Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee
May 31, 2000
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 31st 8 day of May 2000, there came on to be heard 9 matters under the regulatory authority of the 10 Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the 11 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and 12 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis 13 County, Texas, beginning at 9:25 a.m. to wit: 14 15 APPEARANCES: 16 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION: REGULATIONS COMMITTEE: 17 Chair: Lee M. Bass Carol E. Dinkins 18 Dick W. Heath (Absent) Nolan Ryan 19 Ernest Angelo, Jr. John Avila, Jr. 20 Alvin L. Henry Katharine Armstrong Idsal 21 Mark E. Watson, Jr. 22 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director, and other 23 personnel of the Parks and Wildlife Department. 24 25 .0002 1 MAY 31, 2000 2 *-*-*-*-* 3 REGULATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING 4 *-*-*-*-* 5 CHAIRMAN BASS: Good morning. We 6 have a rather full agenda today. And I apologize 7 for the delay in getting started, but we will go 8 ahead and start. The first committee to meet 9 today is the regulations committee. And in order 10 to open our committee meetings, Mr. Sansom, would 11 you please read our public statement? 12 MR. SANSOM: Mr. Chairman and 13 members, the public notice of this meeting 14 containing all items on the proposed agenda has 15 been filed in the Office of the Secretary of 16 State as required by Chapter 551 of the 17 Government Code. This is referred to as the Open 18 Meetings Law, and I would like for this action to 19 be noted in the official record of the meeting. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. The 21 first order of business would be the approval of 22 the committee minutes from our previous meeting. 23 Does anybody have any additions or deletions to 24 make? 25 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval .0003 1 as to submitted. 2 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: We have a motion and 4 a second. All in favor. Any opposed? Hearing 5 none, motion passes. 6 (Motion passed unanimously.) 7 CHAIRMAN BASS: Mr. Sansom, would 8 you do our briefing on the Chairman's charges, 9 please. 10 AGENDA ITEM NO 1: BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S 11 CHARGES. 12 MR. SANSOM: Sure. Mr. Chairman, 13 there are a number of items on today's agenda 14 that relate directly to the charges. The first 15 charge, of course, for the regulations committee, 16 is to implement the authority and direction given 17 by the 76th Legislature and fully participated in 18 the Sunset review. I'm happy to report that the 19 Sunset Commission staff has finished its work and 20 we held our hearing last week in Austin and there 21 were a number of you there. And we want to 22 express to you our appreciation of that. 23 The final report of the Sunset 24 Committee will be issued in June, and we look 25 forward to that hearing as well. .0004 1 Charge number three was to optimize 2 license management in marine commercial 3 fisheries. And there are two items on your 4 agenda today that relate to that, as specifically 5 the shrimp license buyback program. 6 You will have on your agenda today a 7 proposed $3 surcharge on the recreational 8 saltwater fishing stamp which has been published 9 in the Texas Register for comment. Funds from 10 this surcharge would be directly to enhance the 11 buyback fund. 12 There is also a fee increase in the 13 proposed regulations to be published in the Texas 14 Register this summer for commercial fishing. 15 Charge number four was to continue 16 regulatory reform and you will see it present 17 proposed amendments today to the exotic species 18 rules to minimize and streamline recording 19 requirements and to more easily permit valid uses 20 of exotic species. 21 You've directed us to seek 22 opportunities to expand landowner incentives 23 through the regulatory process and you'll hear a 24 wonderful report today from our Managed Lands 25 Deer permits TTT working group which will address .0005 1 this issue directly. 2 Finally, the final charge to 3 regulations was to maximize outdoor recreation 4 opportunity, and it's not too early to remind 5 everyone to mark your calendar for this year's 6 Expo, which will be September 29 and 7 October 1st. Mr. Angelo is the chairman of this 8 year's event. Thank you. 9 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: ACTION - 2000-2001 10 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD PROCLAMATION STAFF: 11 VERNON BEVILL. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Next we will do the 13 migratory game bird proclamation. Dr. Graham and 14 Vernon Bevill. 15 MR. BEVILL: Mr. Chairman, members 16 of the committee, my name is Vernon Bevill. I am 17 the program director for migratory wildlife and 18 ecology. Today we start the first of a two phase 19 implementation for the 2000-2001 migratory game 20 bird season. In April we brought to you our full 21 proclamation. Today we will be acting on the 22 early season species and the general regulations 23 for migratory bird hunting. 24 And we want to summarize the primary 25 changes that we are proposing for this year's .0006 1 season that relate to the opening date of teal 2 season, proposed change in Zone C of the Sandhill 3 crane hunting areas, extending Sandhill crane 4 hunting areas toward the coast, and adjusting 5 other season dates to calendar shift. 6 For teal season we are in a little 7 bit of a perplexed situation this year, in that 8 we know from our migration chronology data and 9 from harvest data that the better teal seasons 10 come when the opening date is later in the month 11 of September rather than earlier. This year 12 the -- to get full weekends, we would have to 13 open the teal season on September the 9th, which 14 is about five or six days ahead of a more 15 opportune time for hunting opportunity. 16 So after consideration of this early 17 opener, we decided to propose and to register 18 opening teal season on September the 15th. We 19 anticipate a 16-day season. And to get a 16-day 20 season in, we would have to open it on Friday the 21 16th and close on Sunday the 30th this year. 22 Next year, the calendar will allow 23 us to open on the 15th and close on the 30th in 24 our regular weekend-type hunting. So that's a 25 primary change that we are proposing to maximize .0007 1 hunting opportunity for teal. 2 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is the migratory 3 advisory committee in accord with that? 4 MR. BEVILL: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: It's actually 6 opened on the 15th. Right? 7 MR. BEVILL: 15th would be the 8 opening date, Friday the 15th. Close on Saturday 9 the 30th. 10 For Sandhill cranes, we have worked 11 through the central fly away council to work 12 toward an expansion of the Zone C hunting area, 13 the hunting closer to the coast of Texas. And so 14 we are proposing some changes there. But first 15 of all, let me just mention that our Zone C is an 16 area that is significantly impacted when we go to 17 the light goose conservation regulations. We 18 have a 37-day season opportunity for Zone C. And 19 last year when we went to the conservation rules 20 the day after duck season ended, we effectively 21 took over half of the Zone C Sandhill crane 22 season away because of necessity to close other 23 migratory bird seasons. 24 So we've looked at this option and 25 are proposing instead of a -- what we opened in .0008 1 the register at the April meeting of an opening 2 date of January the 6th and closing on February 3 the 11th, we're proposing to drop back one week 4 and open on December the 30th. 5 If we, again, go to conservation 6 rules, and Sandhill cranes are included in that 7 closure responsibility, at our -- as we'll learn 8 later this summer, then we would at least have an 9 extra week of hunting opportunity for Sandhill 10 cranes. So that's why we're proposing these 11 changes. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Vernon, is there 13 something that prevents us from moving that even 14 earlier so as to preserve more of the season? 15 MR. BEVILL: We work with the Fish 16 and Wildlife Service on a migration chronology of 17 whooping cranes. And so to go back earlier in 18 December might cause a little problem there. And 19 so we've talked with the Fish and Wildlife 20 Service and the whooping crane committee and felt 21 like that this was a reasonable alternative. And 22 we'll look at it this year and see how it works, 23 and it's possible we could maybe move it back one 24 more week but we want to get a little experience 25 in walking that season back and not jump too .0009 1 far. 2 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is the Fish and 3 Wildlife Service supportive of this move? 4 MR. BEVILL: Yes. 5 CHAIRMAN BASS: So you don't see 6 this being a problem -- 7 MR. BEVILL: We don't see this as a 8 problem. 9 CHAIRMAN BASS: -- in getting 10 through the fly away council and getting 11 approval. 12 MR. BEVILL: Correct. 13 And we have worked through the fly 14 away council to try to expand the hunting area 15 for Sandhill crane. And so our preferred 16 alternative for the expansion of Zone C or 17 coastal area would be to take the two areas 18 proposed there along the coast, on either side of 19 Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, and incorporate 20 them in Zone C, if the Fish and Wildlife Service 21 allows this, which is -- we won't know until 22 after the service regulation committee meets 23 later this month. 24 If they approve this proposal, it 25 could be approved in several formats that I'm .0010 1 going to walk through with you briefly. But our 2 preferred alternative would be just to 3 incorporate this in Zone C, if they allow a 4 three-bird bag like we have in Zone C currently. 5 A second alternative would be to 6 make this a Zone D area because in the March 7 meetings with Fish and Wildlife Service and the 8 fly away council, there was concern about 9 allowing a three-bird bag in this new area. But 10 they would not reduce our three-bird bag in the 11 regular Zone C. 12 So if they give us this option, but 13 do not approve the full three-bird bag, we would 14 propose to create a Zone D and go with either the 15 two bird or one bird, depending on what the 16 service regulation committee allowed. 17 And then the other alternative is 18 that they don't offer us this option and so we 19 would be back where we are -- were last year, 20 with just the Zone C season with the earlier 21 opening date. 