Common Alliance Meeting

There is an upcoming Common Alliance meeting on March 24th. Briefly, the Alliance's mission is "To advocate for practical solutions to common problems facing natural resource businesses that seek to ensure perpetual access to and health of those natural resources for all generations."
All fishermen are encouraged to attend. If you have any questions, email to delnortefma@yahoo.com.
Here's the first draft of the agenda. There will probably be updates....


--- Draft --- --- Draft ---

FISHERMEN, FARMERS, AND TRIBAL PEOPLES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER SEEK COMMON GROUND


Crescent City City Hall ?? (give location) --COFFEE AND DONUTS 8:30 am to 9:00

UPPER BASIN PERSPECTIVES 9:00 am
--Two Biological Opinions in Conflict --Greg Addington, Director of Klamath Water Users Association (15 min)
--Klamath Basin Irrigation History and River Flows --Ken Rykbost, former Extension Agent for Klamath County (30 min)
--Upper Basin Water Bank, Providing More Water for the Klamath River--Jim Carleton, Klamath Basin Farmer (15 min)
QUESTION AND ANSWERS --20 Minutes

BREAK 10:20

MIDDLE AND LOWER KLAMATH PERSPECTIVES 10:35
--Scott River Watershed Efforts --Ric Costales of the Scott River Watershed Council (20 min)
--Tribal Fishermens Perspectives on Harvest, Restoration, and the ESA --Troy Fletcher, Yurok Tribe (possibly more speakers) (30 min)
--Klamath River Parasites, What we Know and What we need to Learn? --Dr. Gary Hendrickson, Humbolt State University (30 min)
QUESTION AND ANSWERS (15 min)

OCEAN FISHING PERSPECTIVES 12:15
--Ocean Fishing Families Perspectives, Vivian Helliwell -Eureka Fisherperson (10 min)
--DNA Ocean Sampling and Real-Time-Management -The Oregon CROOS Project --Scott Boley, Oregon Salmon Commission (10 min)

CONCLUDING REMARKS --
--Seeking Common Ground --Dick Carleton, Rick Goche, Rich Shepherd, Troy Fletcher (10 min)


BREAK AND ADJORN TO SHARED POTLUCK AND BEVERAGES 12:45--CRESCENT CITY PARK (covered picnic area, give location)

Fish and Game Commission Meeting at Humboldt State

There is an upcoming F&G Commission meeting on March 2nd, 2007. Here is a link to the agenda...http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2007/030107agd.html#fri.

Items 17 and 18 are of concern for fishermen. Item 18 is for public comment on Marine Protected Areas for the northcoast. Everyone is encouraged to attend, and should show up at Nelson Hall on the Humboldt State campus by 9am. Here is a link to a map of Humboldt State...http://www.humboldt.edu/~humboldt/images/uploads/campusmap.pdf

Read more about the MPA's at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/.

Change California Crab Opener

**The following are some proposals of the Del Norte Fishermen Marketing Association in Crescent City, CA. We would like to stress that this is only a first rough draft. We would encourage all California dungeness crab industry members, including the California DFG, to circulate and discuss these proposals. We are striving to achieve what is best for all industry members.

Our goal is to be able to implement any changes to the dungeness crab code in the CA legislature for the 2007-2008 season. Therefore, we ask that effort be made to complete any discussion and/or changes by the end of February of 2007.

Questions/comments may be forwarded to delnortefma@yahoo.com.

We would like to propose a change to the opening date in California districts 6, 7, 8, and 9 to January 1^st. In addition, if any California Dungeness Crab permitted vessel fishes outside of California before the proposed January 1^st opener, that vessel would be subject to a 60 day delay before being allowed to fish in California waters.

We believe this change in dates holds many benefits for the California dungeness crab fishery. The later the season would begin, the higher the likelihood of the dungeness crab being in harvestable condition to start the season. This protects our markets and helps insure that we are always giving a top quality product to the processors and consumers. History has shown that out of state vessels have had problems sticking together as a fleet when it comes to coast wide pre-season crab quality. Conflicting agendas coming out of the State of Oregon have made cooperating extremely difficult, if not impossible. Because there is a limited number of large out of state vessels that also fish Alaska’s January 15^th crab opener, they feel it is more important to start the fishing season earlier rather than wait for a better quality crab. Because California then feels the fishing pressure from these large out of state boats, the California fleet begins fishing earlier than they would have liked. We believe that by separating our season from that of Washington and Oregon, it allows the state of California and the California fleet to assess crab quality and to continue with quality decisions without the outside influence of Oregon.

Some additional amendments to these changes include:

1. Hold inspections may need to be implemented.

2. We would like to suggest that District 10 moves to a Dec 1 opener. This would decrease the influx of out of state vessels to district 10 for the earlier opener.

3. If District 10 stays with a November 15^th opener, those vessels that fish in district 10 would have to have all of their gear out of the water on November 30^th in order to fish in districts 6, 7, 8, or 9 on January 1st, or else will be subject to the 60 day delay for districts 6, 7, 8, or 9.

