitute motion carried without objection.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 4.3.2, "Amendment 1 Management Objectives" on page 22. He moved t o adopt objectives 1 through 7, with Objective 7 modified as follows and renumbered as Objective I:

1. The primary objective of the FMP shall be t o stabilize long-term populations levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age t o achieve 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit.

2. To reduce user conflicts and nearshore fishing mortality.

3. To respecify the reporting requirements necessary t o establish a database for monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions.

4. To revise the definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery t o reflect the current species composition of the reef fish fishery.

5. To revise the definition of optimum yield to allow specification a t the species level.

6. To encourage research on the effects of artificial reefs.

7. To maximize net economic benefits from the reef fish fishery.

Dr. Clark suggested including the words "at least" before the words "20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit". The Council is not trying t o get a point; they are trying t o build t o least 20 percent spawning stock biomass.

Motion carried with the inclusion of Dr. Clark's suggestion.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 5.2.2, "Proposed ,Addition of Species t o the Management Unit" on page 25. He moved to adopt the addition of the species listed in this section t o the management unit - tilefish, amberjack, white grunt, red porgies, and gray triggerfish. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 9.1, "Optimum Yield a s a Long-term Goal" on page 272. He moved t o adopt the proposed option as written in the draft amendment: "OY shall be equivalent t o the yield available from each species which maintains a 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) population level. For those species in need of management but for which SSBR values cannot be calculated, OY can be expressed nonquantitatively a s all fish that can be taken in accordance with provisions in this plan".

Dr. Nelson pointed out in order t o be consistent the words "at least" should also be inserted before "a 20 percent spawning stock biomass . . .I' Motion carried with the inclusion of Dr. Nelson's suggestion.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 9.2, "Annual Total Allowable Catch Procedure" on page 277. He moved t o adopt the Total Allowable Catch Procedure with the modifications as indicated by underscore:

2. The Council will convene a scientific stock assessment panel and special SSC, appointed by the Council, that will review the SEFC report(& current harvest statistics, economic, social. and other relevant data and will D r e D a r e a written report to-the council specGying a range of acceptable biologi&d Latch for each species or species group for which regulatiok d e v e l o p e d this amendment apply. The range of ABCs shall be calculated so as t o achieve reef fish population levels at the 20 percent SSBR goal by January 1, 2000. For species or species groups where data in the SEFC reports a r e inadequate to compute an

ABC, the above working groups will use existing ABCs as a guide in providing their best estimate of an ABC range that should result in a 20 percent SSBR level. To the extent possible, a risk analysis should be conducted showing the probabilities of attaining or exceeding the stock calculated for each level of harvest within the ABC range and the economic and social impacts associated with those levels. The working group report will include recommendations on bag limits, size limits, specific gear limits, season closures, and other restrictions required t o attain the management goal, along with the economic and social impacts of such restrictions and the research and data collection necessary t o improve the assessments.

In paragraph 4, modify t o read (changes underscored) as follows:

4. The Council in selecting a TAC level for each species or species group for which regulations developed in this amendment apply will, in addition t o taking into consideration the recommendations provided for in (l), (Z), and (3), utilize the following criteria:

a. Set TAC within or below the ABC range or set a series of annual TACs that reach the ABC level within five years or less.

b. Subdivide the TACs into commercial ."and .recreational allocations which maximize the net benefits of the fishery t o the nation.

Dr. Nelson pointed out again fo r consistency t h e words "or above" should be inserted a f t e r the word *'at" in the sentence "The range of ABCs shall be calculated so as t o achieve reef fish populations levels at 'or above1 . . .In. And t h e words "at least" should be inserted in the same sentence before the words "a 20 percent SSBR level."

Ms. Kelley questioned whether al l the Council members a t tended the commi t tee meeting. Mr. Collins responded there were approximately nine o r t en Councils members at the commit tee meeting. Dr. Nelson added t h e majority of t h e Council members were at the commit tee meeting.

Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1. I, I1Red Snapper Size and C a t c h Limits" on page 284. He moved t o adopt the following t o replace Proposed Option 1:

"A 25 percent reduction in recreational and commercial catches shall be established for the first fishing year immediately following implementation of this amendment with subsequent changes made by following the framework (TAC) procedure described in Section 9.2."

He noted this proposal is intended t o result in a 10 fish red snapper t r ip limit for t h e recreational sector and 4.0 million pound quota for the commercial sector.

Dr. Matlock expressed concern tha t if the Council is unsuccessful due t o the same types of events tha t dealt with the Reef Fish FMP in t h e 1980s in get t ing t h e amendment adopted in 1989 or 1990, the Council may have a n amendment adopted in t h e year 2020 when there a r e no red snapper remaining. He asked what information was available t o give the Council insight in gett ing t h e amendment adopted before

t h e next 20 or 30 years. Mr. Swingle commented t h e s ta tutory deadline for t h e Secretary t o approve or disapprove a plan is by day 95 a f t e r being submitted, and failing t o t ake action o r approval results in i t being implemented within day 140. Dr. Matlock commented the Council must ge t t h e document t o the Secretary, and the re a r e not t ime limits se t once the document leaves the Council t o go t o t h e Secretary. Mr. Swingle clarified day one s ta r t s a s soon as the amendment is submitted. The last t ime t h e Ac t was amended, language was deleted t h a t t h e plan must be structurally complete. The Council now determines whether a plan i s structurally complete which means t h e EIS and initial RIR analysis and o ther accompanying analysis a r e in sufficient order t o go forward. In the past, NMFS could wait until they made tha t determination.

Dr. Nelson s ta ted he opposed t h e change during the commit tee meeting. He added t h e evidence available indicates the condition of red snapper is probably worse than any o ther species managed by t h e Council. He fe l t the re is a reasonable biological goal built into the plan in achieving a cer ta in spawning stock biomass per recrui t level by t h e year 2000, but f e l t less comfortable in taking five years t o achieve t h e range. He fe l t t h e goal will almost be reached with a th ree fish bag limit, and t h e Council moved this figure up t o five. Now, the figure has escalated t o a t e n fish bag limit, which is an illusion being offered and will not achieve the necessary goal. He preferred relating t o t h e public t h e necessary management t o achieve t h e goals. The Council should , t ake initial,-action .,to. rebuild- t h e stocks, and allow t h e

- opportunity t o relax the restrictions in t h e future as the stock improves.

Dr. Clark related t h e motion as s ta ted indicates a 25 percent reduction in recreational and commercial ca tch shall be established the first year immediately following implementation of this amendment. The Council is on t a rge t t o g e t t h e amendment in place by January 1, 1990, however, if for some reason this does not occur until January 2, 1990, then i t would not be implemented until January I, 1991. Mr. Gregory commented the committee's intent was t h a t th is was t o be implemented retroactively t o t h e beginning of t h e fishing year if this was approved and implemented during t h e fishing year. Dr. Clark responded t h e motion did not state t h a t intent. He fe l t t h e wording should be changed such t h a t t h e amendment would be implemented as quickly as possible within t h e year i t i s implemented. If the re a r e only two days l e f t in the year, i t should be implemented in t h a t portion of t h e year and all following years.

Mr. Green advised t h e commit tee record will reflect tha t the commi t tee motion was a bag limit of ten fish per angler per tr ip during the first fishing year o r t h e remaining portion of the fishing year next following implementation of t h e plan.

Mr. Chauvin suggested staff adjust the motion a s discussed in the commit tee .

Dr. Clark commented on Dr. Nelson's concerns, and expressed he was convinced t h e motion was insufficient and t h a t additional regulation of t h e commercial and recreational sectors a r e necessary. However, he was also convinced t h a t t h e necessary s teps t o g e t t o where the Council needs t o be if adopted immediately would be catastrophic t o those people who a r e part of and part icipate in th is fishery. This i s the f irst of several very difficult steps the Council will have t o t a k e t o solve t h e problems in t h e red snapper fishery.

Mr. Jernigan s ta ted the Council has been told tha t perhaps a 74 percent reduction was needed in harvest level, and initial reductions a r e being proposed of 24 o r 25 percent. He fe l t this reduction was inadequate, and offered a subst i tu te motion to re ta in t h e original proposed measure which is a five fish per angler per day bag l imi t and a 2.9 million pound quota.

Mr. Green pointed out Joan Butler requested moving t h e stressed a r e a line inward towards shore so t h a t i t would not cause users of the resource t o have t o t a k e a 45 mile t r ip for economic and safe ty reason. A major portion of the cen t ra l Gulf requires traveling at least 60 miles and perhaps 100 miles offshore t o c a t c h red snapper. A person could not afford t o go 90 miles off shore for th ree fish; if a recreational fisherman other than on a head boat a t t empts t o go 90 miles offshore he must go on a calm day. He fe l t the re were economical reasons t o allow someone at least t o a t t e m p t t o ge t finfish and also for safety reasons. The investments made in t h e head boat industry throughout t h e Gulf demands consideration. An a l ternat ive if t h e Council must t ake extreme action would be a th ree fish recreational l imit fo r t h e reef fish resource throughout t h e Gulf and a 45 percent reduction in the reef fish landings applying t o red snapper, grouper, etc. He fe l t this was not a t ta inable and should not b e applied, but fe l t t h e amendment should be supported.

Mr. Muths explained the re a r e two basic philosophies in fisheries management, and neither are necessarily wrong o r right.. . He.concurred with Dr. Clark's position, but was constrained t o support tha t position because h e was concerned with t h e accuracy of t h e landings data. He supported t h e committee's position.

Mr. Tatum opposed the substitute motion as i t would result in users of t h e resource leaving t h e industry.

Substi tute -- motion failed by a vote of four t o seven.

Dr. Clark re i tera ted t h e commit tee motion does not include the 13-inch minimum size length, and fe l t this was an oversight. Mr. Collins commented this was t h e current law.

Dr. Nelson asked at this point in the process if the FMFC were t o adopt a th ree fish bag limit and a 14-inch minimum size limit in t h e S t a t e of Florida how i t would a f f e c t t h e generic prohibition on sale of anything less than 13 inches to ta l length. Ms. Kelley fe l t the enforcement agents could best answer t h e question, but commented t h e current size limit with t h e undersize allowances in t h e past have basically resulted in t h e inability t o enforce tha t size limit because a legal marke t i s established for fish tha t a r e undersized. Under the scenario described by Dr. Nelson, whatever is the larger size limit is t h e one which will not be able t o be enforced because the re is a legal averaging for smaller fish. Most of the enforcement e f f o r t is concentrated at a dealer point. Dr. Nelson asked the ramifications if the Council would adopt a prohibition on sale of red snapper of less than 14 inches taken f rom Florida's EEZ, and the S t a t e of Florida would adopt a prohibition on sa le of red snapper less than 14 inches. Ms. Kelley responded this would be a be t t e r approach but was not a perfect solution. Dr. Nelson asked if a th ree fish red snapper bag l imit was adopted for Florida s t a t e waters and a th ree fish bag limit for t h e EEZ adjacent t o Florida were also adopted, could someone tha t c a m e into Florida wa te r s with more than th ree fish claim they took those fish in the EEZ somewhere other than Florida. Ms. Kelley responded this depended on the circumstances. If i t is a highly

migratory vessel such a s a shrimp boat tha t is from Texas, and t h e circumstances suggested t h a t this could be a likely scenario, i t could be a problem. If i t is a boat from t h e western coas t of Florida tha t does not have t h e capability of going some other place, then this would probably not be a problem.

Dr. Nelson offered an amendment to the motion to include a bag limit of three fish per angler per day in the EEZ adjacent to Florida.

Ms. Kelley noted t h e original proposal indicated establishing as the measure a number of fish and a poundage quota and the substituted measure only indicated establishing a target percent reduction. She questioned whether t h e sentence a f t e r t h e motion indicated on page th ree of the a t tachment which s t a t e s "This proposal i s intended t o result in a 10 fish red snapper t r ip limit for recreational sector and 4.9 million pound quota for the commercial sector" is par t of t h e motion. The measure as writ ten in t h e motion establishes a 25 percent reduction from current levels as a target . It does not establish a ten fish and 4 million pound quota as t h e mechanism t o implement it. If this is the Council's intention, t h e motion should be clarified. Also, under the TAC procedure, t h e Council will be sett ing annually a t o t a l allowable c a t c h and bag limits and quotas which can be adjusted based on t h e TAC level. She asked if the Council was stat ing with t h e separate management measure t h a t t h e TAC level will always be intended t o achieve a 25 percent reduction.