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: So, Vernon, whereas 23 you feel comfortable that they will approve 24 moving the Zone C earlier, it's unclear as to 25 whether they will approve the -- .0011 1 MR. BEVILL: The service regulations 2 group will meet later this month. Our fly away 3 representative at our March meeting said he was 4 not uncomfortable with supporting the expansion, 5 but he was uncomfortable with the three-bird 6 bag. And so that's got to be negotiated out. 7 One of our negotiation points is the 8 fact that we will -- to go to the conservation 9 rule for snow geese. We will probably be 10 required to close Sandhill crane season early 11 again. And so we don't see the bag issue as a 12 real issue. But it's an issue in the minds of 13 some. 14 So I've provided a summary slide 15 here for you to kind of work through the 16 options. And depending on the outcome of the 17 service regulations committee, it could 18 necessitate asking the executive director to 19 utilize his authority to amend this proposal 20 slightly, or any of our proposals that might be 21 changed after the service regulations committee 22 meets to conform to what the feds allow. So I 23 want you to be aware of that. 24 For dove season we are proposing 25 just a 15-bird bag/60-day season with the same .0012 1 structure as last year but just amended to the 2 calendar shift. 3 We have had considerable public 4 comment on the teal season issue. And as you can 5 see from this slide, a strong support for our 6 September 15th opening date. 7 Mr. Chairman, staff would request 8 that you would approve this set of 9 recommendations and the motion that is offered 10 here to go to the full commission for action 11 tomorrow. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Are there any other 13 questions at this time? The Chair would 14 entertain a motion in line with staff proposal to 15 go forward to public hearing tomorrow. 16 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I so move. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN BASS: The motion and a 19 second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you 20 very much 21 (Motion passed unanimously.) 22 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: ACTION - THREATENED AND 23 ENDANGERED SPECIES STAFF: JOHN HERRON. 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Threatened and 25 endangered species, please. Thank you, .0013 1 Mr. Bevill. 2 MR. HERRON: Good morning, 3 Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is John 4 Herron, and I am the head of the Wildlife 5 Diversity Program. Today I'll be presenting you 6 some changes that we are proposing to our 7 threatened and endangered species regulations. 8 This is a briefing requesting permission to 9 publish for public comment. 10 Basically there's two changes, 11 series of changes we're proposing to our 12 threatened endangered species regs. First, 13 updating the threatened and endangered species 14 list themselves; secondly, updating our rules 15 concerning the possession of threatened and 16 endangered species. 17 We're proposing to delist three 18 species, removing them from our threatened 19 species list. The McKittrick pennyroyal is found 20 only in Texas and New Mexico. It was federally 21 delisted in 1993. We did not delist the species 22 at the time, due to continued concern about the 23 status in Texas. We now recommend delisting due 24 to newly discovered populations in the Guadalupe 25 Mountains and documented evidence showing an .0014 1 increase in the known populations elsewhere in 2 the state. 3 Concho water snake was listed in 4 1986, and has -- was proposed for federal 5 delisting last year. Data collected since 6 listing indicates the population of the Concho 7 water snake are stable. And experts we have 8 consulted with agreed that the species should be 9 delisted. 10 The jaguar is currently listed as 11 endangered in Texas, but was never removed from 12 our threatened list. So this is largely a 13 housekeeping measure. Removing it from the 14 threatened list, but it will remain on our 15 endangered species list. 16 At the same time, we are proposing 17 to list three new species on our threatened 18 species list. The puzzle or Pecos sunflower. 19 It's not only in Texas, New Mexico. It's 20 federally listed in '99. Its decline is due to a 21 loss of wetland habitats associated with desert 22 springs. 23 The Arkansas river shiner is found 24 only in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, and 25 Kansas, excuse me, and was federally listed as .0015 1 threatened last November. This species has 2 declined due to a loose of habitat and 3 degradation of water quality. While the species 4 is more secure in Texas than in other states, its 5 range has been reduced in Texas as well, and 6 listing will keep State law consistent with 7 federal protection. 8 Finally, the Cagle's map turtle 9 which is found only in Texas in the Guadalupe 10 River drainage. This species is being considered 11 for federal listing, but there have been 12 documented cases of commercial collection that 13 could threaten remaining populations. We are 14 hoping that State listing, which will prohibit 15 commercial collection, will give the Fish and 16 Wildlife Service more time to consider whether 17 the species deserves federal listing rather than 18 forcing them to act too quickly, simply because 19 they're concerned about commercial take, so... 20 I do want to mention that these 21 species that we are proposing for listing, that 22 listing at the State level is very different than 23 listing at the federal level. Basically all we 24 are doing is protecting the individual animals 25 from take. There are no habitat protections, no .0016 1 more broad ranging effects on landowners, which 2 would be the case on federal listing. 3 In addition, we are proposing some 4 changes to our endangered species list. The 5 endangered species list is handled differently 6 with changes made by executive order rather than 7 by regulation. But we did want to let the 8 Commission know that we are proposing these 9 changes as well. 10 We are proposing to delist the 11 Lloyd's hedgehog cactus. This species was 12 delisted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in '99 13 due to evidence from genetic studies that it was 14 not a true species but instead was a hybrid, a 15 cross. 16 We are proposing to list the Zapata 17 bladderwort. This species is only found in 18 Zapata and Star Counties and was federally listed 19 in '99. It's been listed due to its restricted 20 range and the threat of loss of habitat due to 21 agricultural, urban, and recreational 22 development. 23 Regarding these species that we do 24 by executive order, we are planning on holding a 25 public hearing prior to the next commission .0017 1 meeting before proposing this species for 2 listing. 3 In addition, we are proposing 4 changes regarding the possession of threatened 5 and endangered species. We want to make sure 6 that our laws are consistent and fair to all 7 people who possess captive, bred listed species. 8 And currently we do have different rules 9 depending on how a species was obtained. I think 10 the best example we have concerns the black 11 bear. If a Texas resident currently possesses a 12 black bear, they have to renew a permit with us 13 every year. However, if an individual came from 14 out of state with a bear that was legally 15 acquired from out of state, they do not need a 16 permit at all. All they have to do is have 17 paperwork showing that they legally acquired this 18 animal from out of state. 19 So we have an inconsistency there 20 that we want to correct. Basically, we're 21 preparing to adopt these simpler requirements for 22 both the residents and nonresidents coming into 23 the state with endangered or threatened species. 24 We don't think that possession of 25 these species is common and so we think .0018 1 liberalizing this will pose little threat to our 2 resident species. 3 Currently I think the most important 4 provision in our regulations is that no one can 5 take, possess, transport, export, sell, or ship a 6 threatened species unless they have legally 7 acquired it from out of state and can show proof 8 of legal acquisition through permit or voucher. 9 However, there are still some 10 problems in the regulation. There is no 11 definition in the regulation of what type of 12 permit or type of proof is required. There is no 13 provision in our regulation for someone who may 14 legally acquire a species from out of state where 15 a permit is not required by that state. 16 And finally, as I mentioned, the 17 import of threatened and endangered species is 18 less restrictive for someone moving to Texas than 19 for someone who is a Texas resident. 20 To address these, we're proposing 21 six types of changes to our current regulation. 22 We're proposing to make the requirements for 23 endangered species similar to those for 24 threatened species, making the regulations 25 simpler for people to understand. We're .0019 1 proposing to eliminate the permit requirement, as 2 well as inspection reporting requirements for 3 legally acquired species. And instead, we are 4 proposing that people in possession of a listed 5 species simply have documentation that the 6 specimens were lawfully obtained. We think this 7 will be a more simple and more consistent 8 treatment. 9 I do want to point out that these 10 proposed changes should not have any effect on 11 wild species in the wild. We will continue to 12 prohibit the possession of individuals obtained 13 from the wild in Texas. We are only dealing here 14 with captive bred animals or basically animals 15 that are taken from out of state. 16 The three other changes: We are 17 also requiring that all captive specimens be 18 permanently marked. We are stipulating that 19 release of these specimens that are in captivity 20 is not allowed. And we are also amending the 21 regulation to reflect that the endangered species 22 list is now done by -- is done by executive 23 order. We have a redundancy where it shows up in 24 both executive order and regulation. And really 25 all we have to do is have it in executive order. .0020 1 None of these changes will reduce 2 the protection of endangered species. It still 3 will be an offense to take an animal that's on 4 the endangered species list. 5 I do want to point out that we did 6 have some public comment on this. We discussed 7 these changes, similar changes with the 8 commission about a year and a half ago. At that 9 time, several members of the public requested 10 that we allow the propagation and sale of some 11 threatened species, particularly the alligator 12 snapping turtle. We have been visiting with our 13 constituents, those commentors, as well as some 14 of the conservation groups interested in this 15 during the past year. 16 And I just want to let y'all know 17 that at this point staff is recommending that we 18 continue the current prohibition against sale and 19 propagation in Texas. We have seen, really, very 20 little demand for this. We do have an endangered 21 species propagation permit on the books which no 22 one has taken advantage of in the past several 23 years. As I noted, we've had several individuals 24 express interest in this, but there does not seem 25 to be a large number of individuals interested. .0021 1 And basically, since sale has never been allowed, 2 continuing this restriction should have little 3 direct impact on Texans. 