4. There is feeling that there may be some disagreement from other California ports on the Jan. 1 opener, with some preferring a Dec. 15^th. If only a December 15^th opener can be achieved, the State of California may have to sanction the preseason quality tests.

5. We would also like to set a control date of July 15^th, 2006 for potential California pot limit, which has already been agreed upon by California fishermen.

Other things to think about:

1. If we want hold inspections, fishermen will be the ones footing the bill for those inspections. Could those vessels that fish in both districts pay for an inspection on an individual basis? Or would all vessels be subject to hold inspections, regardless if they traveled or not.

2. There is feeling that there may be some disagreement from other California ports on the Jan. 1 opener, with some preferring a Dec. 15^th.

3. Include district 10 for a Jan. 1 opener. This would limit the number of out of area boats traveling district 10 and essentially having 2 openers. This would result in a “pick your area” fishery.

4. What happens to those boats in California that want to fish in Oregon? Once the season is opened in California, would those California vessels with out of state permits be allowed to then fish in out of state? If so, the other states may come up with a way to counteract that.

With the signing of the Magnuson-Stevens act and LE200, can we amend something that says if a crab is caught in California, that crab has to be delivered in California? This could potentially allow us to hold out for a better quality product without being pressured by out of state vessels for and early season.

Pot Limits

The following is in response to the circulated draft legislation proposed by the PCFFA. It was understood by the DNFMA that the primary goal of this legislation was to implement a dungeness crab pot limit for the state of California. Although the DNFMA would like to continue to keep discussion about pot limits open, we cannot support this proposed legislation as it is written. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. The language of amended Section 8280.8 is somewhat confusing.

1. In order to fish 400 traps in district 10, a vessel had to catch at least 25,000 lbs in district 10. Does this mean that a top tier boat from outside of district 10, who has caught 50,000 lbs outside of district 10, would be limited to 300 pots in district 10? And vise versa, if someone from district 10 has delivered 25,000 lbs and is a top tier vessel in district 10, can only fish 300 traps outside of district 10?
2. The criteria for pot limits includes only the person, not the vessel. What about owners of vessels that don’t fish their boats? What about someone who has recently bought into the fishery, and that vessels history allows for a top tier, but the new owner doesn’t yet have 3 years of deliveries? The language for the original implementation for crab permits includes the history of the vessel, not the person.
3. If pot limits are implemented, the criteria for determining which tier a permit falls into needs to be uniform throughout the state. What happens to a top tier permit in district 10 that moves outside of district 10? Would it remain a top tier permit?

2. Legislation includes language about a Fisheries Management Plan. Currently, the California Department of Fish and Game’s position is that dungeness crab is a low priority when it comes to FMPs. Also, it is the DFG’s position that any resource issues or population fluctuations are not due to commercial fishing. Therefore, we are opposed to us sponsoring any FMP for dungeness crab. We encourage all to read up on the DFG’s status report of dungeness crab at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/status/dungeness_crab.pdf. Email delnortefma@yahoo.com if you have problems.

3. Could end up having more gear in California waters. At our meeting in Bodega Bay, it was estimated that 153,000 pots are currently fishing in California waters. This would equate to 254 pots per permit holder for 601 permits. By having a 300/400 pot limit and not addressing latent permits, it could result in having more pots fishing in California waters. We understand that this is very much an estimate, but we need to start somewhere and be sure that we accomplish what we intend by having a pot limit, which is less gear in the water. The only way we feel that this can be accomplished is by seriously considering the latent permits.

4. Incomplete cost analysis. This draft essentially gives the commission a blank check to implement these changes, and any future changes or enforcement. To even consider this draft proposal, we need to fully understand the potential costs and include in any draft legislation a cap or limit to the amount the commission may collect from fishermen. One of the major potential costs could be for enforcement. There is concern that the DFG would have a very hard time enforcing pot limits. Initial estimates from the DFG include $700,000/year for 6 new enforcement officers, $50,000 for setting up the buoy tags, plus another $1 per tag to the fisherman. It was implied that these costs would not include actual sea time, but primarily paperwork (sea time on the north coast is very costly).We understand that these are only rough figures, and could change significantly as we get closer to actual pot limit implementation.

5. May be failing in other states. There has been word coming out of Oregon that the implemented pot limit that went into effect this year has not been running very smooth. There are reports of many untagged buoys and buoys with homemade tags in the ocean and enforcement has been not what is needed. Although some instances have been reported and authorities have been made aware and are pursuing the guilty parties, those parties continue to fish and make deliveries with untagged pots. Before California rushes to implement pot limits, it may be a good idea to let Oregon work out the problems with there system first.

6. Dividing the state into separate fisheries. Many fishermen have been traveling to southern waters for many years, and fishermen have been traveling north for many years. We all renew our permit for a California permit, so it would be wrong to deny anyone who owns a California permit the right to fish in California.