FishSmart: Involving Marine Recreational Anglers in Managing Fish Stocks

1
(No Transcript)
2
Stakeholders can be responsible

• Council recommendation
• 10M Lbs quota
• 3 fish bag limit
• gt24 in max size

• Stakeholder choice
• 8M Lbs quota
• 2 fish bag limit
• gt28 in max size

How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and
NGOs become more conservative than managers?
3
Existing Council process
Status ?
Stock Assessment
Invite, Inform Ignore!
Management regulatory recommendations
Public scoping
Council decision
Council amends FMP
Accept
Reject
4
I3 stakeholder involvement
Managers and scientists select objectives
Recommendations
Stakeholders
Develop options
Model development and modification
Present model results
5
Stakeholder-centered approach
Stakeholders propose objectives, options and
performance measures
Recommendations
Revise options and performance measures
Stakeholders
Model development and modification
Review model results
6
Council and FishSmart processes
Status ?
Stakeholder centered FishSmart Process
Stock Assessment
Information
Management regulatory recommendations
Stakeholder recommendations
Anglers voluntarily adopt recommendations
Public scoping
Council decision
Council amends FMP
Accept
Reject
7
Project challenge

• How do we include the full range of stakeholders
  in a process that conserves the resource and
• Benefits from stakeholder knowledge
• Is scientifically-based
• Reflects stakeholder preference
• Results in increased acceptance and compliance
  with management, and improved stakeholder-manageme
  nt interactions

8
The players and their roles

• Informed stakeholders
• Provide a vision for the future of the resource,
  identify and evaluate options for achieving that
  vision
• Scientists
• Provide quantitative and qualitative tools that
  permit stakeholders to evaluate the efficacy of
  alternative options
• Facilitators
• Manage the process to ensure full, open
  participation and representation of all
  stakeholder views
• Managers
• Receive results of process and provide guidance
  on legal and practical constraints

9
Case StudyKing mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)

• Recreationally and commercially important
• Management changes were likely to be made
• Stakeholders and managers were welcoming of our
  involvement

10
Biology

• Mobile coastal pelagic piscivore
• Highly variable growth
• Sexually dimorphic
• Maximum age 26 2-10 Typical
• Warm Water gt 20ºC
• Supports extensive commercial (40) and
  recreational fisheries (60)

Original artwork by Kevin R. Brant, copied with
permission from Sport Fish of the Atlantic by
Vic Dunaway
11
Workshop process

• Four stakeholder-centered workshops to develop
  model, explore alternatives, and develop
  recommendations
• Focused on developing recommendations that the
  angling community could implement voluntarily or
  could be implemented by management

12
Stakeholders

• Recreational anglers
• For-hire operators
• Commercial fishermen
• Environmental NGO representatives
• Managers and biologists
• Tackle shop owners
• Tournament organizers

13
Stakeholder vision statement

• A sustainable Atlantic king mackerel fishery
  should be managed to prevent overfishing from
  occurring, prevent the species from being
  overfished, to ensure optimum yield is not
  exceeded, while maintaining the genetic diversity
  of fish and providing acceptable levels of access
  and allocation for all sectors while conserving
  biological and ecological functions.

14
Stakeholders goals

• Achieve the vision (population, fishery,
  ecosystem)
• While simultaneously
• Maximizing access
• Reducing/simplifying regulations
• Improving stakeholder interactions with
  management and each other
• Improving stakeholder education

15
Options

• Management
• Size limits
• Bag/creel limits
• Season limits
• Constant quota control rule
• Area closures
• Voluntary
• Increased catch and release fishing
• Reduction of catch and release mortality

16
Performance measures

• Spawning stock biomass (biomass of mature
  females)
• Proportion of the population older than 15 years
• Average age of spawners
• Harvest (numbers)
• Yield (lbs)
• Harvest in preferred size categories
• Average size in harvest
• Proportion of year fishery is closed
• Number of dead fish due to release mortality