4 We have had several conservation 5 groups recommending that we not allow sale. 6 Their feeling is that it would send a mixed 7 message to the public, that on the one hand, 8 we're telling landowners that these species are 9 protected on their property and that, therefore, 10 we should also be telling people interested in 11 commercial sale that this is not allowed in that 12 case as well. 13 So in closing, we respectfully 14 request the committee recommend that we publish 15 these proposed changes in the Texas Register for 16 public comment. And with that, I'd be happy to 17 entertain any questions. 18 CHAIRMAN BASS: Would you just 19 clarify for me, what's your department position 20 on the suggestion that we allow the sale of 21 that? 22 MR. HERRON: Currently, the sale is 23 prohibited, and we are recommending we maintain 24 that prohibition. 25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And .0022 1 propagation is also prohibited? 2 MR. HERRON: Yes, ma'am, it is. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Why is propagation 4 prohibited? 5 MR. HERRON: Well, the way our 6 regulations read, propagation has always been 7 associated with propagation for sale. And we 8 have had instances come up where people have, for 9 example, Texas tortoises in captivity, and they 10 do what animals do. I think our concern has been 11 that by allowing, explicitly allowing 12 propagation, you're in essence creating a 13 potential market there. But I think our biggest 14 concern is with prohibiting sale. Incidental 15 propagation is really not a concern of ours, and 16 I think we have some flexibility there if the 17 Commission wishes. 18 Certainly we'll see what the public 19 comment would indicate on that as we publish 20 this. 21 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is there a 22 mechanism, for instance, if a legitimate desire 23 by an institution or an individual was for 24 propagation for, you know, a scientifically sound 25 reintroduction, et cetera, that that can be done .0023 1 under the rules? 2 MR. HERRON: Yes, sir. We have 3 other permits that exist both for zoos, for 4 scientists, and also for educational purposes. 5 Both the zoological permit and the scientific 6 permit do allow propagation for reintroduction 7 purposes. What we're specifically working with 8 here is people who wish to propagate these simply 9 for sale, as pets, largely. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: So we're just 11 dealing with a niche of it here, and there are 12 other avenues for those? 13 MR. HERRON: Yes, sir. 14 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any other 15 questions? 16 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval 17 of the recommendation. 18 CHAIRMAN BASS: We have a motion for 19 approval to publish this in the Register for 20 public comment. Second? 21 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: The motion is 23 seconded. All in favor. All opposed? Thank you 24 very much. 25 (Motion passed unanimously.) .0024 1 CHAIRMAN BASS: Good presentation. 2 Okay. Mr. Sansom. 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: ACTION - MLD/TTT 4 WORKGROUP UPDATE STAFF: BOB COOK. 5 MR. SANSOM: Mr. Chairman, as you 6 know, at our last commission meeting we had 7 scheduled to discuss items related to regulations 8 of our Managed Lands Deer programs and TTT, trap, 9 transport. And we clearly understood at that 10 time that there was a substantial amount of 11 dissention among the affected community here 12 about how these regulations would affect them, 13 about their equity and their application across 14 the state. 15 We made the decision to pull those 16 regulations from your last agenda and appoint a 17 committee to study the issue in which several of 18 you participated. I'm happy to report that the 19 presentation that Mr. Cook is about to make to 20 you reflects the work of that committee. And I 21 would like to publicly thank all of the people 22 who served on that committee, because they came 23 here sometimes from quite a distance to meet 24 twice. And I would also like to pay particular 25 compliment to Mr. Cook, who did an excellent job .0025 1 of facilitating this whole process. And I think 2 it is one that you will see in a few moments, we 3 can all be proud of. 4 MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman, committee 5 members, thank you. My name is Robert L. Cook. 6 I'm chief operating officer of Texas Parks and 7 Wildlife department. As Mr. Sansom pointed out, 8 we had some disagreements about the Managed Lands 9 Deer permit program and our TTT program, trap, 10 transport, and transplant. 11 And I guess I would say, just to 12 start this thing off, that we were very, very 13 fortunate to have a group of 20 people agree to 14 serve on this committee. And when they walked in 15 the door, from day one, when they walked in the 16 door, they were ready to go to work, ready to 17 find solutions. And I think that's why we got 18 where we are. 19 I believe that we do have a set of 20 good proposals that Doctor Cooke, Doctor Jerry 21 Cooke will lay out to you as the formal proposals 22 that we can adopt, or however you would like to 23 proceed tomorrow, with the MLD program, and some 24 proposals that we can discuss and put out for 25 Texas Register and finalize in August. .0026 1 The committee -- first of all, let 2 me say again, we asked some of the members of 3 some of these representative groups, the Texas 4 Trophy Hunters Association, the Texas Deer 5 Association, Texas Wildlife Association, all were 6 very interested in this program. And we asked 7 those folks, who would you like to have on this 8 committee? And they made some very, very good 9 suggestions, most of which we adopted and 10 appointed those -- the chairman and Mr. Sansom 11 appointed those folks to this committee. 12 We had 20 members and we met here in 13 this room on May the 2nd and on May the 22nd. 14 Between those meetings, particularly between 15 those meetings and immediately following those 16 meetings, as Mr. Cooke can testify, we had a 17 serious exchange of faxes and e-mails and 18 telephone conversations because I thought it was 19 important and I think the members agreed that 20 communicating about this, talking about what did 21 we mean, where were we headed, what's the best 22 way to do this, was the best way to reach a 23 solution, and that's exactly what we did. 24 I think there were a couple of just 25 absolutely essential ingredients that were .0027 1 identified early in the process. First, that 2 habitat and improving or conserving habitat for 3 all wildlife is the cornerstone of this program 4 and of our TPWD private lands program. That was 5 identified early in the process. Committee 6 members, 100 percent signed on, 100 percent 7 agreed with that. And once that step was taken, 8 it was very positive. 9 And secondly, the other, I believe, 10 essential ingredient that, again, everyone agreed 11 on was the property involved in these programs 12 must have a TPWD approved wildlife management 13 plan. For example, on TTT, the release site must 14 have an approved plan. To get into the MLD 15 program, there must be an approved wildlife 16 management plan that our people have reviewed, 17 that in some cases maybe the plan was prepared by 18 private biologists or by the landowner himself. 19 But that our folks have reviewed, have discussed 20 back and forth with the folks, and have signed 21 off on. So those are two absolutely, I believe, 22 essential ingredients in this process. 23 CHAIRMAN BASS: The -- in summary, the pathways that 24 this committee, that our committee is 25 recommending, and again, that Doctor Cooke will .0028 1 line out for you as a proposal, involve three 2 primary areas. First, that the Managed Lands 3 Deer permit program, the MLDP program, that we 4 should evolve that program from a rewards program 5 to an incentive program, a program that we had 6 previously administered primarily as a reward, 7 people who had done a really, really, good job 8 for at least three years. And we've got some 9 people who have been in these programs 15, 20 10 years. They have done great jobs. Private 11 landowners have done wonderful work. And we were 12 using the Managed Lands Deer program as a reward 13 for that work done. 14 The committee and our consensus 15 agreement is to move that up to evolve that to an 16 incentive program, that not only rewards those 17 people who have been in the program, who have 18 done a good job, but also, just when that 19 landowner out there shows an interest, almost 20 irregardless of where he started from, and some 21 of them their habitat situation is not good. 22 Sometimes landowners, you know, make 23 the decision that I'm going to do better. I want 24 to do better. I want to do better things with 25 deer, with turkey, with quail, whatever the .0029 1 situation might be, endangered species, whatever 2 it is. And will come forward to us, and their 3 habitat may be in pretty rough shape the first 4 time. And thereby -- by making this program an 5 incentive program, to give those folks as much 6 flexibility as we possibly can and seasonal 7 length and bag limit, those kinds of areas of the 8 regulations that we can open up to them, that 9 they can harvest their deer herd, they can manage 10 that population, that they can have a very 11 positive impact on that habitat right from the 12 start and participate in these programs. 13 So going from reward to incentive, 14 again, I think was a key initial step. 15 Secondly, the group agreed that we 16 should recommend that we provide a level 2 in 17 this Managed Lands Deer permit program. 18 Previously -- and Doctor Cooke will again explain 19 this to you in more detail. But we had a level 20 1, which was basically just a mechanism for folks 21 primarily over in the Post Oak and Oak Prairie 22 and East Texas who have a prerestricted bag 23 limit, primarily a way for them to harvest does 24 if they needed to and wanted to harvest does. 25 By providing a level 2, you provide .0030 1 this step in there where people who not only need 2 to harvest does, but who need to be harvesting 3 some bucks, who need longer seasons, who need a 4 more flexible time frame. So the level 2 is a 5 proposal that you will hear from Doctor Cooke. 6 And our level 3 program would let 7 people start their season at the early part of 8 October, go through basically January, five deer 9 bag limit, coupled with our bonus tags that give 10 landowner maximum flexibility on bucks and does 11 throughout the season. 