Dr. Nelson withdrew his motion.

Dr. Nelson offered a substitute motion to incorporate the stipulation of a ten fish red snapper trip limit for the recreational sector and a 4.0 million pound quota for the commercial sector in the amendment to the motion. If the ten fish and 4.0 million pounds do not result in a 25 percent reduction, it will be the beginning of the regulation.

Ms. Kelley questioned if the intention was not tha t the decision on TAC would be influenced by t h e 25 percent s ta tement in t h e separate measure. Dr. Nelson responded no.

Mr. Jernigan emphasized he opposed t h e amended motion and quoted from t h e stock assessment: "Clearly, the red snapper population is severely overfished, and a combination of a five percent level spawning stock biomass . . . indicate t h a t red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is ei ther in t h e process of a stock collapse or very close t o a stock collapse. No single management measure apar t from to ta l closure of the fishery can in itself effectively rebuild t h e population of spawning stock t o a sa fe s table level". He commented this Council will be effectively voting t o s e t excessive bag limits on a fishery in which this type of warning has been given.

Dr. Angelovic s t a ted basically t h e 4.0 million pound commercial quota has not been reached in the last th ree years, and the 1979-1986 average is a l i t t le over 4 million pounds.

Mr. Gregory related t h e Council in July, 1988 decided t o base the percentage reduction on the 1979-1986 average catch. For red snapper this i s 5.3 million pounds. He referred t o Table 8.1. In 1987, the c a t c h was 3.4 million pounds and

preliminary ca tch in 1988 is 3.9 million pounds. This is not a reduction from t h e current level of ca tch, i t is a reduction f rom t h e average of 1979-1986 landings; t h e same is t r u e for the bag limit.

Dr. Matlock expressed concern in basing t h e reduction on t h e cumulative landings over a t ime when t h e fish have been recruitment overfished.

Dr. Nelson noted t h e 1987 da ta a r e available and indicate to ta l harvest in 1987 is only 3.4 million pounds. The initial reduction is a 17 t o 20 percent increase over last year's harvest. H e expressed concern with this action.

Mr. Gregory referred t o Table 11.3A, page 354, and noted a 25 percent reduction in t h e 1986 recreational ca tch would result in a five fish bag limit. The 1987 recreational d a t a have not been analyzed. The 1986 da ta was a n odd year for t h e bag limit calculation data.

Dr. Matlock asked t h e scientific rationale behind taking t h e approach of increasing t h e t ake over the most recent year a f t e r which recruitment overfishing has been occurring for several years. H e also asked if t h e commercial quota included t h e information relat ive t o t h e shrimp bycatch. Mr. Gregory responded no, when this was originally presented t o the Council in July, the percentage was discussed for t h e

. - - . - more recent,.years.. 1ndooking.at. the-bag limit.tables,.it does not necessarily follow a consistent trend year by year. Consequently, t h e Council decided t o use t h e 1979- 1986 average, and this was applied t o both t h e bag limit table and t h e quota calculation. Preliminary 1988 landings were 3.9 million pounds so t h e average is a l i t t le higher than the current landings. Whereas, for amberjack, t h e landings a r e much lower than t h e current landings because in red snapper t h e landings t rend i s downward and in amberjack t h e landings trend is upward. When a dramat ic change occurs, the original formula apparently does not work. The landings s t a r t ed t o decline a f t e r 1983, which occurred with most of the species in the Gulf.

Mr. Jernigan asked if the re has been any indication of a decrease in e f fo r t for red snapper in t h e commercial fishery. Mr. Gregory responded the re was no information on this.

Mr. McCulla pointed out t h e landings in Louisiana have remained fairly constant for t h e last th ree years. Mr. Gregory responded t h e landings in Louisiana have been increasing probably because the boats who used t o bring their c a t c h back t o Florida a r e now landing in Louisiana.

Mr. Jernigan strongly urged t h e Council t o not s e t a four million pound quota for t h e commercial sector since they have not met this figure for the last th ree years, and since the stock may be in a state of collapse. If the Council does set th is quota, a deduction should be made on t h e commercial quota fo r t h e average bycatch from t h e shrimp industry which has been close t o one million pounds per year.

Mr. Tatum noted during t h e commit tee meeting there was anticipation t h a t the kill of juvenile snappers by the shrimp f leet would be less this year because of t h e implementation of TEDs.

Mr. Chauvin res ta ted the substitute motion is a 25 percent reduction in recreational and commercial ca tches t o be established for t h e first fishing year immediately

following implementation of this amendment with subsequent changes made by following the framework (TAC) procedure described in Section 9.2. This proposal results in a 10 fish red snapper t r ip limit for t h e recreational sector and a 4.0 million pound quota for t h e commercial sector.

Dr. Matlock suggested changing t h e language t o s t a t e a 25 percent reduction in last year's recreational and commercial catches. He did not feel a motion could be justified t o set a quota tha t is higher than the most recent year's d a t a in a fishery t h a t is about t o collapse.

Dr. Nelson altered his substitute motion t o recalculate the numbers in the quota and the bag limit based on the landing-from 1985 t o 1987.

Dr. Matlock asked in those three years what t h e distribution of t h e c a t c h per person was in t h e recreational fishery. He explained h e did not want t o vote for a bag l imit for red snapper t h a t is higher than what they have been achieving in most cases over t h e last th ree years. Mr. Gregory referred t o page 354 and suggested taking t h e average of those percent reductions. Dr. Matlock fe l t this would amount t o approximately six t o seven fish and a 3.1 million pound quota. Dr. Nelson indicated with the previous change his substitute motion would have a seven fish bag limit and a 3.1 million pound commercial quota for red snapper for the first year. This is a 25 percent reduction but instead of using the period 1979A986, .the years 19851987 are used because the - fishery has been declining rapidly and landings have declined drastically.

Dr. Angelovic noted one of the considerations for approvability is t o determine t h a t t h e objectives a r e being targeted; also, t h e benefits should outweigh the costs. He fe l t t h e substi tute motion moves in t h a t direction.

Dr. Clark asked if t h e impact of other proposed measures could be determined against t h e quota. He asked if a quota specification should be set last a f t e r determining t h e e f f e c t s of other measures. Mr. Swingle responded t h e quota is a safeguard; t h e other measures may reduce landings t o t h a t extent even if t h e quota is not reached.

Dr. Matlock s ta ted t h e commercial fishery is able t o ca tch 3.1 million pounds per year. The Council has voted on the approach being taken relative t o bag limits and quotas, and tha t vote is in the administrative record and was t o manage t h e e f f o r t primarily in the recreational fishery through bag limits and similarly manage t h e commercial industry by quota. Given this policy is in place, i't seems appropriate t o t ake action in t h e manner being taken.

Mr. Muths expressed concern in t h e accuracy of t h e data.

Mr. DeKeyser moved t o table the motion until the first order of business tomorrow morning. -- Motion failed by a vote of five t o eight.

Substitute motion carried without objection t o have a seven fish bag limit and a 3.1 million pound commercial quota for red snapper for the first year. This is a 25 percent reduction, but instead of using the period 1979-1986, the years 1985-1986 are used because the fishery has been declining rapidly and landings have declined drastically.

Lieutenant Falkey asked if the re were biological da ta which indicate t h e fishery exists solely in t h e EEZ o r whether i t was mixed between the s t a t e s and t h e EEZ. He explained in t h e snapper/grouper fishery in t h e Atlantic much of t h e fishery exists in t h e EEZ. The SAC was able t o establish a rebuttable presumption t h a t t h e fish c a m e from t h e EEZ allowing for dockside enforcement, which is another tool fo r enforcing t h e regulations. If t h e fish a r e split between t h e states and t h e EEZ, t h e same level of compliance of t h e law may not be achieved. Dr. Matlock fe l t t h e rebuttable presumption probably would not hold in the S t a t e of Texas, which has almost without exception enacted the same or more restr ict ive bag l imits for every fishery t h a t occurs in the EEZ for which t h e Council has adopted any bag limits. He f e l t this history would stand as a representation of what t h e Council could expec t from Texas so t h a t t h e rebuttable presumption is unnecessary. The S t a t e of Texas does not have an arrangement for them t o enforce federal law, but they do cooperate very vigorously with enforcement agents in helping t o enforce federal law by providing witnesses, etc.

Mr. DeKeyser related the re a r e few if any snapper caught in Alabama outside t h e EEZ. Mr. Swingle commented t h e Louisiana red snapper fishery is largely in federal waters.

Mr. Collins referred .to- k c t i o n ,11 J .1, Red .Snapper SizeL.rand C a t c h Limits on page ' 284 and moved to adopt Proposed Option 2 to prohibit the sale of red snapper smaller t h n a the established size limit and adopt Proposed Option 3 t o delete the FMP allowance for keeping five undersize red snapper. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1.2 on page 291. He moved to adopt Proposed Option 1 with changes in the proposed quotas to combine red, black, and gag groupers into a single 7.9 million pound quota and a 1.6 million pound quota for other groupers.

Dr. Matlock asked if jewfish were included in t h e 1.6 million pound quota for o the r groupers. Mr. Gregory responded i t is proposed t o remain separate and pointed out t h e argument from NMFS for combining red, black, and gag into one quota was t h a t they were co-occurring species. A lot of t h e other groupers were also shallow w a t e r groupers. Basically, the deep water groupers a r e snowy, misty, yellowedge, and warsaw and a r e found largely in different areas than the other groupers. Some landings of the other species a r e very small relative t o black and gag.

Dr. Nelson amended the motion to adopt the committee motion but use the same procedure in establishing the red snapper quota and bag limit utilizing the years 1985-1987 as the basis for making the calculations for the grouper quota.

Dr. Matlock asked if the same rationale would apply in t h a t these fish a r e recruitment overfished and the landings have been declining over t h e last th ree years. Dr. Nelson responded t h e landings for tha t period a r e higher than 1979 o r 1980. They a r e lower than they were for the period 1981-1984. There was a decline in 1984. Another reason for the motion is t h a t approximately 8 8 t o 93 percent of t h e landings for the grouper fishery have been in Florida, and he fe l t more confident in t h e landings da ta t h a t has been given for t h e years 1985-1987 because these were ref lected under t h e t r ip t icket system.

Mr. McCulla asked how the size lengths would a f fec t the recreational fishery. Dr. Nelson fe l t the a f f e c t would be very severe on t h e recreational fishery based on t h e length distribution. It will probably reduce t h e recreational c a t c h by 75 t o 80 percent for the f irst year.

Mr. Swingle pointed out the commit tee motion was t o adopt Proposed Option 1 which included a size limit. The motion basically was t o cease having th ree quotas for groupers. Mr. Gregory commented the average for the th ree years was approximately 12 million pounds and a 20 percent reduction is 9.7 million pounds.

Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion to utilize the same language and apply the same size limits but having no commercial quota and no recreational bag limit.

Dr. Nelson asked why t h e recreational bag limit and commercial quota were being eliminated. Mr. McCulla responded with these size limits 75 percent of t h e recreational c a t c h will be affected, which has a severe impact on t h e recreational fishery. Testimony has indicated tha t 24 percent of t h e commercial harvest would be a f fec ted by t h e size limit. Based on public testimony i t appears t h e d a t a a r e a l i t t le sketchy. Mr. Gregory commented Florida has had an 18-inch size limit for a number of years. He referred t o Table 8.4.8 noting the numbers c a m e from interviews from 1983-1987, and a r e not broken down by year so t h e current length

- >frequency -distribution is not known. %A 2O7inch sizerltlimit would reduce c a t c h according t o the length frequency by about 30 or 35 percent, but i t would only be effect ive for two t o three years. Dr. Nelson if instead of a 75 percent reduction, i t would only b e 35 percent. Mr. Gregory responded h e made this calculation previously. I t appears t h a t a n age three red grouper is 14 inches. If these figures re f l ec t t h e current situation and entry is at 12 inches, i t would t ake a 12-inch or 14- inch animal th ree t o four years t o ge t t o 20 inches.