17
Weighing options

• Stakeholders used results from a numerical
  simulation model to weigh the performance of
  different options they suggested in achieving
  their desired goals subject to the constraint of
  minimizing season closures and staying within
  Federally-mandated thresholds
• All phases of the model development and
  evaluation were discussed and agreed upon by
  consensus of stakeholders

18
Model Schematic
Reproduction
Migration
Fishing
Natural Deaths
Growth Maturity
19
Model Structure

• Model tracks
• Males and females separately
• Ages 1-19
• Fork lengths 12-63 in (30-160 cm)
• Two areas, mixing zone and Atlantic non-mixing
  zone (with migration between them)
• Seasonal time step (Jan.-March, April-June,
  July-Sept., Oct.-Dec.)
• 3 fisheries

20
Model Processes

• Growth Maturity
• von Bertalanffy - Separate patterns for males and
  females
• Model only includes female maturity
• Stock-Recruitment
• Beverton-Holt - Depends on the biomass of mature
  females in both areas
• Mortality (size-based)
• Natural
• Fishing
• Migration

21
Model Structure

• Abundance
• Mortality
• Catch
• N Abundance F Inst. Fishing mort. Rate
• M Natural mort. Z Total mort.
• p migration rate
• y year s season
• a age x sex
• o area f fishery

22
Parameter uncertainty

• Simulations drew from parameter distributions
  that reflected either
• Scientific uncertainty
• System uncertainty
• Recreational F used 3 scenarios either
  increasing, constant and decreasing scenarios
  with white noise variability (lognormal CV 10)
• Ran multiple simulations to yield distributions
  of outcomes

23
Sample results for stakeholders

• Stakeholders were provided with histograms
  summarizing distribution of results of 300 runs
  of the model options for each performance measure
• Stakeholders could evaluate mean response and
  extremes so they could avoid undesirable
  conditions

24
Building consensus

• Consensus developed by iterative voting on a 4-pt
  scale, following discussion and revision of any
  proposed stakeholder motion
• Consensus history reported live on-screen during
  discussion
• Consensus reached when 75 of votes are 3 or 4

Acceptability Ranking Scale 4 acceptable, I agree 3 acceptable, I agree with minor reservations 2 not acceptable, I dont agree unless major reservations addressed 1 not acceptable
25
Consensus example
Unanimous consensus was reached on most motions
relatively quickly, but not always
A.7. The FishSmart stakeholder process should be
a part of the Council decision making process for
all fisheries.
4acceptable 3 minor reservations 2major reservations 1 not acceptable
Initial Ranking Oct 17 10 0 0 0
November 6 Ranking 2 0 5 3

• Members Comments and Reservations (November
  2008)
• This is too presumptuous. Can be part of a
  presentation to the Council
• For all fisheries

26
Criteria for recommending options

• Option had to have a gt 50 chance of ensuring the
  stock was not overfished, nor experiencing
  overfishing over the next 15 years
• Option must limit season closures
• Option must meet or exceed the 75 consensus
  threshold

27
Recommended options
F
Season closure
SSB
28
Status of FishSmart recommendations

• Recommendations were presented to the SAFMC
  Statistical and Scientific Committee and to the
  full Council in December 2008
• Council voted to add FishSmart recommendations to
  the SSCs list for public scoping
• Decision expected Summer 2009

29
Benefits Magnusson-Stevens

• The FishSmart process was an explicit decision
  analysis that included both scientific and
  management uncertainty
• Separate recommendations could have been
  generated based on
• Scientific uncertainty (ABCs)
• E.g., recruitment dynamics
• Management uncertainty (ACLs)
• E.g., Change in angler behavior in response to
  regulations

30
Benefits General

• Process led to better decisions
• More buy-in from stakeholders
• Structured stakeholder involvement education
• Less conflict among stakeholders
• New partnerships among stakeholders
• Increased stakeholder satisfaction
• New collaborations with research and management

31
Lessons learnedCommunication

• Demands clear, open communication to develop
  trust and respect with and among stakeholders
• Commitment to explanations without jargon
• Research team external to the management process
  beneficial
• Professional, neutral and experienced
  facilitation team is essential