12 And finally, we agreed that we 13 should provide a simple and quick method for 14 landowners who want to trap, transport, and 15 transplant whitetail deer at what we ended up 16 calling an insignificant impact or a minimum 17 impact level. And where we ended up was -- what 18 I ended up recommending to you and what you'll 19 see here proposed today is, that's about a 20 deer -- we thought that that level would be about 21 a deer to 200 acres. 22 In other words, if a landowner has a 23 couple of thousand acres, that he could move -- 24 and he has a wildlife management plan in place, 25 that he could move ten deer, something like that, .0031 1 up to ten deer, onto his property just by 2 applying here, getting the permit back, and go to 3 work, not requiring an inspection, an on-site 4 inspection specifically for that TTT action. 5 If he wants a higher -- if he wants 6 to move a higher number of deer, then he would 7 just go through the inspection process as we have 8 done it. That seemed to really provide a 9 mechanism that a lot of people were interested in 10 and that, again, I think, will be very helpful. 11 In my initial proposal, I 12 suggested -- because actually the question came 13 up during the committee meeting and we didn't 14 really discuss it out. In my initial proposal to 15 you, I suggested that we allow that freebee only 16 one time. And I think that is a good 17 recommendation for us to consider and for us to 18 think about. And particularly as it applies to 19 this year, I think on one piece of property, one 20 stocking at that level is a reasonable approach. 21 However, for future years -- and 22 I'll talk a little bit more about this in a 23 minute. I suggest that we delay making a 24 decision, that we just set that for this year and 25 that we delay making a decision on that of how we .0032 1 want to proceed in subsequent years until we see 2 how this year goes and what kind of results we 3 have and what kind of problems we run into. 4 Our next steps, as I mentioned 5 earlier, you'll be hearing from Doctor Cooke 6 about our proposals. We can adopt, you can adopt 7 the MLD proposals tomorrow. We're going to 8 request that we go to the Texas Register with our 9 TTT regulation proposals, hear them out in the 10 summer, talk them through with folks, and then 11 come back in August and finalize those. 12 In closing -- and, again, I cannot 13 say enough to thank this group of folks that 14 served on the committee. Good people. I knew 15 every one of them from the start. And I didn't 16 know whether that would be good or bad, but they 17 tolerated me well and facilitated this thing. 18 They expressed an interest in coming 19 back together. It was a good mix. They 20 expressed an interest in coming back together at 21 the end of this year, maybe at the end of this 22 hunting season/trapping season, possibly in April 23 or something like that. And as the Commission 24 wishes, I think that was a good suggestion. I 25 think that if we get that group back together and .0033 1 talk about how it went, what kind of volume of 2 business we did in this program, what problems we 3 had, and, again, look for solutions to those 4 problems, I think, is worthy of consideration. 5 If you have any questions, I'll be 6 glad to answer them. Otherwise, Doctor Cooke can 7 give you the presentation of the proposals. Yes, 8 sir? 9 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay. The -- 10 sort of the situation relative, though, to the 11 importation of deer and not requiring any 12 inspection of the release site, that still 13 exists? 14 DR. COOKE: That still the exists. 15 It would not be under either of these 16 proclamations. If we address that, it would have 17 to be under the scientific breeder proclamation. 18 MR. COOK: Mr. Watson brings up a 19 topic that did come up in our meeting that I 20 think is worthy of the Commission hearing about. 21 The question of importation, bringing deer into 22 Texas, was brought up and discussed at length at 23 both meetings, and a lot of people have a lot of 24 concern about it. But in our documents, in our 25 proposals, that section is not open for us to .0034 1 deal with at this time. And the committee agreed 2 that if we're going to work on that, if we're 3 going to propose some changes there, that we 4 probably should involve some other folks, folks 5 who are directly involved in that program, 6 scientific breeders and such, that would have a 7 direct interest. There was a lot of discussion 8 about that and a lot of concern expressed. 9 DR. COOKE: Mr. Chairman and 10 members, my name is Jerry Cooke, program director 11 for upland wildlife ecology and I'll be bringing 12 to you the staff proposals that were based on the 13 MLD/TTT work group recommendations. 14 As Mr. Cook pointed out, one the 15 primary recommendations of the work group was 16 that both programs should be incentive driven and 17 habitat focused. And on this, we certainly 18 agree. As Mr. Cook pointed out, we're hoping to 19 meet with them again, late fall/early winter to 20 recap, reevaluate and see if any refinements of 21 the current proposals might be necessary. 22 Basically, we consider progress on a wildlife 23 management plan to be positive so long as the 24 habitats are stable or improving. And that's 25 going to be a cornerstone for all of our programs .0035 1 related to deer. 2 Under the MLD program, option one, 3 as Mr. Cook pointed out, really has no proposed 4 changes. It's the current permit that we have 5 for antlerless only deer. Basically if a 6 landowner has a current survey and an approved 7 wildlife management plan, we'll issue antlerless 8 permits based on that management plan. It will 9 have the county seasons and bag limits, but 10 because these are MLD antlerless permits, bonus 11 tags would be available to that landowner or 12 hunter to utilize these permits. 13 The option 2 under the MLD program 14 would basically require a previous year -- the 15 previous year's survey along with current survey, 16 a previous year of harvest data, and two habitat 17 management practices, which would be -- not be 18 required until the permit was approved; in other 19 words, this is what the landowner is agreeing to 20 do under his management plan. We also would be 21 approving this permit basically for a three-year 22 renewable window, to allow the landowner the 23 understanding that he's got approval more than 24 just for the single year. 25 Under this option, the bag limit on .0036 1 the property would be five deer, no more than 2 three bucks. The buck season would open with the 3 county season and would close the last Sunday in 4 January. 5 For antlerless only deer, on the 6 screen it says October 1. Actually, that would 7 be the Saturday nearest September 30th, through 8 the last Sunday in January, giving the maximum 9 amount of time for the harvest of antlerless 10 deer. And bonus tags would be available on that 11 property for all deer for which the permit was 12 available. 13 The option 3 would require two -- 14 the two previous years of survey data, along with 15 the current survey, two years of harvest data, 16 and the agreement would be for four wildlife 17 management practices chosen by the landowner, 18 based on the goals of their property, which would 19 be, again, begun at the time that the permit was 20 approved on the property. And this also would 21 have an approved three-year window. 22 Some other recommendations that we 23 included in this proposal package from the 24 committee is a recognition that there will be 25 times when management practices simply cannot be .0037 1 accomplished. If New Mexico taught us anything, 2 it's control burns don't happen during droughts. 3 And certainly we would not hold a landowner to 4 such a treatment when situations were adverse. 5 Similarly, there are years when 6 habitat conditions are so good that harvest 7 simply can't be accomplished. So this is an 8 acknowledgment and a recognition of that in the 9 renewal process. 10 Also there will be times when the 11 landowner simply doesn't wish to continue with 12 management practices. And under those 13 circumstances, certainly they could move to 14 another option within the program to alleviate 15 whatever concerns they might have about the level 16 of -- or intensity of their management on their 17 property. 18 And there also will simply be times 19 when there are flagrant violations of 20 regulation. For example, overharvest of deer, 21 taking more deer than they have permits for. The 22 committee recommended an extended period of time 23 in which those landowners should not be allowed 24 back into the program. And our proposal included 25 three years as a starting point or a stopping .0038 1 point. 2 Under the TTT program, one of the 3 agreements that we made with the committee was 4 simply that if applications for TTT permit came 5 on or before November the 15th we could guarantee 6 them that we could review that application within 7 45 days, usually much shorter than that, but 8 certainly within 45 days. After November the 9 15th, our field personnel are pretty well tied up 10 with hunting season obligations and other things, 11 and we can't really guarantee it before that -- 12 within that period of time after that, but we'll 13 certainly do the best that we can. 14 All release sites within the TTT 15 program must have an approved wildlife management 16 plan on the property. And also, as Mr. Cook 17 pointed out, we recommend that we include in this 18 proclamation the opportunity for what we call a 19 minimum impact release, releases of less than or 20 equal to a deer to 200 acres. The acreage 21 covered by the wildlife management plan that's 22 approved on the property which would simply not 23 require any field inspection at that time. We're 24 recommending that it be for one such release on 25 the property. However, that's really not going .0039 1 to affect this year since they can get one this 2 year. We can certainly talk about this further 3 in the future. 4 The committee recommended and we 5 agreed and included in this proposal that all 6 bucks moved between October 1 and February 10th 7 of each year must have their antlers removed. 8 An exception recommended by the 9 committee was that if they were moved between 10 pastures or between properties owned by the same 11 individual, they need not be included in this 12 requirement. And so says the proposal. 13 Also we recommended that the changes 14 in notification be made, along with some other 15 aspects of reporting. For example, a person has 16 to report within 24 hours of trapping but there's 17 no outside on that. If he reports it within 24 18 hours, he's accommodated, even if it's only three 19 weeks later before he actually does any of the 20 business. 21 The committee's interest was in 22 having a warden available, if the opportunity 23 arose, to either inspect trappings or releasings 24 directly. So we proposed that the notification 25 be equal to or greater than 24 hours but less .0040 1 than 48 hours, to allow that kind of schedule. 