Mr. Jernigan asked the rationale for t h e substitute motion. The Council uses quotas and bag limits t o a t t e m p t t o regulate harvest t o a desired level, and then other modifications t o fishing gear, etc., a r e made t o a t t empt t o achieve these quotas and bag limits. The quota only assures tha t if t h e proper adjustments a r e not made in fishing methods, gear, etc., t o accomplish a goal, then t h e quota guarantees t h a t t h e previous s e t limit is not exceeded. A quota is no restriction if t h e measures imposed work. He, therefore, opposed the substitute motion.

Dr. Nelson s ta ted the re has been testimony expressing concern over t h e likely impact of a quota in the fishery. The likely impact h e fe l t would b e the most heavily borne by t h e full-time commercial fishermen. There a r e other provisions in t h e plan t o reduce the impact. The quota will be measured in legal fish caught under t h e 20-inch size limit. There a r e a number of people who will not qualify for t h e 50 percent income requirement t o sell fish. These fish which were never available t o t h e industry will now not be sold so tha t tha t percentage of t h e historical landings t h a t were taken by those sales will not exist. That percentage will be shifted t o t h e full-time commercial fishermen so tha t he will have those fish available t o catch. The assumption is being made tha t 20 percent of t h e landings a r e under 20 inches and t h a t will reduce t h e commercial quota by 20 percent. This means t h a t t h e quota will not run out and the re will still be legal fish available t o catch. The loss of small fish can b e compensated for by seeking additional larger fish. He did not f ee l t h e impacts of t h e proposals will be a s dramatic on the industry.

Mr. DeKeyser noted the logic tha t the additional fish from the 50 percent income requirement will be available is illogical. The industry is being faced with a 20 percent reduction in their quota and a larger minimum size, but then they a r e being told they a r e being given a few thousand pounds of fish tha t they can catch. If they could c a t c h more fish now, they would be catching them. He asked how t h e fishermen would be catching more fish than they a r e currently catching other than by increasing their capital expense in their industry. He fe l t the fishermen would not be spending more money on their grouper boats and gear other than t o replace what they currently have. The 50 percent income requirement will c r e a t e a stronger demand for imported fish. The imported fish now c rea te a tremendous c a p on t h e price for grouper. Miami is t h e leading importer of grouper f i l lets from Cent ra l America.

Dr. Clark expressed he did not support t h e quota for the grouper fishery for t h e same reasons he did not support the quota fo r the red snapper fishery. The Council is proposing a number of measures t h a t will reduce t h e ca tch in the fishery significantly and the interrelationship between t h e grouper quota and t h e red snapper quota will c rea te tremendous problems.

Mr. McCulla withdrew his substitute motion and offered another substitute motion to adopt the committee motion but have the commercial grouper quota to be the calculation which is equal .to 90 percent .of ..tk aggregate grouper landings.

Mr. Gregory advised this would equate t o approximately 1 1 million pounds.

Mr. Tatum opposed the motion since i t proposed a grouper quota. He fe l t o the r measures t o be considered l a te r will have impact on grouper catches in the Gulf. I t would be very wise of t h e Council t o determine how t h e conservation measures worked in the first year, and then if necessary t ake more constraints on t h e resources.

Dr. Nelson clarified his original motion was intended t o include Mr. Gregory's suggested provision regarding t h e deep water and shallow water groupers. The commi t tee decided separate black, gag and red grouper limits would not be possible because t h e fish occur simultaneously in t ime and place. He fe l t t h e Council is in a position with grouper tha t was t h e same as ten years ago with red snapper. The SSC has made i ts review, and t h e fishing levels a r e below t h e spawning stock biomass goal, although t h e stock may be in bet ter shape than red snapper. The action being taken with grouper will keep grouper from ever being in the same situation as with red snapper. He fe l t t h e 90 percent quota would be acceptable, but f e l t i t i s important t o ge t management measures in place.

Mr. Gregory s ta ted he identified deep water groupers as snowy, misty, yellowedge and warsaw groupers, and a l l other groupers would be in the shallow wate r category. The breakdown would be 1.8 million pounds for deep wate r fish and 9.2 million pounds for shallow water groupers. The western Gulf has a growing deep water grouper fishery. Basically, west of Florida, the landings for red, black and gag decline.

Mr. Green asked if the 20-inch size limit will result in a 20 percent reduction. Dr. Nelson responded the 20-inch s ize limit will have some e f fec t t h e f irst two years if additional ef for t does not ca tch additional larger fish. As a practical long-term

mat te r , the size limit will not a f fec t the reduction in fishing e f fo r t needed t o achieve the 20 percent spawning stock biomass. He fe l t a quota was st i l l necessary.

Lieutenant Falkey requested the Council t o express the limits in t e rms of t r ip l imits instead of daily possession limits in order t o have bet ter enforcement. Dr. Nelson commented in some a reas in the S ta te of Florida, the re is t h e potential for t h e fishermen t o make multiple tr ips in a single day. Lieutenant Falkey added enforcement agents a r e confronted with the problem of proving tha t a boat did o r did not go out earlier in the day t o violate a daily possession bag limit. The shoreside people also have a problem; the daily possession bag limit is a difficult tool t o work with, whereas a t r ip limit is more enforceable.

Mr. McCulla withdrew his motion and offered another substitute motion t o establish a 20-inch total length limit on red, Nassau, yellowfin, black and gag groupers, a 50- inch limit on jewfish, five fish daily recreational possession limit on all grouper.

Mr. Jernigan s ta ted the stock assessment information s t a t e s t h a t t h e cur ren t es t imates of fishing mortality of 0.43 red grouper population at t h e spawning s tock per recruit ra t io of about 80 percent, and a minimum of 20 percent has been set. The proposed size limits on grouper according t o the plan would have major impacts

. on t h e . recrmtionalr fishery. : The shorttterma,recreationa1, c a t ~ h e s using 1986 as a n index- would be reduced by about 75 t o 90 percent for red grouper, and 40 percent for gag grouper, and 60 percent for black grouper. Since the s ize limits have already reduced the recreational harvest t o tha t extent, he recommended the Council also remove t h e bag limit since the re is no justification for bag limits on grouper if t h e r e is not any justification for a quota on commercial harvest of grouper. Currently, t h e plan states t h a t t h e major impact will be on the recreational fishery.

Dr. Nelson noted Florida has a five fish limit on grouper which would make th is consistent. The minimum size limit in Florida on grouper is 18 inches. Before t h e Council held deliberations on t h e amendment, he presented t h e issues t o t h e Florida Marine Fisheries Commission who voted tha t i t was thei r intent t o adopt any regulations established in the EEZ which were more conservative than current regulations in Florida. The Commission will be revisiting t h e reef fish issue in May.

Substitute -- motion failed by a vote of seven t o eight.

Amended motion carried t o adopt the committee motion but use the same procedure in establishing the red snapper quota and bag limit utilizing the years 19851987 as the basis for making the calculations for the grouper quota, i.e., t o establish a commercial quota of 9.2 million pounds for shallow water grouper, 1.8 million pounds for deep water grouper, a recreational bag limit of five fish, a 20-inch size limit for red, Nassau, black and gag groupers.

MEETING RECESSED AT 5:30 P.M. ON THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1989 AND RECONVENED AT 8:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1989

o Reef Fish Amendment I (continued)

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.1.2, Proposed Option 2, and moved to establish minimum sizes of 12 inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and 8 inches total length on lane and vermilion snappers. An overall snapper recreational daily possession limit of 10 fish shall be established.

Mr. Jernigan related t h e Council has not determined there was a need t o set a quota on t h e commercial fishery for vermilion snapper, yet a bag limit is being imposed on t h e recreational fishery, and a size limit which has a greater impact on recreational fishery than i t does on t h e commercial fishery. The length frequency information indicates tha t the recreational fishermen on t h e average harvest a smaller vermilion snapper than do t h e commercial fishermen. Imposing a n 8-inch s ize limit on vermilion snapper impacts the recreational sector considerably greater than i t does t h e commercial sector. He offered a n amendment to the motion t o delete the ten fish per day bag limit.

Dr. Nelson noted the re was new information on sexual maturi ty for vermilion snapper, and asked if new analysis was developed for t h e modeling from Phil Goodyear on spawning stock biomass per recruit and size at entry. Mr. Gregory responded no. Dr. Nelson pointed out t h e new information indicated a six-inch s ize at sexual maturi ty and. the. .previous. .modeling was based on 12-inch s ize of maturity. He asked h o w this would a f fec t the Council's decisions. Mr. Gregory responded aspects of Proposed Option 2 was based on the model for gray snapper as a n index of t h e others. A model was initially developed for vermilion, and in December a range was produced. He did not follow through on t h e separa te vermilion analysis because when t h e motion was discussed and t h e commercial quota was reviewed, t h e information indicated tha t most of these types of fish with t h e exception of vermilion come from either state waters or t h e South Atlantic Council's a r e a of jurisdiction. Most of t h e recreational fish come from state wate r s also. The discussion included t h e need for compatibility with Florida regulations. The motion for just a bag limit was t o be compatible with Florida. Dr. Nelson pointed out new information is available, but no analysis has been developed t o advise the Council how this information will a f fec t previous discussion. Mr. Gregory commented t h e proposed size limit is 8 inches which is 2 inches larger. The information from Bryan indicated t h e size of maturi ty is approximately 10 inches. The model i s based on Goodyear's advice t o use more conservative sizes of maturi ty; 24-inches was used for red snapper. Dr. Nelson asked t h e value of t h e document received indicating size of maturity was at six inches. Mr. Gregory responded if s ize of maturi ty was larger than eight inches, as a biologist h e would be concerned. Since i t is smaller than eight inches, h e fe l t the biological concern did not exist. Basically, the re was not sufficient t ime t o analyze a l l the species appropriately. Dr. Nelson offered an amendment to the amended motion to make the red snapper bag limit severable and distinct and to establish a 15 fish bag limit for lane and vermilion snapper and a ten fish bag limit for all other snappers. He explained his intent was tha t one year into t h e plan, the stock assessment panel should make a n accura te review t o determine the action the Council should t ake in order t o achieve t h e 20 percent spawning stock goal. Essentially, t h e Council must t ake some type of action. Most of t h e commercial landings for vermilion a r e in t h e South Atlantic area. He did not feel most of t h e landings were in s t a t e waters. The bag limit will help distribute t h e c a t c h more equitably among t h e recreational anglers. It would be very difficult t o enforce the prohibition on sale due t o t h e 50 percent income

requirement for t h e commercial permit, and this would be easier t o enforce if a bag limit were in affect .

Mr. Jernigan referred t o page 127 and noted tha t to ta l recreational landings were 200,000 pounds, and the commercial landings a r e increasing dramatically. The Council has decided no restrictions should be placed on commercial landings fo r vermilion, therefore, h e fe l t the re was no need for a recreational bag limit on vermilion. H e added t h e length frequency curves indicate t h a t a n eight-inch s ize limit impacts probably about 30 percent of the harvest in the recreational fishery. It has virtually no impact on any other fishery. If the re is no justification for curtailing t h e to ta l harvest for vermilion, there is no justification for a bag limit.