32
Lessons learnedManagement involvement

• A management request to use the process helps
  ensure stakeholder participation
• Managers are involved as a stakeholder who can
  supply logistic and legal constraints
• Management must listen to the outcome
• If managers choose not to implement workgroup
  recommendations, they must provide clear reasons
  to avoid alienating stakeholders
• FishSmart is a long term approach it cannot
  solve short-term problems

33
Lessons learnedStakeholder identification

• Relevant stakeholder groups represented
• Determining workgroup members is critical
• Representatives must have clout within their own
  group
• Effective representation ensures
• Knowledgeable of key concerns
• Disseminate results buy-in
• Minimize size cost
• Stakeholder interest groups must be balanced
• Members must be able to work within the process
• Commit to attending all meetings

34
Lessons learnedStakeholder involvement

• Commitment to involving stakeholders at all
  stages
• Stakeholders must understand model to believe in
  it
• Implications of the results must be openly
  discussed and evaluated
• When this happens stakeholders become passionate
  advocates for the process

35
Potential for other applications

• Other fisheries case studies under consideration
• Pacific rockfish
• Snook
• Blue crab
• Establishing ecosystem targets and thresholds
• Conflicts between ecosystem services and fisheries

36
Acknowledgements
Funding
Facilitation
Support
37
Time line and costs

• We completed the king mackerel process in 4
  meetings in 8 months.
• 4 meetings per year is appropriate
• More contentious issues will require more
  meetings and hence more time
• King mackerel meetings cost 40k per meeting
• 20k hotel, food, meeting expenses
• 12k facilitation team
• 10k overhead
• 100k.yr-1 project costs in addition to meetings
• 20k.yr-1 PI salaries
• 60k.yr-1 Programmer, Admin support
• 24k,yr-1 Overhead

38
Other

• Facilitation team is critical
• The facilitation team must be independent of
  management
• Must be involved in all meetings
• Research team must be viewed as independent
• Cannot be seen to have an agenda
• Must respond to all practical requests from
  stakeholders
• Workgroup lt 30 stakeholders
• Larger workgroups do not develop cohesion

39
Additional information on model structure
40
Growth
41
Weight-at-length
42
Female Maturity-at-length
43
Stock-Recruitment
44
Migration
45
Natural Mortality at Age
46
Fishing Mortality

• Fishery divided into three sectors
• Commercial
• General recreational
• Private boat
• Charter
• Tournament

47
Quotas

• Fishing stops for the year when the quota is
  reached
• Allocation 62.9 recreational
• Extreme because methods are not in place to
  manage recreational fishery by quota within a
  year

48
Estimating Effects of Tournaments

• Estimated fish kept
• FL GA SC NC Total
• 8,980 1,265 2,630 4,925 17,530
• Estimated total weight 245,000 lbs

49
Catch and Release Mortality
Selectivity
Catch
15.5
84.5
Retention
Alive
Released Dead
74
26
C-R mortality
Released
Harvested
12.5
87.5
Live
Die
50
Selectivity
51
Retention Probabilities
52
(No Transcript)
53
Starting Abundance

• Used estimated abundance from Base assessment
  model for Atlantic migratory group

54
Starting Fishing Mortality

• Commercial and recreational fishing mortality
  rates were chosen so catches in the first year of
  the model were similar to estimated catches in
  2006
• Estimates for the tournament fishery were
  developed by scaling up the number of tournaments
  by an average number of fish caught per
  tournament

55
Management control rules thresholds and targets
Exploitation rate
SSBMSY
Spawning stock biomass
56
FishSmart process

• Develop new process that conserves stocks and
• Includes stakeholder views and knowledge
• Allows stakeholders to Fish Smarter!
• make informed decisions about their own actions
  (improve conservation ethic)
• recommend preferred management practices
• Allows opportunities for relationships between
  stakeholder groups to improve
• Fits within current management structure
• Improves effectiveness of stakeholder input into
  the management process

57
Fisheries Management Can Be Contentious!