2 Also, recommendation in the 3 reporting. Currently, all activities on the 4 permit is only required to be reported at the end 5 of the year. Changes that we propose would 6 require that a daily log be kept that leads up to 7 that final report for a warden to inspect, if 8 required. 9 And also, as you recall, when we 10 discussed the marketing requirements for vehicles 11 and trailers under the scientific breeder 12 program, a similar recommendation would be made 13 for TTT movements of animals as well. 14 Also, in an oversight in Chapter 43, 15 all the permits related to Chapter 43 require 16 that animals inadvertently killed during an 17 operation must be kept in edible condition, also 18 must be donated in an appropriate sort of way and 19 receipts kept as documentation of the animals, 20 and we would propose to include that in this 21 proclamation as well. 22 Also, with the exception of 23 Mr. Sansom, I don't think any of the other 24 commissioners were here when we were seriously 25 Sunsetting our regulations. But when we did .0041 1 that, we had just adopted the TTT proclamation 2 and so we did not include it in that Sunsetting 3 process. 4 So we are proposing to do the same 5 Sunset operations. We're moving everything from 6 regulations currently in statute, doing some 7 housekeeping changes to make it readable, and 8 that sort of thing. And that's included in this 9 proposal as well. 10 So we're asking for permission of 11 this committee to publish the TTT proclamation in 12 the Texas Register for public comment, and we're 13 also asking that the committee forward the 14 proposal for the MLD portion of the statewide 15 hunting and fishing proclamation to the full 16 commission tomorrow for consideration and 17 adoption. And if you have any questions, I will 18 be glad to try and answer those. 19 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I have a 20 question for Bob. 21 MR. COOK: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Was there any 23 substantial opposition from the committee to any 24 of the proposals that you're bringing before us? 25 MR. COOK: Commissioner Henry, I do .0042 1 not believe there was. For instance, just to 2 give you an idea, we got into a discussion on the 3 insignificant release, the minimum impact 4 release. And the discussion varied from setting 5 that at a deer per 100 acres up to a deer to 300 6 and something acres. But that kind of 7 discussion. 8 The basic philosophy behind these 9 proposals was, it was very positive. And I did 10 not sense -- well, in fact, you know, and had I 11 sensed any clear -- you know, that any one of 12 these issues was creating a real problem for 13 anybody sitting around the room, I would have 14 specifically brought that out. And there was a 15 time or two where, just to make sure that we 16 understood and knew where everybody was coming 17 from, that I would specifically call on someone, 18 you know, to talk to us about how they felt about 19 that or, you know. But I do not believe there 20 was at all, no, sir. 21 CHAIRMAN BASS: I would echo that. 22 I think -- and I attended both the meetings. And 23 on the one hand, I don't think anybody got 24 everything they wanted in terms of if you had 25 asked them to write their wish list before they .0043 1 attended the first meeting, none of them would 2 have written down exactly what Doctor Cooke just 3 walked us through. 4 On the other hand, I think that 5 everybody left feeling that it was -- that 6 basically they were happy and that they were 7 supportive of what we came out with. So it was a 8 very positive and constructive process. That's 9 not to say there may not be somebody that -- out 10 there -- there will undoubtedly be somebody out 11 there that's not happy, but they weren't at the 12 meeting. 13 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are there any 14 significant potential problems with the idea of a 15 landowner being able to move a deer between 16 tracts that he owns without cutting off the 17 antlers, between the dates mentioned? 18 DR. COOKE: The examples that was 19 used by the committee in discussing that is, 20 there are properties that are high fenced in 21 Texas that has a road through the middle of them 22 where intensive management has been effected on 23 one side of the road and not necessarily on the 24 other side of the road. That would certainly be 25 a null move, as far as we're concerned. .0044 1 MR. COOK: I don't anticipate any -- 2 in fact, it was, again, one of those topics that 3 there was quite a bit of discussion back and 4 forth across the room. Initially, when the topic 5 first came up, I think it's worth noting that 6 the -- that I thought that the majority of the 7 committee was going to propose that we not move 8 bucks at all, not at all. And it kind of evolved 9 from there. And we got around to, okay, well, 10 let's take the horns off of everything during 11 this time frame. And then, you know, again, I 12 think showing the forethought of the group that 13 you've got a landowner and maybe he's got a piece 14 of property a mile down the road or it's 15 separated by the highway in some cases, or maybe 16 he wants to move just some deer from one side of 17 the ranch to other on a big outfit, that that was 18 probably an unnecessary burden. And we'll be 19 watching for problems. 20 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I think that 21 would be one that we'll want to keep an eye on. 22 MR. COOKE: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I don't have 24 any comments, but I -- well, I do have a comment, 25 how impressed I was with the hard work that .0045 1 everybody did, all the groups and the staff. I 2 think if this is an example of a group -- groups 3 coming together and working in a very 4 constructive way to accomplish something, thank 5 everybody. 6 MR. COOK: Thank you. 7 DR. COOKE: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Jerry, when you 9 walked us through the TTT, you mentioned the 10 application date of cutoff with assurance of a 11 turnaround within 45 days, not to say that an 12 applicant couldn't apply after that date, he just 13 would not be guaranteed that we would be able 14 to -- 15 MR. COOK: Exactly. 16 CHAIRMAN BASS: -- respond that 17 trapping season. There was also some discussion 18 of a similar approach to the MLD permit and a 19 cutoff date with an assured turnaround, which I 20 don't believe you walked us through this 21 morning. Did that -- 22 DR. COOKE: We did not include it as 23 a regulation, a proposal in the proclamation, I 24 don't believe. 25 CHAIRMAN BASS: But is the concept .0046 1 still to -- 2 DR. COOKE: The concept is still 3 there. In other words, if an individual waits 4 until -- well, just a second. I do recall some 5 of this. 6 MR. COOK: I believe the discussion 7 in the group was, shoot for something like an 8 August 15th initial deadline and -- 9 DR. COOKE: We could make that 10 change between now and tomorrow, if the committee 11 so desires. And that was discussed, as Bob 12 pointed out; that if they wanted to be guaranteed 13 to have their permits in hand by October 1, then 14 they needed to apply before August 15th. And 15 that was in one of the preliminary proclamations 16 that we passed around. 17 But what we wanted to do for you as 18 commissioners is to provide you a regulations 19 package that governs the program without 20 including every single detail, including the 21 forms and those kinds of things. 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Right. 23 DR. COOKE: Because of the 24 chairman's goal of keeping things nice and 25 simple. But that would not be unreasonable to .0047 1 include in the regulations, I don't believe, and 2 it was certainly something the committee agreed 3 to in both of the meetings. 4 With, again, realizing that we're 5 not providing a deadline for application, but 6 just assuring them that if they want to have it 7 by such and such a time, the only way we can do 8 that is if they apply prior to this time. 9 CHAIRMAN BASS: If you apply after 10 this date, we may get to you but you're at some 11 risk. 12 DR. COOKE: You shall be at risk. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: I think it would be 14 reasonable to put it in the regs, just to put 15 everybody on notice, so to speak, and put some 16 discipline in the process both from -- from both 17 ends. 18 MR. COOK: I agree. 19 CHAIRMAN BASS: So I think that 20 would be good. Any other comments? The Chair 21 would entertain a motion? 22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I so move. 23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So moved. 24 CHAIR BASS: Motion -- oops, excuse 25 me. .0048 1 DR. COOKE: We have two motions. 2 One on the MLD to forward tomorrow and one on the 3 TTT for Commission to publish. 4 CHAIRMAN BASS: So we have first 5 motion on the MLD to go forward tomorrow. Motion 6 on the second. All in favor? Opposed? And 7 commission to publish on the TTT? All in favor? 8 The second, all in favor? 9 (Motion passed unanimously.) 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Good job, 11 gentlemen. I think we've made a lot of 12 constructive progress in this process, and I 13 appreciate it. 14 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: ACTION - HARMFUL OR 15 POTENTIALLY HARMFUL EXOTIC FISH, SHELLFISH 16 AND AQUATIC PLANTS STAFF: JOEDY GRAY. 17 CHAIRMAN BASS: Harmful or 18 potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish and 19 aquatic plants. 20 MR. GRAY: Morning, Mr. Chairman, my 21 name is Joedy Gray, and I'm staff support 22 specialist with the Inland Fisheries Division. 23 Staff is proposing amendments 24 concerning the harmful, potentially harmful 25 exotic fish, shellfish, and aquatic plant rules. .0049 1 These amendments are intended to simplify the 2 permitting process. 3 The first proposed amendment will 4 provide permits for removal of prohibited plant 5 species from public waters. Currently operators 6 of mechanical harvesters have to obtained a 7 research permit in order to remove prohibited 8 species such as water hyacinth and hydrilla from 9 public waters. This amendment will allow them to 10 obtain a permit without having to write a 11 research proposal. 12 The second proposed amendment will 13 allow operators of wastewater treatment 14 facilities to possess permitted exotic fish 15 species provided they are used for water 16 treatment purposes only. 17 The third amendment will require 18 permittees that import, transport, transfer, or 19 sell triploid grass carp to submit annual reports 20 instead of quarterly reports. 21 And finally, the scientific name for 22 several penaeid shrimp species referred to 23 throughout the rules will be corrected to reflect 24 the change in nomenclature. 