Dr. Matlock s ta ted if t h e to ta l landings a r e approximately four million pounds per year, i t must mean tha t most recreational fishermen do not currently c a t c h t e n o r f if teen vermilion snapper in any case. Consequently, increasing t h e bag l imit t o f i f teen from ten especially with a n eight-inch minimum size actually will have no impact o ther than the recreational fishermen having a higher t a rge t t o achieve. Dr. Nelson commented in Florida vermilion snapper a r e t h e main portion of t h e recreational char te r and party boat ca tch, and their ca tches of ten exceed t h a t by a grea t deal. Dr. Matlock noted this was without a size limit, and with an eight-inch s ize limit approximately 30 percent of t h e landings will be eliminated. He added information sent t o , t h e Council. by Mr. Gregory last -week indicates vermilion snapper mature at six inches so t h e basis for t h e eight-inch limit has changed. If t h e fish a r e maturing at six inches, t h e eight-inch size limit is higher than i t needs t o be. Dr. Nelson commented the Council s tar ted at looking at a size of entry, and given tha t size of entry they tr ied t o determine t h e necessary reduction in F t o g e t t h e population moving toward stabilizing at or above the 20 percent goal.

Mr. Brumfield asked the amount of habitat shared by red snapper and vermilion snapper. Dr. Nelson responded beyond 200 f e e t of water, vermilion and red snapper share the same habitat. Mr. Brumfield explained since the re is a limit on red snapper and no limit on vermilion and they share t h e same habitat , will t h e fishermen put t h e red snapper back in the water and continue fishing for vermilion. Dr. Nelson noted this was a realistic concern.

Mr. Gregory advised 30 percent of t h e recreational ca tches would be a f fec ted by an eight-inch to ta l length size limit; probably less than five percent of t h e commercial sector would be affected.

Dr. Matlock related the commercial landings from 1972-1986 for vermilion snapper has consistently increased from lOO,OOO pounds t o 1.6 million pounds in 1986. If t h e motion is passed, i t will effectively reduce the recreational ca tch by 30 percent and have no a f fec t on t h e commercial catch. He fe l t this was inconsistent.

Dr. Nelson withdrew his amendment to the motion.

Dr. Matlock offered an amendment to the motion to retain the bag and size limit for vermilion as indicated in the proposed option and impose a commercial quota equal to a 30 percent reduction over the 1986 catch data. He explained this would reduce both group's of fishermen by the same percentage, and the expected reduction on t h e recreational ca tch due exclusive t o the size limit will be approximately 30 percent.

Mr. Jernigan asked if a more appropriate management scheme would be t o have a 12-inch s ize limit on the commercial sector and a eight-inch s ize limit on t h e recreational sector instead of using a quota. Dr. Angelovic commented a quota would place another burden on NMFS.

Dr. Matlock withdrew his amendment t o the motion.

Mr. Jernigan moved t o amended the motion t o adopt Proposed Option 2 but t o establish a ten inch size limit on the commercial harvest, an eight-inch size limit on the recreational harvest and no bag limit for lane and vermilion snapper and twelve- inch size limit for gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers. The ten fish bag limit would apply t o all snapper except for vermilion and lane.

Mr. DeKeyser fe l t a ten-inch size limit on the commercial sector would place a strain on fishermen in northwest Florida. He fe l t the re was no need and no scientific reasoning t o have a ten-inch size limit.

Mr. Gregory commented approximately five percent of the commercial harvest would be a f fec ted by a ten-inch to ta l length limit. He suggested indicating t h e requirements in fork length since i t is much easier t o measure. Lieutenant Falkey suggested t h e measurements be in one or t h e other and not in t e rms of both.

Mr. Swingle commented t h e Council specified to ta l length originally because most of t h e states' regulations specified to ta l length. He was unsure whether this had changed.

Dr. Clark pointed out the commit tee motion was t o have a n overall snapper recreational daily possession limit of t e n fish.

Dr. Nelson offered a substitute motion t o establish a minimum size of 12 inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and eight inches total length on lane and vermilion snappers for the recreational sector, and ten inches total length for lane and vermilkh snappers for the commercial sector and a snapper recreational possession limit of ten fish on other snapper from which vermilion and lane snapper shall be exempt and there is no bag limit on those, and that the red snapper bag limit of seven is a separate and distinct bag limit.

Dr. Clark asked if t h e current motion of ten fish applies t o a l l snappers within t h e motion o r only lane and vermilion. Dr. Nelson responded a l l snappers other than lane and vermilion have a t e n fish limit and red snapper has a seven fish limit.

Lieutenant Falkey commented this type of complex regulation would make i t very difficult for enforcement agents due t o t h e difficulty in identifying t h e species. He suggested having a cer ta in size limit within snapper, and a cer ta in s ize l imit for grouper o r for t h e species tha t a r e easily identifiable such as yellowtails. Many of t h e fish coexist in t h e a reas of habitat, and having one bag limit on one fish in a cer ta in a r e a and a different bag limit on another fish with the s ize limits d i f ferent between t h e two makes i t very difficult t o enforce.

Mr. DeKeyser expressed he is in t h e reef fish business, and t h e two-inch difference may not appear t o be much of a difference but i t is a significant difference t o t h e commercial market. There is evidence tha t s t a tes t h e fish a r e sexually mature at

six inches long; four inches is being added t o the commercial side and two inches t o t h e recreational sector. He fe l t there was no logic t h a t the re has t o be a difference. He urged the Council t o vote against t h e motion.

Dr. Matlock emphasized t h e commercial landings have increased 100 fold in 12 years, and t h e Council must immediately t ake some type of action t o regulate t h e fishery.

Mr. Gregory related a n analysis for gray snapper was developed and used a s an index for a l l other snappers. Originally, a separate analysis was developed for vermilion assuming a 12-inch size of maturity. There is no spawning stock biomass advice as t o t h e current conditions; i t is available for gray snapper. Red grouper was used as a n index for o ther groupers due t o t ime and available da ta and resources. Dr. Nelson commented isopleths a r e available, and growth and mortality r a t e s derived f rom studies specifically for these species from which spawning stock biomass per recrui t and yield per recruit analysis were developed. He referred t o page 190 in t h e amendment and questioned whether d a t a were not specifically derived from empirically derived evidence on vermilion snapper growth and mortali ty and maturity.

Dr. Clark asked if t h e graphs tha t Dr. Nelson referred t o were developed with an es t imate o f . minimum size -of maturity of ,12..inches for vermilion snapper. Mr. Gregory responded this was correct. Dr. Clark noted t h e Council is now under t h e assumption t h a t the minimum size of maturity is six inches, and asked if t h e es t imates were reanalyzed using the corrected minimum size would i t not be t rue t h a t t h e stocks would b e est imated being in a bet ter condition than previously thought. Mr. Gregory responded yes.

Substitute motion failed by a vote of six t o eight. -- Mr. DeKeyser moved t o adopt the wording of the substitute motion but t o have an eight inch size limit for the commercial sector and an eight inch size limit for recreational sector with all wording remaining the same. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins moved t o adopt Proposed Option 3 t o establish a minimum size of eight inches total length for black sea bass. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins moved t o adopt Proposed Option 4 t o establish a minimum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a three fish per angler per day possession Limit for greater amberjack and establish an annual commercial quota of 1.5 million pounds.

Mr. Green noted a tota l length was just established for vermilion snapper and f e l t t h e s ize limit for amberjack should be consistent. Mr. Gregory commented th is could be converted, but amberjack a r e a large fish and their tai ls a r e usually deeply forked, of ten frayed making i t difficult t o measure in to ta l length. A legal s ize fish could b e harvested, but end up illegal at t h e dock. Dr. Matlock re la ted amberjack a r e measured in to ta l length in Texas.

Dr. Clark offered a substitute motion t o establish a minimum size limit of 32 inches fork length and a three fish per angler per day possession limit for, greater amber jack.

Mr. Jernigan s ta ted the 28-inch fork length size limit with a th ree fish bag l imit would result in a 38 percent reduction in harvest; a two fish bag limit is g rea te r than t h e 38 percent reduction in recreational harvest. The commercial harvest has increased from 194,000 pounds in 1979 t o over two million pounds in 1987. He f e l t t h e Council should have a reduction in this fishery t o maintain a 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit level. The substi tute motion has no reduction in t h e commercial harvest and a greater than 38 percent reduction in recreational harvest. He expressed this was totally inappropriate, and the re should b e e i ther a quota on t h e commercial fishery or a size limit which is sufficient t o represent a 38 percent reduction in harvest. He opposed the substitute motion.

Dr. Nelson noted given the current level of fishing mortality and the s ize suggested in the substi tute motion t h e goal would not be achieved. He referred t o page 240, Figure 8.73 and 8.74 s ta t ing given two es t imates of release mortality, 0 and .33, i t would probably be closer t o ten percent or less. Also, with a release mortali ty of zero, at .4 in order t o be above the 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recrui t level, i t must be up t o 35 inches. To maximize yield at the same r a t e of fishing mortality, 45 inches should be selected. He did not feel 32 inches by itself was sufficient. The th ree fish bag limit for the recreational sector was chosen t o achieve t h e reduction in F t o a t t a in the goal. To balance this, a s ize limit of 40 inches may be appropriate for t h e commercial sector.

Mr. .Gregory commented if 32 inches were chosen and a t e n percent re lease mortali ty was assumed, in the long-term a 20 percent reduction in fishing mortali ty in addition t o the 32 inch size limit would be necessary t o reach t h e goal of t h e 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit.

Dr. Clark s ta ted a 32-inch minimum size for t h e commercial sector appeared t o be a 30 percent reduction. He did not oppose differential minimum size limits.

Dr. Nelson pointed out size limits cannot be used t o predict reductions in fishing mortality. They a r e transitory a f fec t s and short-term and d o not constrain F.

Dr. Clark noted a framework mechanism was being instituted, and reductions were being considered s tar t ing now and going into t h e next few years until t h e goal i s met. A 30 percent reduction in harvest in a single year is a significant reduction in harvest.

Dr. Matlock emphasized on this premise, the re is no basis for having a bag limit on t h e recreational fishery. If F is not being controlled in the commercial fishery, then why a t t e m p t t o control F in t h e recreational fishery. They a r e inconsistent approaches.

Dr. Nelson offered an amendment to the substitute motion to establish a 36 inch minimum size for commercial harvest of amberjack, and a 28-inch fork length minimum size limit and three fish bag limit for the recreational sector.

Dr. Clark related a 36 inch minimum size limit for t h e commercial sector would be a n approximate 50 percent reduction in t h e f i rs t year. Dr. Nelson commented only if i t i s assumed tha t the re a r e no larger fish available. There have been no s ize limits so the re is no reason not t o harvest smaller fish. The 50 percent reduction will only occur if i t is assumed tha t t h e size limit is limiting and t h a t the re a r e not

larger fish available t o catch. He fe l t this was not sufficient basis for th is type of regulation.

Mr. Todd Reynolds commented t h e Council is not taking into consideration t h a t with a 32-inch size limit the re will be more spawning fish available which will help t h e stock. A 36-inch fork length size limit is a 40-inch fish which is extreme. The fishermen could to lera te a 36-inch to ta l length size .limit.

Mr. George McKinney pointed out t h e handline c a t c h shows a larger preponderance of smaller size fish than do the bottom longliners'commercial catch. The fishery in recen t years has shifted away from bottom longlining. The impact of a minimum size length would tend t o be greater than what the char ts indicate.

Dr. Matlock moved to fable all pending motions on the floor. Motion to table carried.

Dr. Matlock moved t o adopt the committee motion as indicated in Proposed Option 4 to establish a minimum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a three fish per angler per day possession limit for greater amber jack and establish an annual commercial quota of 1.5 million pounds. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins moved to adopt Propom. ,Qption. 5- to prohibit the ,sale of reef fish smaller than the established size limits. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins moved to adopt that all bag Limits be trip limits, and that multiple-day limits not be allowed for any fishermen fishing under the bag limit.