25 Proposed amendments were published .0050 1 in the Texas Register, and no public comment has 2 been received to date. 3 Staff recommends that the 4 regulations committee of the Parks and Wildlife 5 Commission refer the proposed amendments 6 concerning harmful or potentially harmful fish, 7 shellfish, and aquatic plants as published in the 8 April 28th, 2000, edition of the Texas Register 9 to the full commission for adoption with 10 consideration for placement on the consent 11 agenda. 12 And I'll answer any questions. 13 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: This is 14 entirely to make things simpler and easier to 15 manage for both parties? 16 MR. GRAY: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I'll move 18 approval of the recommendation as presented. 19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Do we have a motion 21 for second? 22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second. 23 CHAIRMAN BASS: All in favor? Any 24 opposed? Thank you. 25 (Motion passed unanimously.) .0051 1 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. Item 6, 2 proposed shrimp management proclamation. In 3 approaching this item, I would recommend and ask 4 permission of Commissioner Angelo, who is 5 chairing the finance committee today, that we 6 combine this topic with Item 6 from the finance 7 agenda, which is the proposed fee increase for 8 the recreational fishing stamp, to accelerate the 9 buyback plan. Because I think most of us feel 10 that this -- these issues are very related and 11 intertwined. 12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I think that 13 would be appropriate. 14 CHAIRMAN BASS: And so with his 15 concurrence, we'll have a combined presentation 16 and discussion at some length on these issues 17 because they're kind of two legs to the same 18 stool. 19 And also, as part of our structure 20 today, we have eight, I believe, speakers 21 representing various constituencies that have a 22 stake in this topic that are available for some 23 public input to the committee at this time. 24 I would stress that, you know, that 25 while there are eight names that are available .0052 1 for public comment today, certainly public 2 comment and input is something that is -- this is 3 not the first nor will it be the last opportunity 4 for it in this process as we consider these 5 proposals. 6 I know Hal and staff has worked 7 through the Shrimp Advisory Committee and in many 8 cases directly with stakeholders heretofore and 9 getting us to where we are today. And, you know, 10 at the most, our actions today would be to go 11 forward with publishing, as the law requires, in 12 the Texas Register, some proposals which trigger 13 a further round of public comment and input for 14 the Commission to ultimately take into 15 consideration prior to considering any rules and 16 regulation changes to become finalized. 17 So this is -- but one small step on 18 a long journey. And public input is something 19 that will have many opportunities, both before 20 and after today, and of course which we're very 21 interested in in helping us understand all the 22 nuances of this issue. 23 So with that, I would turn the floor 24 over to these gentlemen and ask you to please 25 make your presentations, and we'll go from .0053 1 there. 2 MR. OSBURN: Thank you, Mr. 3 Chairman, members. I'm Hal Osburn, Coastal 4 Fisheries Division director. As you recall, from 5 the April committee briefing under your guidance, 6 staff has recently completed a comprehensive 7 review of the shrimp fishery resources in Texas. 8 That review included an intensive outreach effort 9 over the last 18 months. 10 Staff conducted over 30 workshops 11 coastwide with hundreds of stakeholders 12 participating. We did hold six workshops 13 specially conducted by an Asian-American 14 facilitator to better overcome some of the 15 language barriers we identified. And as we enter 16 the culmination of this outreach and review 17 process, we recognize there would still be 18 opportunity for at least three more months of 19 public comments if you choose to go forward to 20 the Texas Register as you noted. 21 Shrimping does occur year round in 22 Texas and there really is no perfect time to 23 finalize rules. But we would note that the gulf 24 shrimping season is closed for the first half of 25 the summer and the bay shrimping is closed in the .0054 1 middle of the summer. 2 At your direction, we will schedule 3 public hearings over a wide period of time in the 4 summer to accommodate both of those periods when 5 there's low shrimping activity. 6 The basic conclusion of our review 7 was that to protect the long-term sustainability 8 of this valuable resource, there was a need for a 9 more proactive conservation management strategy. 10 Limited entry in 1995 was an important point in 11 Texas shrimp management. But it was never 12 designed to be the only management tool needed. 13 In fact, the department's limited entry report to 14 the 76th Legislature in 1999, January, 15 specifically noted the need for a thorough review 16 of all shrimping regulations. 17 With minimal funds available, 18 limited entry buyback has not worked fast enough 19 to reverse problems in the fishery. But in 20 applying a proactive management strategy, staff 21 recognized a need to be sensitive to the social 22 and economic needs of a very diverse shrimp 23 fishing community. 24 Coastwide in Texas, there has 25 developed a large fleet of shrimping vessels, .0055 1 along with processing facilities and other 2 shore-based infrastructure. These entities 3 provide a valuable service by bringing us fresh 4 shrimp and bait. 5 Protecting the historical 6 participants in this fishery must also be a part 7 of our strategy implementation. And, in fact, 8 that is the basic mandate given to us in the 9 Commission's 1989 Shrimp Fishery Management 10 Plan. By balancing biological, social, and 11 economic factors, we can achieve our goal of 12 optimum yield. 13 Staff recognized five basic 14 components of a management strategy to accomplish 15 this. First, accelerate the license buyback 16 program from willing sellers, thus reducing 17 overall competition in the fishery. Next, 18 increase fishery profits by deferring harvest of 19 shrimp until they have reached a larger, more 20 valuable size. More shrimp should also be 21 allowed to spawn to increase annual abundance and 22 ease the long-term threat of overfishing. And 23 optimum yield for other marine species can be 24 enhanced by reducing bycatch. 25 And, finally, where possible, our .0056 1 management strategy should seek to increase 2 harvest opportunities and efficiency. With this 3 management strategy in mind and per the 4 Commission's direction, staff developed some 5 draft proposals for discussion with 6 stakeholders. 7 I need to tell you that your Shrimp 8 Advisory Committee did generally reject those 9 proposals, although there was distraction of 10 alleged data conflicts between the department and 11 the National Marine Fishery Service. Those 12 concerns were unfounded, and fortunately we were 13 able to quickly resolve that and then proceed 14 with a fuller discussion of the original 15 proposals. 16 I want to thank those folks in the 17 industry who were willing to work with us on some 18 tough issues on a short time period. That 19 constructive dialogue allowed us to improve the 20 proposal substantially. In fact, over half of 21 the original proposals have been liberalized. 22 I'm sure it's clear by now that the 23 shrimp fishery has always had, by far, one of the 24 most complex, complicated set of rules of any 25 harvested resource in the State of Texas. Every .0057 1 rule change will have pros and cons. And a 2 change in one part will affect some other part of 3 the whole. The challenge, obviously, is to find 4 the best balance for all of our stakeholders, but 5 even those decisions can be controversial. 6 To achieve the goal the Commission 7 gave us, staff does have a set of proposals to 8 offer for further public discussion. Let me 9 start with some of rule liberalizations that we 10 would suggest. And I think you have a packet 11 which shows specific proclamation language if you 12 need to, to follow in that. 13 These rule liberalizations would 14 allow for greater shrimper efficiency and 15 profits. And we think that these would accrue 16 positively to the industry. 17 Greater profits is also the goal of 18 establishing 100 count as a minimum size limit 19 and redesignating some waters as nursery or bait 20 areas. These changes should better protect 21 shrimp when they are smaller than generally 22 targeted by the fleet. 23 The upper coast bait and nursery 24 areas, the crosshatched purple areas are current 25 nursery areas. Yellow is proposed new nurseries, .0058 1 and light blue is proposed new bait bays. 2 Same legend on our lower coast. And 3 the green area near Corpus Christi is a special 4 nighttime shrimping area in the upper Laguna 5 Madre. No changes are proposed for that area. 6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Hal, tell me again 7 what the legend is of the colors. 8 MR. OSBURN: It is -- crosshatched 9 purple is current nursery area, yellow is 10 proposed new nurseries, and light blue is 11 proposed new bait bays. 12 COMMISSIONER WATSON: And what's the 13 green? 14 MR. OSBURN: Green is a special 15 nighttime shrimping area in the upper Laguna 16 Madre that is current law. No changes. 17 CHAIRMAN BASS: The new bait bay 18 would be -- what was it formerly or currently? 19 MR. OSBURN: It was a major bay. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: So it would become 21 bait only? 22 MR. OSBURN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So there's no 24 change in lower Laguna Madre? 25 MR. OSBURN: The lower Laguna Madre, .0059 1 actually there is a liberalization to allow for 2 bait shrimping in the Brownsville ship channel 3 that -- currently it's not technically allowed in 4 there and we wanted to be sure that they could 5 bait shrimp in there. 6 All of the Laguna Madre, upper and 7 lower, is and has been a bait-only area. Nothing 8 changes there. It's always been a bait-only 9 area. 10 Let me move to the southern shrimp 11 zone. Staff does propose a closed area off of 12 Padre Island out to five nautical miles, where 13 smaller brown shrimp will be allowed to grow 14 before migrating to the deeper waters where the 15 gulf fleet is generally concentrated. 16 We do recommend a close monitoring 17 of this zone to see if our management strategies 18 are being successful there. 