Dr. Nelson fe l t t h e Council should explore t h e possibility of trying t o enforce two- day trips. There a r e a number of head boats throughout Florida and o ther a r e a s in t h e Gulf tha t t ake long-term trips, and i t would appear appropriate t h a t t h e people on these types of trips be allowed t o ca tch two-day's worth of bag limits. The problem exists with enforcement. He asked if a solution would be t o deny pr ivate anglers multi-day trips but allow char ter and head boats t o t ake multi-day trips. He also asked the fishermen if they had any suggestions. Mr. Bob Zales responded a grea t deal of recreational two-day fishermen will be eliminated because they will be under a bag limit, and it will be t o o expensive. Certif ied boats have a ce r t i f i ca te of inspection which requires a boat t h a t travels more than 12 hours per day t o have two licensed captains on board and a double crew. He a s a fisherman would not pay a double crew on his boat just t o satisfy a two-day bag limit in one day. Also, peer pressure would assist in compliance of t h e regulation. He fe l t this would not b e a problem t o enforce. Lieutenant Falkey commented not if o ther measures a r e included such a s t o res t r ic t t h e recreational fishermen from selling their c a t c h unless h e has a commercial permit, and require a cer t i f ica te of inspection.

Dr. Matlock suggested imposing a possession limit tha t is twice t h e daily bag limit, and any fishermen who possess more than the bag limit must be able t o demonstra te t h a t his t r ip has been greater than one day. This would leave t h e decision of whether i t can b e legitimately demonstrated they have been out more than one day t o t h e enforcement agent, and i t also se ts a limit of what they can have so t h a t a shrimp boat which has been out for 45 days cannot have 45 t imes t h e daily bag limit.

Mr. Fondren asked t h e requirements t o obtain a captain's license. He asked if a m a t e could obtain a captain's license and not be paid as the captain and consequently resulting in a loophole. Mr. Bob Zales responded a cer t i f ica te of inspection requires two captains and two deck hands depending on t h e size of boat. Lieutenant Falkey added t h e cer t i f ica te of inspection is a document where t h e boat actually has t o be inspected and must cert ify t o t h e Coast Guard tha t additional sa fe ty equipment is on board t h a t t h e normal recreational and uninspected fishing vessels do not normally have. H e pointed out this summer uninspected fishing vessel regulations will be insti tuted requiring additional license; he suggested t h e commercial permit b e t ied t o t h e commercial documentation t o have a n endorsement t o engage in fisheries in order t o sell catch.

Ms. Kelley explained t h e proposal suggested by Dr. Matlock is a rule t h a t is applied t o everyone with a n exception; and, therefore, the rule will only be as strong as t h e exception because t h e exception can become the rule if you a r e not able t o do anything. The difference between this and the other suggestion t o have t h e multi- day l imit tied into a particular class of people is tha t the re is a rule t h a t applies t o one class of people and a different rule t h a t applies t o another class of people. Classes of people a r e more objectively determined than t h e other which is on faith. The Council question is what a r e you doing in terms of t h e e f fec t of those two rules on t h e objectives. What is t h e impact, and what is the degree of t h e problem likely t o b e c rea ted under,either. scenario.,^ Is the class of people so large t h a t t h e e x t r a amount of fish being harvested impacts the conservation objectives o r is t h e likely exception being created under the other scenario too large.

Dr. Nelson asked the magnitude across the Gulf of the number of party boats who engage in multi-day tr ips and where they occur. Mr. Gregory responded the re a r e no data, but public hearing testimony indicated i t is a minor segment of the head boat industry; but for those people who make multi-day trips, i t is probably half or more of thei r business, such as northern Texas because of t h e length of t i m e they g o out, t h e Key West area , and centra l Florida.

Dr. Nelson offered a substi tute motion to establish a n exception to the single day possession l imit to allow a two-day possession l imit aboard vessels carry in^ ce r t i f i ca tes of inspection and to require that such vessels which have been operating while carrying passengers for hire be ab le to provide receipts showing they have char tered for a t r ip of more than one day, and such vessels operating in the commercia l fishery be able to provide through the fo rm of logbooks o r other information some proof t h a t they have been operating for more than a single day. He commented this would allow up t o two days c a t c h aboard a vessel.

Mr. Brumfield asked if t h e customers pay for t h e food and drinks. Mr. Bob Zales responded his customers bring their own food and drinks, however, if they request him t o provide these i tems he adds this as an additional charge. Head boats have facilities t o provide food and drinks for the customers.

Dr. Clark noted enforcement off icers at the Law Enforcement Commit tee meeting re la ted t h a t i t was necessary fo r them t o have substantial documentation in order t o make a case. The motion indicates receipts a s a form of documentation which could be easily obtained; they also must be on a cert if ied boat. The requirements t o b e on a cer t i f ied boat is tha t if i t i s out for two days i t must have two complete sets of c rew on board including t h e captain and an ex t ra deck hand, and they a r e required t o

f i l l out t h e logbook. He suggested this be included in the motion in order t o help enforcement. Lieutenant Falkey suggested merely tying this t o the ce r t i f i ca te of inspection t h a t a n inspected vessel with an operator which is certified. Dr. Clark s ta ted if a boat has been out for four hours and has on board twice t h e daily l imit and a sheet of paper which indicates h e has been out for two days, and t h e law enforcement officer does not check t h e logbook or ask whether the re a r e two captains on board, this c rea tes the exception t o t h e rule. He fe l t i t should be specified t h a t the law enforcement officer must review t h e logbook which should demonstrate t h a t a boat has been in t h e water for two days; also, at t h e t ime t h e two limits a r e there, tha t two cert if iable crews a r e on board at t h e t ime t h a t t h e boat is boarded.

Ms. Kelley suggested tying this into t h e Coast Guard requirements by simply s ta t ing "in compliance with Coast Guard requirements".

Mr. Chauvin suggested staff in conjunction with General Counsel and t h e Coas t Guard develop t h e appropriate language t o satisfy this intent.

Mr. Tatum expressed concern in exclusively allowing this for a specific group of people.

Ms. Kelley noted -the intent was..clear. and NMFS. will .de4velop the regulations. The complexities of what the Council i s trying t o accomplish in the amendment will require a great deal of t ime t o work out.

Mr. DeKeyser asked if a boat leaves t h e dock at 8:00 a.m. in the morning and perhaps catches t h e bag limit by 1:00 p.m., would he be required t o s t ay out t h e second day. If he were allowed t o come back since he had a two-day permit, he effectively has beat the system.

Mr. Collins s t a ted consideration should be given t o the 4,000 shrimp boats in t h e Gulf which s tay out more than two days. In the S ta te of Texas, a fish cannot be filleted on a boat.

Dr. Clark noted his original concern was tha t the Law Enforcement Commit tee voted unanimously not t o allow people t o use phoney sheets of paper. The original motion only indicates a sheet of paper, and he was opposed t o this. He suggested staff and NMFS develop preliminary regulations with la ter Law Enforcement Commit tee review.

Dr. Nelson o f fe red a n amendment to the substitute motion that an exception apply only to boats carrying passengers for hire. On more than a one day trip they will have a two-day possession limit, with NMFS modifying the language t o ensure its enforceability and subsequent review by the Law Enforcement Committee.

Amended substitute motion carried by a vote of nine to two.

Mr. Collins moved to adopt that permitted commercial fishermen be allowed t o fish up to a maximum of 100 fish traps per permit holder and that such traps be constructed with mesh size sufficiently large enough to allow escapement of undersize red grouper.

Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion t o adopt that permitted commercial fishermen be allowed t o fish up t o a maximum of 200 fish traps per permit holder and that such traps be constructed with either 1 X 2, 1; X I t , or 1; hexagonal meshes. Each t rap must have at least two escapement windows on each of two sides which a r e 2 X 2 inches o r larger. Traps fished shoreward of the 300 foot contour within the federal waters shall be 33 cubic fee t or smaller in volume. One panel o r access door must be located opposite each of the sides with a funnel and be 144 square inches. Require an annual permit and annual tags. Require routine reporting of all t rap permittees even if no fishing for reef fish with fish traps occurred in a particular month. Failure t o report for two consecutive months will result in revocation of permit for one year.

Mr. Fondren pointed out most of the public testimony on fish traps came from Atlantic t rap fishermen. One fishermen who fished the Gulf indicated he fished only 30 traps; therefore, he questioned the necessity of the 200 t rap figure.

Mr. Green asked why 200 was chosen as the maximum amount of traps tha t can be fished. Mr. McCulla responded there a r e some fishermen who have invested in this many traps, and they should be allowed to continue to fish them. Mr. Chauvin commented public testimony indicated that numerous tags were not being utilized. Mr. McCulla related this would be determined a t the end of the first year based on reporting.

Mr. Green stated only vessels 50 t o 60 feet long could carry 200 traps. Also, based on public testimony, there is little trap fishing occurring in the Gulf; most is in the Atlantic. One Gulf t rap fisherman indicated he only fished 30 traps. He opposed the 200 trap figure.

Dr. Clark asked if the 2 X 2-inch escape panel was large enough t o release undersized red grouper since the data indicates 90 percent of the fish trap catch is red grouper. Mr. Gregory responded according t o available information, a 2 X 4-inch window would release a 14 t o 15-inch red grouper. He did not feel there was information as t o the size that would allow a 19 or 20-inch red grouper t o escape. A 2 X 2-inch window is not large enough.

Dr. Nelson noted based on studies by Bohnsack and Mahmoudi, a 20-inch red grouper would be retained by a 4 X 4-inch mesh. A 19-inch red grouper could probably escape through a 4 X 4-inch mesh. A gag grouper or black grouper 20 inches in length could escape in something larger than a 3 X 3-inch mesh. He advised the SSC had not reviewed this information.

Mr. McCulla modified his substitute motion t o change t h e figure t o a 100 t rap limit. He emphasized 87 percent of the fish released in the traps survive. This fishery has a better survival ra te than any other fishery.

Mr. Green stated in light of the lack of any at tempt by NMFS t o track the regulations that were prepared by NMFS in conjunction with the Council, he offered an amendment t o the substitute motion that the t rap t ag procedure currently in existence be abandoned, under Section 641.4, Permits, Subsection B, 3D, Fees, that presently recites tha t no f ee will be assessed for any permit issued under this section be reworded t o direct and indirect cost of issuance shall be charged for permits issued. Under Section 8, 3E, tha t permits will be on a n annual basis o r until the end

of the fishing year when issued and will b e valid until revoked. Under Section 641.5, Recordkeeping and Reporting, language incorporated that states a permit shall be revoked for failure to comply with any one of the requirements established in Section 641.5. Those requirements are t o be supplied within seven days of completion of each trip and sets forth eight items that need reported on. Also, that NMFS be required t o present a report of permits issued, to whom they were issued, and that a report be ma& to the Council on a quarterly basis of the compliance with the requirements set forth in the regulations.

Dr. Matlock opposed the motion adding the re is not much t r a p effor t , and they do not account for much of t h e to ta l grouper landings. However, they d o account fo r a large proportion of the red grouper t h a t a r e taken tha t a r e of concern t o t h e Council. They will not be able t o keep what they ca tch because 9 2 percent of thei r c a t c h is red grouper under 20 inches. If this is the case, those fish must be released resulting t h e fishery being redirected at some other species. He asked if t h e r e were other restrictions in place t o protect the other fish tha t a r e going t o be caught. Mr. McCulla commented he disagreed tha t 92 percent of t h e ca tch was red grouper. He re i tera ted 87 percent of the fish survive which is be t t e r than in any other fishery. They only ca tch five percent of t h e to ta l harvest, and one percent of t h e grouper landings. If management measures a r e needed t o protect the other species, then t h e Council should t ake appropriate action, but a fishery should not b e res t r ic ted because management.measures a r e not in place. - -

Mr. Swingle res ta ted Mr. McCulla's substi tute motion was t h a t t h e permit ted commercial fishermen be allowed t o fish with up t o a maximum of 100 fish t raps per permit holder and tha t such traps be constructed with a mesh with t h e requirements currently in t h e plan and tha t t h e permit be on an annual basis and t h a t t h e issuance of tags also b e on a n annual basis.

Mr. Jernigan pointed out the 87 percent survival r a t e originated in t h e Florida Marine Research Publication which s ta tes tha t about 87 percent of t h e fish released a f t e r capture in t raps were able t o swim down toward t h e sea floor within 15 seconds t o two minute periods of observation. He commented th is has l i t t le relevance t o the number of fish t h a t survive. I t also has l i t t le relevance with t h e number t h a t die before t h e t r ap is pulled, and therefore has no significance.

Dr. Clark referred t o da ta provided in the original 1988 NMFS Reef Fish Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico which included the stock assessment by Phil Goodyear. Appendix B has landings of grouper by fish traps, and in 1985 the re were 962,000 pounds of grouper landed in traps. Approximately 79,000 pounds of snapper were landed in traps. The argument has been t h a t this is a grouper fishery. He did not f ee l t h a t a 2 X 2-inch window directs t h e traps at the fish t h a t t h e fishery is directed at.

Mr. DeKeyser referred t o page 53 in Amendment I , which s ta tes t h a t r ed and black grouper is t h e predominant species accounting for 5 3 percent of t h e to ta l ca tch; snappers comprise 9 percent; porgies, grunts and hogfish comprise 24 percent. He fe l t the re was a contradiction in the data. A t best, t h e da ta a r e suspect.

Dr. Nelson s ta ted h e opposed fish traps since i t is Florida law and until such t ime t h a t this will b e changed by t h e Florida Marine Fisheries Commission he is compelled t o uphold Florida law. He personally fe l t the impact of fish t raps in t h e

fishery was incremental. He fe l t i t was wise t o eliminate undersize grouper f rom t raps if possible.

J im Murray, Coast Guard, asked if i t was t h e Council's intent t o l imit t h e amount of fish t h a t the fishermen can t ake with a cer ta in number of traps. The fishermen under t h e current wording of t h e motion would have t o be caught fishing t h e t raps resulting in enforcement agents boarding t h e vessel and have him haul in his t r aps and make sure he has 100 o r less. He could have different strings se t in d i f ferent areas, and a s long a s the enforcement officer does not ca tch him fishing more than 100 t raps at any one time, h e is not in violation.

Mr. Green commented under Section 641.4, V, i t s t a tes the applicant must provide a s ta tement t h a t will allow authorized officers reasonable access t o his property (structure) t o inventory fish traps for compliance with these regulations.

Ms. Kelley commented i t would be appropriate for the Council t o establish t h a t reporting is a condition of having t h e permit. When speaking of the revocation, i t results into directing a particular sanction which has usually been avoided because under t h e Act this tends t o be lef t t o t h e Secretary. She suggested i t b e in t h e nature of a recommendation t o the Secretary, and approval of the management measure itself does not necessarily ref lect approval of the recomrnenda tion. She

A suggested establishing-%this zas, a condition on. the: permit ;and have t h e condition be t h e compliance with t h e reporting requirements. This establishes t h e regulatory basis t o t ake those actions. The actual sanction t h a t could be imposed for a violation is under the enforcement discretion.

Mr. Chauvin asked if this could b e accomplished in the regulations. Ms. Kelley responded yes.

Substitute motion as amended carried by a vote of eight to six.

Mr. Collins moved to adopt the proposed option that reads: "Trawl vessels must comply with the same size and bag limits that are established for the recreational fishery harvesting reef fish."

Mr. Collins offered a substitute motion to read: "Exempt shrimp trawl vessels from the minimum size limit for all snapper and provide a possession limit of 20 snappers per trip for vessels that can document a trip of five days or more. H e added TEDs will soon b e required for all shrimp boats. TEDs will not allow a legal size snapper of 13 inches or more t o be caught, therefore, every snapper t h a t will be caught will be in a lesser range. By throwing those snappers overboard, no management i s accomplished and t h e fish a r e wasted. If a person working on the shrimp boat cannot t a k e fish home, he will compete against another fishery. Also, some of t h e boats s tay out as long as 40 days, and t o l i m i t these boats from retaining a fish because i t is not of legal size is unfair. A shrimp o r trawl vessel can be identified as a vessel t h a t does not have a rod o r reel, a bandit rig, longline, roller rig and dr i f t fishing gear aboard.

Dr. Matlock fe l t the re would be a tremendous magnitude of impacts in allowing 4,000 shrimp boats t o keep 20 undersize snapper per person, per boat, per t r i p year round. Mr. Collins responded i t makes t h e same sense t o allow them t o keep t h e fish ra ther than throw them overboard with very l i t t le survival. The owners c a n advise

t h e c rew members t o throw al l snapper overboard, but if someone does not throw snapper overboard and is boarded by t h e Coast Guard a t sea or brings them into t h e dock, NMFS will c i t e the crew member but t h e boat owner will have t o pay t h e fine.

Dr. Matlock questioned if the boat owner who is not on board t h e boat i s held liable for a crew member or captain violating the undersize prohibition. Ms. Kelley responded generally yes, but every legal s t ructure available between owner and operator of boats in t h e commercial situation is such tha t i t makes good sense and goes from an objective point of view and enforcement point of view t o hold t h e owner liable.

Dr. Matlock offered a substi tute motion t o state that t h e owner of any vessel is not liable for a violation of t h e size, bag, o r possession limits or the quota in the reef fish fishery unless h e or she is on the vessel.

Mr. Chauvin ruled t h e substi tute motion was not germane t o t h e specific motion. H e f e l t th is motion could b e made if Mr. Collins' motion was defeated. Dr. Matlock agreed.

Mr. Swingle referred t o Tables 7.13 on page 99 and 7.14 on page 100, which indicates landings by.shrimp.traw1 vessels .with n~ . res t s i c t ions on tho~e~land ings . The landings in 1978 were 200,000 pounds and declined t o 56,000 pounds in 1986 for red snapper, and grouper landings have not been significant.

Mr. Gill f e l t i t would be a waste of resource in disallowing the shrimpers t o t a k e these home. The Council i s trying t o protect the species, but the re will be a natural bycatch, and they should be allowed t o retain this bycatch.

Mr. DeKeyser expressed concern with 4,000 boats being allowed t o retain 20 fish per person and fe l t i t was excessive. The Council will be allowing t h e shrimpers a n exception over o ther fishermen.

Dr. Nelson concurred with Mr. DeKeyser and fe l t the shrimp bycatch c r e a t e s a tremendous impact on t h e res t of t h e reef fish fishery. If t h e bycatch somehow could be eliminated, the numbers would be 60 t o 90 percent higher. NMFS, through a Council motion, was requested t o conduct studies t o determine if shrimp bycatch could b e eliminated through the use of TEDs and excluder devices. H e noted Mr. Collins did not support tha t motion. The use of TEDs as currently constructed should reduce the bycatch of larger fish but will not help t h e bycatch of small fish. The manner in which t h e shrimp industry operates is handicapping the reef fish industry.

Mr. Green fe l t the re was no reason for a n industry who refuses t o adopt any type of gear t h a t would decrease t h e kill of fish for which they a r e not directing their e f f o r t t o receive any donation from t h e snapper/grouper fishery. Even though t h e law states tha t TEDs will be instituted May 1, h e was advised tha t Congress through t h e shrimp industry's influence will delay this law at least 90 days. He opposed the substi tute motion.

Mr. Collins re i tera ted the reason for t h e industry opposing t h e use of TEDs was because i t results in a 5 t o 30 percent loss in shrimp. Every shrimper in t h e Gulf

would favor eliminating bycatch if i t could be accomplished without loss in production of o ther catch. He fe l t i t was unfair for a boat owner t o have t o pay a $6,000 t o $10,000 fine for a crew member who went against the advice of t h e boat owner.

Dr. Clark fe l t the substi tute motion would allow some shrimpers t o ca tch a s many undersize reef fish a s they desire. He opposed this type of loophole.

Mr. McCulla asked if the re was any method t o exempt t h e owner from a c r e w member violation if the owner was not on board t h e vessel. Ms. Kelley c i t e d a n example is a provision in the mackerel plan tha t s t a tes t h e operator of t h e vessel i s responsible for the cumulative bag limit on private vessels. Basically, absent any evidence of owner involvement i t would avoid owner liability. It does not necessarily insulate t h e other people on board the vessel. Theoretically, t h e Council could wri te a regulation t h a t states this, but i t does not speak t o any of t h e o ther considerations tha t were discussed in terms of what a f fec t i t has on the person, t h e a f f e c t on t h e measures and objectives the Council i s trying t o achieve.

Substitute motion failed by a vote of four t o nine. -- Motion carried t o adopt the proposed option that reads: "Trawl vessels must comply

- with the same size ,and bag.-limits that;we,established.for the reaeat ional fishery - -- harvesting reef fish."

Dr. Matlock moved that the Council include the appropriate language that states that the person responsible for violations of the size, bag, possession limit, and quota in the reef fish fishery is the boat operator and not the owner if he is not on board. Motion failed for lack of second. -- Ms. Kelley expressed concern for this proposal. The Act establishes who c a n b e held liable and the Council cannot change t h e Act. The Council can make a n operator responsible for a specific regulation, but t h e a f fec t of t h e motion in enforcing any of t h e previously adopted measures. Also, this has not been presented at public hearings. She related NOAA General Counsel in t h e enforcement of regulations has strenuously argued and fought for and got ten in Federal District Courts accep tance of t h e proposition tha t owners a r e liable in law under the Act.

Mr. Tatum s ta ted t h e boat owner is enti t led t o due process by t h e Constitution of t h e United States.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.2.3, Longline Gear Restrictions on page 31 1, and moved t o prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50-fathom isobath west of Cape San Blas, Florida (85O 30'W) and inshore of the 20-fathom isobath east of Cape San Blas, Florida (85O30'W). The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e.g., shark, swordfish, and tuna) is limited t o the recreational bag limit. He explained the intent is for the prohibited area to be specified by latitude-longitude and loran coordinates that approximate the depth zones as described.

Mr. McCulla offered a substitute motion t o prohibit the use of any gear recreationally or commercially for the directed harvest of red snapper in the months of April and May. Motion failed for lack of second. --

Motion carried with one opposed.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.2.4, Additional Gear Restrictions on page 315, and moved t o prohibit the use of entangling nets for the directed harvest of reef fish. The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other entangling ne t operations is limited to the recreational bag limit.

Mr. Tatum noted public testimony indicated there were very few fishermen participating in the use of entangling nets, and felt this gear was not adversely impacting the fishery; therefore, he opposed the motion.

Dr. Nelson felt entangling net gear was not needed in the fishery, and i t is not compatible t o fish a gill net adjacent t o a rock or a reef a s it can get wrapped around the reef. He favored the motion.

Motion carried with one opposed.

Mr. Collins referred to Section 11.3, Fishing Year on page 317, and moved t o adopt a fishing year for all reef fish species of July 1 through June 30.

Mr. DeKeyser- offered. a substitute- motion to.adopt a fishing year for a l l reef fish species January I through m e m b e r 31. He explained the Lenten season, January through March, a re the prime months of the year that the reef fish industry uses t o sell his catch. Market prices a r e considerably higher during this time, usually 25 t o 30 percent at certain times. A July I fishing year could result in the season closing a t a t ime when the revenues for reef fish would be down, primarily in the la te summer and fall.

Mr. Chauvin pointed out the current fishing year in the plan is January 1 through December 31, and if the committee motion is defeated i t will revert back t o this fishing year. Mr. DeKeyser withdrew his substitute motion and expressed opposition t o the committee motion.

Mr. McCulla concurred with Mr. DeKeyser and also expressed opposition t o the July 1 through June 30 fishing year.

Mr. Fondren asked the reasons the committee chose to change the fishing year. Mr. DeKeyser recalled the argument was that some of the main times the fish spawn, primarily grouper and snapper, a re in late spring, May through June; therefore, by setting a year beginning July I, a closure would occur somewhere near the first of the year and protect the fish during spawning.

Motion failed by a vote of four t o five t o adopt a fishing year for all reef fish -- species of July I through June 30.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.4, Stressed Area Boundaries on page 318, and moved t o extend the present boundary of t h e stressed area t o include waters off Texas out t o t he 30 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Texas. Also t o extend the present boundary of the stressed area t o include waters off Louisiana out to the 10 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Louisiana

Mr. Collins asked if the Council had authority t o propose a stressed a r e a in state waters of Texas. Dr. Matlock responded not without going through t h e preemption process, however, Texas has t h e same stressed a r e a tha t is presently in t h e Council's plan. Mr. McCulla fe l t tha t if t h e Council adopts this proposal, t h e S t a t e of Louisiana would probably follow suit.