19 There are some moderate increases in 20 trawl mesh sizes which should also allow smaller 21 shrimp to escape for harvest later, and changes 22 to the trawl bay and gulf winter season should 23 increase survival of small white shrimp for 24 harvesting larger shrimp in the spring and 25 summer. .0060 1 Let me remind you that the Texas 2 gulf waters, which extend out to nine nautical 3 miles, are not protected by limited entry 4 program, as our basis. That increases the need 5 for other methods of effort limitation, such as 6 these gear restrictions, especially to protect 7 spawning white shrimp targeted inside of five 8 nautical miles. So this would be a zone, the 9 northern zone where the amount of trawls would be 10 restricted. 11 I will tell you that this is similar 12 to current Louisiana law and is actually less 13 restrictive than Florida law, which allows no 14 shrimping inside of three miles on their beaches. 15 Once again, we would recommend a 16 close monitoring to measure the actual impact on 17 the shrimp fishery and other near shore species 18 of these gulf rules. 19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Hal, what 20 were the limits on Florida? 21 MR. OSBURN: Florida has no 22 shrimping allowed inside of three miles -- from 23 their beach out to three nautical miles. And 24 inside their bays, they restrict all of their 25 shrimp trawls to 500 square feet, which is a very .0061 1 small net. 2 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay. Now, 3 the equipment that's used in this five-mile area, 4 is that unique equipment to that area? I mean, 5 if it's displaced from there, can it be used 6 elsewhere? 7 MR. OSBURN: Yes, it can. The 8 trawl -- in fact, the vessels that are shrimping 9 there now with more than two trawls or more than 10 130 foot of webbing could remain in that area 11 just with those gear restrictions. They can also 12 take their current nets, which generally are four 13 nets, up to about a total of about 250 feet of 14 webbing, and they can shrimp outside the five 15 nautical miles, which there are substantial 16 populations of white shrimp and brown shrimp 17 outside of five nautical miles. 18 COMMISSIONER WATSON: What kind of 19 an imposition -- I mean, does it create the 20 difference of a quarter of an inch in the mesh 21 size for the fall bay season? You have to have 22 two different sets of nets? 23 MR. OSBURN: In the fall bay 24 season? 25 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Yeah. .0062 1 MR. OSBURN: We're proposing that 2 you actually have just one net in the fall bay 3 season. Right now they do have two nets. They 4 have an inch and three quarter webbing that they 5 use from October -- August 15th up until November 6 1st, and they switch to a smaller mesh size. We 7 would like to see that net used in the first half 8 of the fall used in the last part of the fall 9 season to -- which would allow some of those 10 small white shrimp that are escaping to the gulf 11 to actually escape, grow up, and be big white 12 shrimp that will be available on the beach for 13 the fleet when they move out with their -- in 14 their two net 130-foot rule. 15 It opens it up to some historical 16 participants. We have had a change in the fleet 17 composition on the beach in this decade. And 18 this is an attempt to be a proactive strategy on 19 a stock of shrimp that's being targeted very 20 seriously right now. 21 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay. It's my 22 understanding that the type of equipment that can 23 get literally up on the beach is prohibited in 24 Louisiana and some other states. 25 MR. OSBURN: The amount of webbing .0063 1 that we're proposing to be on our beach would be 2 identical to what is allowed on Louisiana's 3 beaches out to -- throughout their state waters, 4 which go to three nautical miles. 5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: But prohibited 6 in Florida? 7 MR. OSBURN: Prohibited in Florida. 8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: What about 9 the other Gulf States? 10 MR. OSBURN: Mississippi and Alabama 11 have a fairly short shoreline there. They do 12 have some restrictions that -- primarily they use 13 a count size in their gulf. We are not proposing 14 a count size in the gulf. Their proposed -- they 15 have a -- I believe it's a 68 count, which is a 16 very large -- well, very large shrimp relative to 17 the 100 count. It's larger than 100 count shrimp 18 that they restrict their fleet to targeting 19 there. So I can double-check on exactly their 20 webbing sizes required. But they -- all the 21 states kind of have a different combination of 22 these things, depending on what part of the 23 fishery they're trying to prioritize. 24 COMMISSIONER AVILA: These shrimpers 25 are not having to go invest in new equipment, is .0064 1 what I hear you saying. They generally have both 2 these size nets? 3 MR. OSBURN: Yes. And we would 4 propose a long phase-in time period for getting 5 any new nets. And that's certainly something 6 that we would like to hear public comment during 7 the summer, to find out what is the actual 8 physical fiscal costs to replacing nets or 9 getting new ones. I think we can be -- I think 10 we should be sensitive to that kind of time 11 frame. 12 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, it seems 14 like to me, you know, we have two different 15 challenges. I mean, the gulf and the bays are 16 entirely different. The TEDs that we're talking 17 about work in the gulf but they don't -- I mean, 18 there's no effective TED for the -- 19 MR. OSBURN: I'm sorry, what -- 20 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I mean, 21 there's no effective bycatch reduction device for 22 the bays. 23 MR. OSBURN: Well, let me give you 24 my last slide on the rule changes here, and see 25 if I can answer some of that. The -- we do see .0065 1 the need to protect some of these other marine 2 species. Mandatory bycatch reduction devices and 3 turtle excluder devices are proposed. The gulf 4 fleet right now outside of State waters is 5 required to use a bycatch reduction device. All 6 shrimpers, with some exceptions, are required to 7 use turtle excluder devices. Our basic proposal 8 here is to add the bycatch reduction device into 9 the bay fleet. 10 So through our studies -- and many 11 shrimpers are using them now. We have not heard 12 a lot of opposition to bringing in a bycatch 13 reduction device. And we're going to be very 14 liberal in the definition of that bycatch 15 reduction device to allow for new ideas. And, 16 you know, let's find something that works. 17 Bycatch reduction devices are kind 18 of like limited entry. They're not the answer. 19 They're not the only thing you have to deal 20 with. Right now we're estimating we're only 21 excluding up to about 20 percent of the finfish 22 and invertebrates from our bycatch reduction 23 devices. That's not necessarily high enough to 24 achieve your management goals, but it is a 25 start. .0066 1 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: How much do 2 those reduction devices affect the efficiency of 3 the shrimping? 4 MR. OSBURN: It depends on how the 5 shrimper uses them and the particular device. We 6 have tested one we call the Sea Eagle that has 7 had a zero loss of shrimp. And that's what our 8 data -- and we've tested it on board shrimp 9 vessels. There can be losses of shrimp. There's 10 no doubt about it. 11 There is also a very good loss -- 12 relative to shrimp, a very good loss of finfish 13 and other invertebrates, which are also part of 14 that public resource we're trying to manage. 15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Are there 16 places where both devices would be used? 17 MR. OSBURN: In the federal waters 18 right now, TEDs and BRDs are both required in the 19 gulf nets. They would be required in our State 20 waters as well, because we're basically matching 21 the federal TED rules with our rules, to enhance 22 our enforcement forcibility of that. We 23 currently do that through a memorandum of 24 understanding with the federal agencies and the 25 gulf fleet. So this would just basically make .0067 1 the same law state law and wouldn't need that 2 understanding. 3 But, yes, some TEDs actually are 4 certified as bycatch reduction devices. Those 5 will be included in our list of approved BRDs. 6 So the industry continues to test them. There's 7 the Sea Grant folks, National Marine Fishery 8 Service spending a lot of time and money trying 9 to make an environmentally friendly device. You 10 will hear that the shrimp loss is substantial 11 from some folks because of that. And I would not 12 argue that that can happen. 13 Once again, you're trying to achieve 14 multiple purposes and the -- but using a single 15 device is possible to achieve both goals. 16 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: Does it cut 17 down on the time or does it increase the 18 difficulty of shrimping, when you use the BRD or 19 use both the TED and the BRD? 20 MR. OSBURN: Well, they're 21 mechanical devices, particularly the TED, that 22 can have -- it's a large device in the net, in a 23 rolling sea. Certainly folks have complained 24 about it being dangerous, swinging around in the 25 net. We have no control over the TED laws at .0068 1 this point. Those are federally mandated by 2 Endangered Species Act. So we're kind of going 3 along with that. 4 The BRD, though, is a much smaller 5 device, much safer, easier to handle, and not 6 subject to the same problems as a TED. 7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, I had 8 asked Doctor McKinney about the BRD, and he had 9 someone bring me the model of it. And, you know, 10 I've asked them to describe how it works, which 11 they have done. But in terms of the model and 12 the actual device itself, how does this compare 13 with what would be in -- being used on board? 14 MR. OSBURN: Being used on board 15 where? 16 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Being used in 17 the shrimping. 18 MR. OSBURN: Right now? 19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: If we put these 20 rules into effect. 21 MR. OSBURN: The fish eye is a 22 common one that's used. That's called the fish 23 eye, and it is a common one that's used. 24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: But how does it 25 relate size-wise with what would be used in .0069 1 shrimping? 2 MR. OSBURN: What we would be 3 using? That would be an approved device. 4 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: This exact 5 model? 6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That size? 7 MR. OSBURN: Yes, yes. Or close to 8 it. Maybe slightly larger for the number of inch 9 openings for in the gulf. But it's basically 10 something you could hold in one hand. That is 11 the prototype that we hope to -- the Sea Eagle, 12 which I mentioned, is identical to that, slightly 13 larger but it has a flap over that large eye 14 part. When the water is pushing it through the 15 trawl, the organisms escape. When you slow down, 16 the flap closes so that you have less loss of 17 shrimp. And that's the one where we've seen the 18 least amount of shrimp loss. 19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Where does this 20 device go relative to the net? 21 MR. OSBURN: It goes on top, back 22 toward the bag, between the front of the net and 23 the very end of the net. I think there may be, 24 in your packet, some pictures in here. 25 CHAIRMAN BASS: Ms. Dinkins has an .0070 1 illustration. 