Mr. Gregory noted within t h e stressed area, fish traps, powerheads or bang sticks, and roller trawls a r e prohibited for t h e direct harvest of reef fish.

Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.5, User Group Conflict Resolution on page 322, and moved t o adopt status quo - no regulation. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.6, Closed Seasons and Areas on page 326 and moved to defer consideration of closure to the TAC procedures. Motion carried.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 11.7, Permits and Gear Identification on page 327 and moved to adopt the proposed option as follows: "Require an annual commercial fishing permit for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition that more than fifty percent of an individual's (owner or operator) earned income must be derived from commercial or charter/head . boat fishing. Charter and head boat applicants must submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit properly documented vessel number on the permit application." I t is the intent that the sale of fish caught can be made only when the vessel is fishing under a commercial quota

Mr. Jernigan asked whether this would represent limited entry. Ms. Kelley fe l t th is was a legit imate question and advised the Act does not use the t e r m "limited entry" but speaks of limiting access. She was unsure of t h e legislative history behind t h e inclusion of this language. The use of limited access may or may not depending on t h e legislative history mean more than that. She s ta ted tha t t h e 10 percent earned income requirement definitely was not a problem because i t defined users. A t some point if t h e percentage requirement is, for example, 99 percent, i t could be concluded t h a t access was being limited because of the difficulty t o g e t into t h e fishery. She could not advise if t h e Council had drawn the line correctly t o avoid this. She suggested whether an action is termed limited access, if a l l t h e bases have been covered in t h e record t h a t the Act talks about, then t h e question does not necessarily need an answer in order t o be able t o include t h e measures.

Mr. Jernigan asked t h e conditions the Council must question. Ms. Kelley responded t h e discretionary provisions s t a t e t h a t with respect t o any fishery, t h e Council may establish a system for limiting access t o the fishery in order t o achieve optimum yield if in developing such system t h e Council and Secretary t ake into account t h e present participation in the fishery, historical fishing practices in and dependence on t h e fishery, t h e economics of t h e fishery, t h e capability of fishing vessels used in t h e fishery t o engage in other fisheries, the cultural and social framework relevant t o t h e fishery and any other relevant considerations.

Mr. Jernigan expressed concern t h a t the Council is slowly imposing t h e same restrict ion in every fishery, and i t will come t o a point at which a person who is not already a commercial fishermen will not be able t o become a commercia l

fisherman. Currently, a fishermen must prove tha t 50 percent of his income comes from commercial fishing in t h e preceding year. A fisherman could engage in a n unrestricted fishery for one year, and then enter the reef fish fishery. However, a l l t h e unrestricted fisheries a r e slowly being eliminated.

Mr. Swingle commented a person could also become a deck hand aboard a vessel and ea rn their income for t h e preceding year from this participation, and then move into t h e reef fish fishery. In t h e mackerel plan i t is specified tha t those persons fishing under a permit a r e those allowed t o fish under the commercial quota. He suggested th is be s t a ted in t h e last sentence which states the intent. The sentence states t h e intent is a vessel can sell fish if fishing under a commercial quota. This would mean others a r e excluded from fishing under t h e commercial quota. Another provision in t h e mackerel plan for the char ter boat sector is tha t the re be no more than th ree persons aboard a vessel, otherwise they a r e considered a s being under char te r and cannot fish commercially with four persons aboard the vessel. This is also not clarified in the language. Also, t h e head boats a r e included who may not be able t o effectively commercial fish with only three persons aboard the vessel.

Mr. Green noted the re was substantial testimony yesterday regarding t h e 50 percent income requirement. He s ta ted one of the requirements is t o t ake into account t h e present participation in the fishery. As of today, the re is participation from those people who ldo .not earn .5O .percent of their. income from t h e fishery. Another requirement is the economics of t h e fishery. He fe l t there was no study conducted relat ive t o economics t o determine whether i t would be possible for those people who a r e presently participating in t h e fishery t o ever achieve 50 percent of the i r income from the fishery a s they may not have sufficient capi ta l t o invest in t h e fishery in order t o achieve t h e 50 percent income requirement. He fe l t t h a t th is could be challenged.

Dr. Clark fe l t t h e Act clearly indicates t h e Council has the right t o establish th is type of requirement as i t s t a tes t h e Council can prohibit, limit, condition or required use of specified types of fishing gear and fishing vessels or equipment. However, the re is a lack of economic studies t o determine t h e impacts of this type of requirement.

Mr. McCulla favored t h e motion, and asked if t h e Council should require a f e e for a l l permits in order t o be consistent since t h e t r a p fishermen a r e being required t o pay a fee for their permit. Ms. Kelley asked if there was a s ta tement in t h e Reef Fish FMP regarding fees being charged on permits. Mr. Swingle responded under t h e Act , administrat ive fees can be charged for any permit issued but only for t h e cos t of issuance. Under t h e current Reef Fish FMP, the re is a s ta tement t h a t specifies no administrative costs will be charged for permits. He was unsure whether th is prevented NMFS from charging fees or if t h e Act itself allowed fees t o b e charged. Ms. Kelley commented t h e use of permits has been increasing, and t h e cos t t o process t h e permits also has increased resulting in more costs for t h e price of t h e tags. The Council can justify charging a f e e in one fishery and not another if i t costs more than collecting the money.

Mr. Fondren reminded an unrestricted resource is not being deal t with. Severe restr ict ions have been placed on people who derive all their income from t h e fishery. The group tha t this t a rge t s is not totally dependent on a limited resource for their livelihood and have other sources of income.

Mr. Tatum asked if i t would be legal for someone t o sell fish without a permit in t h e S t a t e of Florida. Dr. Nelson responded not presently; with mackerel t h e Commission adopted t h a t if a person wants t o exceed the bag limits, they must have t h e federal king mackerel permit. The Commission probably would approach this in t h e same manner. In order t o control occurrences within Florida s t a t e waters and since t h e Commission has no authority t o enac t this type of regulation, i t would have t o go through t h e legislature. They do have t h e authority t o s t a t e they must have t h e federal permit.

Dr. Matlock s ta ted this was an important measure t o pass. It was recommended by OFF, and t h e original proposal was amended relat ive t o their comments and based on public hearings. This same type of regulation is presently in place in Texas. I t has been challenged in federal cour t seven years ago and was upheld in federal waters. The actions relat ive t o quotas he has taken have been based, in par t , on t h e notion t h a t whatever quotas were s e t up were t o be available exclusively t o the bona fide full-time commercial fishermen such tha t they will be able t o offse t some of t h e losses they will incur as a result of the lower quotas by having more fish available t o them because they will not be competing with part-time fishermen. If t h e motion is defeated, he fe l t t h e quotas will have t o be reset. Also, based on Ms. Kelley's comments, he fe l t i t would be appropriate t o address t h e six i tems relat ive t o limited access. One was whether the re are- too-many-par l ic ipants in the fishery. Information has been submitted at t h e public hearings relat ive t o historical fishing practices, and numerous da ta provided t o the Council by NMFS. The maximum figure would probably be about 1,000 boats who would not be able t o sell their c a t c h if the motion was adopted. Since the re a r e l,OOO boats t o be a f fec ted and thei r impact if no action is taken amounts t o approximately 1 t o 2 million pounds of fish. I t i s consistent with t h e Council's intent t o reduce effor t by removing these people from the commercial sector of the fishery. They have t h e ability t o continue fishing recreationally as they a r e presently doing, they just cannot sell thei r fish. Consequently, they a r e not being denied access t o the fish. There is not much information regarding the economics in the fishery, but t h e information available clearly indicates t h a t if this action is not taken, t h e economics in the fishery will suffer in t h e long-term. The capability of fishing vessels using t h e fishery t o engage in o ther fisheries is already occurring. He was unsure of t h e meaning of t h e cultural and social framework relat ive t o t h e fishery. He emphasized if t h e Council does not t ake action i t could jeopardize the long-term viability of the fishery.

Dr. Nelson pointed out Mr. Swingle requested if the intent was similar t o king mackerel with t h e number limitation. In developing this, i t was assumed t h a t i t would be implemented as king mackerel. He asked if this could be handled in draft ing t h e regulations or if t h e Council must address i t explicitly. Mr. Swingle responded this could be done in the regulations, but t h e other issue was t h a t under t h e mackerel rule i t did not allow for head boats, which just s t a ted t h a t the re should be no more than th ree persons aboard the vessel because i t is primarily a trolling fishery and char ter boats engage in that. One of the issues is whether a head boat c a n commercially fish with only th ree persons aboard since they probably would become a bandit rig operation. He asked if there should be a limitation of seven people aboard a head boat.

Dr. Nelson fe l t they could fish but could not fish a s much if they had seven o r t en people on board.

Motion carried t o require an annual commercial fishing permit for t he sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition tha t more than fifty percent of a n individual's (owner or operator) earned income must be derived from commercial o r charterthead boat fishing. Charter and head boat applicants must submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit properly documented vessel number on the permit application. It is t h e intent t ha t t he sale of fish caught can be made only when the vessel is fishing under a commercial quota.

Mr. Collins noted the committee adopted rejected option 4 to require annual permits for fish t rap possession and their use in the reef fish fishery which was inclusive in Mr. Green's previously adopted motion. He referred to Section 11.8, Statistical Reporting Requirements on page 333, and moved that data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents from a sample of commercial and recreational catch tha t ensures representation of all major segments of t h e category of users of a resource and is of sufficient size t o provide statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and quota monitoring. Any such da t a collection should rely upon techniques tha t ensure comparability of data. Until such t ime that a statistical based sampling program, as described above, is developed that provides representative samples of the recreational and commercial catch, a minimum of ten percent of t he total catch for: each species shall be. sampled for bioprofile da ta as is presently described in the Trip Interview Program documentation. Those fishermen and dealers selected by the Center Director, or his designee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at the dockside for inspection by those agents.

Mr. Tatum stated there a r e problems in funding the port sampling program and asked why i t was being required that ten percent of the total catch be sampled for bioprofile data. The Council cannot require NMFS t o do this and NMFS cannot require the s tates since it is a cooperative program. He questioned whether this was an effective method. Dr. Angelovic commented this would mean that the entire statelfederal cooperative program would have t o be reconstituted.

Dr. Clark questioned whether ten Dercent would be sufficient t o be statisticallv valid. He o'ffered an amendment to ' the motion t o delete the phrase "a minimum df ten percent of t he total catch for". . . Mr. Fondren asked if this would mean that if the Council did not have the ten percent sampling on a species, then appropriate action could not be taken t o make changes. Mr. Gregory commented the ten percent was specified t o acquire data on the different species. Under the existing data collection program, it is very unlikely tha t the Council will be able t o monitor the effectiveness of the management measures particularly in detecting whether a stock is recovering. The bioprofile data which became the statelfederal cooperative program in 1984 has given only enough data t o develop an assessment. This very same program is falling apart. There is enough data t o develop assessment, but there will not be a continued flow of data t o continue t o monitor. Mr. Fondren reiterated if the ten percent profile is not obtained for each of the species, will the Council be able t o make management decisions. If there is only five percent sampling, does this mean the data cannot be used t o make management decisions. Mr. Gregory responded the data could be used and management decisions could be made without data.

Mr. Green asked if this would be cause for NMFS t o reject a management proposal because t h e t en percent was not obtained. Mr. Gregory responded he did not think so. Dr. Angelovic commented the policy side was t o use t h e best d a t a available; he fe l t t h e t en percent bioprofile would not be obtained.

Dr. Nelson pointed out t h e motion refers t o bioprofiles and not landings data; th is would b e collecting hard parts, scales or otoliths, t o use in aging fishes, ovaries t o look at reef fecundity, etc. There is a th ree million pound red snapper quota at th ree pounds each which is one million red snapper. He has conducted a number of these studies and 100,000 scales or otoliths would not be needed t o do a study; a very good study could be conducted with a sample of 2,000 t o 6,000.

Mr. Tatum offered a substitute motion for staff working with the states and NMFS t o develop a. statistically valid program t o monitor the reef fish landings.

Dr. Clark opposed t h e substi tute motion because the commit tee motion included carefully structured language regarding t h e stock assessment analysis and quota monitoring and t h e substi tute motion does not.

Dr. Nelson also opposed t h e substitute motion.

Substitute motion failed. --

Amended motion carried that data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents from a sample of commercial and recreational catch that ensures representation of all major segments of the category of users of a resource and is of sufficient size t o provide statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and quota monitoring. Any such data collection should rely upon techniques that ensure comparability of data. Until such time that a statistical based sampling program, as described above, is developed that provides representative samples of the recreational and commercial catch, each species shall be sampled for bioprofile da ta as is presently described in the Trip interview Program documentation. Those fishermen and dealers selected by the Center Director, or his designee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at the dockside for inspection by those agents.

Mr. Collins moved t o adopt proposed options 2 and 3 as follows:

Proposed Option 2: Require head boat operators who a re selected by NMFS t o maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information t o NMFS on at least a monthly basis.

Proposed Option 3: Require charter boat operators who a re selected by NMFS t o maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Center Director that a re t o be submitted weekly (as is required in the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP). Information t o be included in the forms must include, but not be limited to:

(1) Name or official number of vessel. (2) Operator's Coast Guard license number. (3) Date of trip. (4) Number of fishermen on trip. (5) Area fished.

(6) Fishing methods and type of gear. (7) Hours fished. (8) Species targeted. (9) Number and estimated weight of fish caught by species.

Dr. Clark referred t o option 3, (5) , and fe l t the intent of t h e motion was not t o collect th is type of information, but was t o collect generic information t h a t is useful for stock analyses. Mr. Swingle pointed out this meant s ta t is t ica l a r e a which is basically one degree square or 60 miles as you go along t h e coast , and the re a r e 21 stat ist ical zones across t h e Gulf and extend in some instances far ther than one degree offshore.

Motion carried.

Mr. Collins noted the commit tee adopted rejected option I t o require routine reporting of al l t r ap permittees. A t a minimum, monthly reports will b e required of permit tees even if no fishing for reef fish with fish traps occurred in a part icular month. Repeated failure t o report will result in revocation of permit for one year. He noted this was adopted in a previous motion.

Mr. Collins referred t o Section 12.2, Research Recommendations Identified in t h e Amendment on page 384 a n d . moved t o adopt the research recommendations as follows:

(1) Greater emphasis must be placed on the collection of bioprofile and catch- effort statistics from all user groups by geographic area.

(2) The spawning stock biomass and recruitment levels of reef fish populations need t o be monitored on a continuing basis by geographic area

(3) Growth, mortality, maturity and fecundity schedules (proportional activity by size) a r e needed for species in the fishery management unit.

(4) The effectiveness of the different trawl designs (including TEDs) used within the shrimp fishery in reducing the bycatch of reef fish, especially pre-recruit reef fish needs t o be evaluated. Catch rates of all bycatch species need t o be determined for various trawl designs fished in different regions of the Gulf for both day and night trawling.

(5) The socioeconomic and sociocultural aspects of the reef fish fishery needs t o be evaluated with the purpose of examining the potential utility of a limited entry management strategy and for purposes of allocations.

Motion carried.

Ms. Kumpe noted a motion was necessary for submission of Amendment 1 with t h e modifications made at this meeting.

Ms. Kelley pointed out t h e new guidelines that a r e in e f fec t now specify t h a t at t h e t ime tha t t h e Council approves t h e amendment for submission, they must have before them t h e RIR analyses, etc. She s ta ted there is some analyses in t h e amendment, but the RIR has not been completed and probably will have t o be

modified based on t h e changes made during this meeting. I t is very important t o have the regulations t o be reviewed by the Council t o ensure t h a t they a r e exact ly what t h e Council wants. Also, if the re is any inconsistencies, t h e only way t o determine this is t o have t ime t o ref lect on these and clean up t h e document.

Dr. Matlock moved to reconsider action which was taken on the grouper quotas. Motion to reconsider carried.

Dr. Matlock moved that there be a ten percent reduction in grouper harvest for the 1985-1987 average of 12.1 million pounds which would equate to an 1 1 million pound overall quota, a 9.2 million pound quota for the shallow water grouper, and a 1.8 million pound deep water grouper quota.

Mr. Gregory commented the Council has currently proposed a 25 percent reduction from t h e 1985-1987 average landings of 12.1 million pounds which equates t o a 9.7 to ta l quota with a 1.6 million pound deep water quota and 8.1 million pound shallow water quota.

Motion carried by a vote of seven to three.

Mr. Chauvin noted final approval of Amendment 1 t o the Reef Fish FMP will be taken at t h e July meeting.

o State Directors' Reports

Mr. Gill related in the past legislative session, the re were six bills which were submitted and four passed. One of t h e bills was the Live Bait Bill which would help the live bai t industry t o shore up their industry by defining a live bai t dealer, a live bait boat, the number of boats each dealer should have, etc. The state was given back oyster management. Gill nett ing and purse seining and ordinances will be established for these throughout t h e Mississippi Sound. They were charged t o develop ordinances for soft crabs. Currently t h e ordinance st ipulates blue c r a b cannot be taken unless i t is five inches from point t o point. The sof t c r a b industry desired 2-314 and 3-114 size crab. A change in legislation gives t h e authorization t o also c i t e the contractor who as well as t h e property owners violate Corps of Engineers' wetland permits. Also, the other part of the wetlands protection law t h a t was passed was there was a n exclusion in the law tha t s t a ted t h a t any one who had an existing channel, boat slip or dock and wanted t o perform maintenance dredging they need only t o show a valid permit from t h e Corps of Engineers prior t o 1973. This was not giving t h e state t h e authority t o determine where spoil disposal mater ia l should be placed. This was removed this year, and currently anyone who wants t o perform maintenance dredging must go through t h e same process. The process is tha t t h e state currently issues approximately 90 percent of t h e COE's permits for up t o 2,500 cubic yards of maintenance dredging. The legislature also passed t h e Marine Debris Bill and anyone caught dumping any type of garbage in t h e S t a t e of Mississippi is subject to a first offense of $500 and second offense is $10,000. Legislation was introduced t o impose heavy fines on sa l twater and recreational fishermen selling their c a t c h t o restaurants and fish houses and included them in t h e citations. This was approved by t h e Senate but did not pass t h e House.

Dr. Matlock noted the S t a t e of Texas is in the process of proposing a one fish per person bag and possession limit for sharks. The hearing process will begin next

month, and will be implemented September 1. The Shrimp Plan is under way and should be completed soon. There a r e three new commissioners.

Dr. Nelson s ta ted effective July 1 there will be new regulations in place affect ing the harvest of black drum which will allow for a harvest of fish between 14 and 24 inches and a bag limit of five for recreational anglers who will have an exception t h a t one of their five fish can be greater than 24 inches. Commercial harvest will be limited t o 500 pounds per vessel per day between 14 and 24 inches. The sa l twa te r license is in the House and Senate.

Mr. Tatum advised t h e S ta te of Alabama introduced t o the House a bill t h a t would eliminate the commercial bait shrimp law.

Dr. Clark reported the S t a t e of Louisiana has a draf t bill t o begin monitoring a l l commercial fish sales. There is currently no in-state monitoring other than NMFS port agents. He related i t is his intention tha t every action of the Council will go before a decision-making body in the S ta te of Louisiana for their consideration. This has not been the historical practice. He particularly referred t o t h e actions of t h e mackerel commit tee and t h e actions taken on reef fish.

Mr. Richardson noted t h e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Director resigned in March, and they a r e currently without a full-time director or assistant secretary. He assumed this would continue for a few months. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently completed a satell i te study on tur t le migration through t h e Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Conrad Fjetland s ta ted they were waiting for a n official response f rom the Office of t h e Chief of Engineers on the recommendations tha t were submitted by t h e Division Engineers on the GBANS study. The official response is expected t o be received next week. However, he has informally been told tha t t h e Chief's off ice will probably re ject offshore disposal which would mean tha t he would accept a bay disposal option. If this occurs and the report is received, they will seek referra l through t h e Council of Environmental Quality process, which is fairly involved.

Ms. Kelley s ta ted the plaintiff in the Islamorada case tha t began in December, 1986, has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal last month. The Readnour case which is t h e challenge t o the western zone and recreational mackerel closures on king mackerel was filed January 31, and t h e plaintiff's request t o challenge t h e closure s t a ted t h a t t h e TACs a r e arbitrary and capricious closures which a f fec ted them in a discriminatory fashion, the king mackerel resource is not overfished, and t h a t t h e regulatory program did not apply t o fish in t h e western Gulf because t h a t was a separate stock.

o Other Business

Mr. Chauvin related there is situation with the stone crab, shrimp, and spiny lobster fisheries in t h e Tortugas a r e a which needs discussed.

Dr. Angelovic noted this concerns t h e a r e a which was opened on an experimental basis for one year and is ready t o be reopened.

Ms. Joan Butler advised t h e situation related t o t h e t o e of t h e boot a r e a which was voted t o reopen last year. I t was reopened suddenly and caught a number of fishermen by surprise. The stone c rab and lobster fishermen had used this a r e a as

par t of their fishery. When i t was suddenly reopend a number of t raps were lost due t o t h e shrimp trawling. This year i t is scheduled t o reopen May 1 through November 30. A number of lobster and stone c rab fishermen have requested t h a t action be taken t o keep t h e a r e a closed at least through November and allow t h e shrimpers t o t rawl the a r e a a f t e r November. The fishermen feel the re will be serious conflicts if th is does not occur. This summer t h e lobster and stone c r a b fishermen will place their t raps in the a r e a and beginning August 1 t h e shrimp vessels begin t o t rawl t h e area.

Mr. Swingle recalled years ago when opening t h e a r e a was debated, the re was test imony from t h e spiny lobster industry tha t indicated t h a t they did not fish the area. They fished within t h e s t a t e waters. They may, since i t has been closed for a number of years, have moved into the area.

Ms. Butler s t a ted t h e lobster fishermen have moved into the area , and i t has become traditional lobster and stone c rab area.

Dr. Angelovic noted action t o open t h e a rea was taken through emergency action, and due t o t h e slowness of bureaucracy, i t was closed again. On May 22 i t will be reopened and remain open until November 2. He asked if during this t i m e in May t h e majority of shrimping in the a r e a was over. Mr. Chauvin responded i t was down t o a

. minimal amount.-. M ~ . C o l l i n s added~usually .this-is the t ime the.boats go t o t h e Texas closure area. Mr. Chauvin asked if the re was the option for emergency action. Ms. Kelley responded theoretically this is t h e option always available.

Ms. Butler noted t h e stone c rab fishery closes May 15, and t h e lobster fishery is closed until August I. The solution would be t o have the a r e a closed August and September. She was unsure how this could be accomplished. Since 1981, th is has become prime stone c rab and lobster area. On August 1 they will b e moving thei r t raps into t h e a r e a knowing t h a t t h e shrimping possibility is present.

Mr. Chauvin f e l t emergency action would have t o b e taken. He suggested this be discussed at t h e July meeting with more information obtained until tha t time.

Mr. Chauvin noted there was a shrimp stock assessment meeting scheduled for June and t h e organization of t h e populations dynamics individual, William Bayliff, does not have funds available for him t o a t tend the meeting. He has requested t h e Council pay for his expenses t o Galveston. Mr. Swingle related i t would approximate t o $600. All t h e other individuals have agreed t o pay for their travel. Dr. Bayliff was suggested by Dr. Klima t o review the shrimp analyses t o determine whether overharvest is occurring.

Dr. Nelson moved t h e Council pay t h e t ravel expenses for Dr. Bayliff to a t t end the s tock assessment meeting in Galveston. Motion carried.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:40 P.M.