2 MR. OSBURN: There you go. Yeah. 3 It's in the briefing book section. 4 CHAIRMAN BASS: Would you explain 5 the rationale of the exception that -- for 6 turtles excluding devices? 7 MR. OSBURN: The exceptions? 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yeah. What is the 9 rationale? What is the genesis that -- 10 MR. OSBURN: No mechanical retrieval 11 device? 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yeah. 13 MR. OSBURN: Basically that's 14 saying, if you're pulling in a net by hand, then 15 you're pulling a small net and not for a very 16 long time, and you will not have had a big enough 17 net in the water long enough to have captured a 18 turtle. Even if you captured a turtle, it wasn't 19 under long enough to have drowned and so you can 20 get it out. So one person pulling in a small net 21 generally can't be a very big -- 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Can't drown a 23 turtle? I take it that that's consistent with 24 the federal? 25 MR. OSBURN: Yes. .0071 1 CHAIRMAN BASS: What percentage of 2 the gulf fleet would that effect? 3 MR. OSBURN: Almost zero. It's 4 really targeted toward the recreational user, 5 recreational net. 6 CHAIRMAN BASS: And our rules would 7 have -- would require a BRD in that instance? 8 MR. OSBURN: No. Our BRDs, if 9 you'll look up there under the exceptions for 10 BRDs, it will be the commercial bait trawl and 11 recreational -- in the recreational trawls, 12 because of the small size. And -- 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Right. 14 MR. OSBURN: And anything under -- 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Those exceptions in 16 the bay will exist for BRDs? 17 MR. OSBURN: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN BASS: In the gulf, there 19 will be no exceptions? 20 MR. OSBURN: No. In the gulf you 21 will also have that exception for a commercial 22 bait license and the recreation. 23 CHAIRMAN BASS: If they're operating 24 a bait license in the gulf. But otherwise it 25 would be -- .0072 1 MR. OSBURN: That's correct. 2 COMMISSIONER HENRY: The comment 3 attributed to Doctor Zimmerman, concerning the 4 lack of conflict between National Marine 5 Fisheries and TPW, is that the official position 6 at this point, of National Marine Fisheries, as 7 far as we know? 8 MR. OSBURN: They have put that to 9 me on their letterhead in writing with references 10 to all of their bosses. And I have spoken to 11 Doctor Hogarth in Florida, who is Doctor 12 Zimmerman's boss, who is Doctor Jim Nance's 13 boss. And we had these conversations back at the 14 early part of this year. 15 And I need to take time to thank the 16 National Marine Fisheries Service. They have a 17 tremendous database. They have been collecting 18 in Texas, in anonymity in a lot of cases, that we 19 have been able to use in our review. And they 20 have supported us in our concerns on the 21 fishery -- 22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I mention that 23 because in some of the letters, information that 24 we received from various individuals, they take 25 issue with this particular -- .0073 1 MR. OSBURN: I understand. 2 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: And I wonder, 3 too, what was the basis for the conflict? I 4 mean, how did that get confused? 5 COMMISSIONER HENRY: That's what I'm 6 trying -- 7 MR. OSBURN: My best answer is it's 8 because us scientists spend too much time talking 9 technobabble. And instead of coming out and 10 saying exactly what we're talking about, we use 11 different definitions like recruitment 12 overfishing versus growth overfishing. 13 Recruitment overfishing, which is the point at 14 which your collapse starts has not occurred. And 15 NMFS and Parks and Wildlife have agreed on that. 16 But you can take his statements out of context 17 and say, there is no overfishing when he's 18 talking about recruitment overfishing, then the 19 statement gains a new life that, well, he said 20 there is no overfishing. We both agree. But 21 that's not the point at which you want to start 22 managing at recruitment overfishing. You want to 23 start it much earlier. 24 There is a number of scientific 25 literature that NMFS has authored that has called .0074 1 for reductions in the shrimping efforts in the 2 bays and the gulf, clearly for economic reasons, 3 for biological reasons. If -- we are confident 4 that we are not in conflict with them at all. 5 COMMISSIONER WATSON: This statement 6 came out after the shrimp advisory? 7 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WATSON: At which time 9 I think -- 10 MR. OSBURN: I think they realized 11 at that point that they couldn't quite stay on 12 that fence anymore. 13 DR. McKINNEY: I think the issue is, 14 scientists always want to leave options open, but 15 when you manage a resource, you need to say one 16 way or the other. And realizing that this was a 17 point that we needed to get past so we could move 18 on to do something constructive. Hal and 19 National Marine Fishery sat down -- and believe 20 me, there are many times we don't necessarily 21 agree with National Marine Fishery. But this is 22 a time -- we need to clarify this one way or the 23 other so we can either address the issues and get 24 the signs straight or move on to how do we solve 25 the issues? And I think they did that. I wish .0075 1 we had done it earlier, but that's when it 2 happened. 3 MR. OSBURN: The other part of the 4 strategy, as I mentioned earlier, we would 5 propose September of 2001 before you move mesh 6 size and BRD proposals to be sure we have time in 7 the fleet to adapt to those things. And I would 8 look forward to more discussion on that. 9 The strategy of the licensed buyback 10 acceleration, obviously you can enhance that with 11 the fee increases, and Doctor McKinney will be 12 briefing you after my presentation. 13 That does complete staff's list of 14 proposals. But I would like to speak briefly to 15 the future. Even as we debate these proposals, 16 we know that creating the perfect set of shrimp 17 rules is an ongoing process. We believe we can 18 build on this foundation. We know we need to do 19 a better job of communicating with all of our 20 stakeholders. We hope that the knowledge -- the 21 knowledge base of folks that are in the room 22 today, and others, can continue to be utilized to 23 help us refine conservation rules in the future. 24 Staff recommends close monitoring of 25 our goal status as we strive toward economic .0076 1 benefits in harmony with ecological principles. 2 We think that we can measure ecological success 3 in this fishery with economic benefits. Catch 4 rates going up, sizes of shrimp going up, the 5 abundance of shrimp going up means greater 6 profits for our shrimpers. That's our goal. 7 And, finally, these rules assume 8 that poachers are not the only beneficiaries. We 9 would recommend enhancing law enforcement, 10 monitoring compliance and conviction rates. And 11 that will be essential to assure success. 12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: How big a 13 problem is poaching right now? 14 MR. OSBURN: I would defer, I guess, 15 that to Jim Robertson. We have anecdotally heard 16 of a lot of problems from different parts of the 17 fishery. But the exact amount is something that 18 we think we need to do a better job of getting a 19 handle on. I don't know if Jim wants to speak to 20 that. 21 MR. ROBERTSON: Jim Robertson, 22 director of law enforcement. As far as the 23 shrimp rules as they're currently in place, 24 compliance is really relatively high. We do run 25 across early, late, out of season, large, small .0077 1 trawls. What these rules do is adds more -- or 2 different trawl sizes, mesh sizes, different ways 3 to use those things. So it's a little bit more 4 complicated. 5 I do think that we can handle it to 6 protect the resource. But as far as compliance, 7 compliance is fairly high at the present time. 8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So you're 9 saying that poaching right now does not represent 10 a large percentage of the catch? 11 MR. ROBERTSON: I don't believe so, 12 under current rules. 13 MR. OSBURN: Mr. Chairman, that 14 concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to 15 answer any questions prior to making any -- 16 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: One of the 17 complaints that we've gotten in communications is 18 that the Shrimp Advisory Committee was not 19 adequately used or communications weren't 20 adequate. Is that a valid complaint? Is that 21 what you were addressing when you said you were 22 going to try to do better on communications? 23 MR. OSBURN: I think we can always 24 do better on communication. I will tell you, our 25 strategy -- I mean, the Shrimp Advisory Committee .0078 1 is a -- is dominated by industry members. 2 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Right. 3 MR. OSBURN: And we have had a lot 4 of communication with them. We chose to go out 5 to the wider group of stakeholders, including 6 those Shrimp Advisory Committee members, and did 7 hold meetings with them and did get their input 8 as a way of basically trying not to bias it, our 9 outreach to an industry focused group. Because 10 the Shrimp Advisory Committee was industry 11 focused. 12 And perhaps one of our flaws is that 13 we didn't sooner expand the scope of the Shrimp 14 Advisory Committee to be more comprehensive so 15 that we could have used them more as a working 16 group earlier on. 17 So, I mean, I acknowledge that 18 flaw. When we brought the Shrimp Advisory 19 Committee in, we had done our scoping, and I 20 don't think had left out any group, even those 21 represented by the advisory committee. It was a 22 comprehensive package that we gave to them and it 23 was fairly overwhelming. We acknowledge that. 24 And probably in a perfect world, I would have had 25 more time. But we did get good feedback from all .0079 1 of the stakeholders. I guess the point is, not 2 agreeing with a particular stakeholder is 3 different than not taking input. 4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Right. With 5 respect to what the action is proposed here 6 today, could you elaborate a little bit on what 7 the process will be if this goes forward and the 8 Commission tomorrow approves going -- publishing 9 these rules as presented? What opportunity does 10 the -- do the stakeholders, the industry, 11 whatever, have to affect the situation between 12 now and the time they're finally adopted? 13 MR. OSBURN: We would enter into our 14 normal department formal outreach methods. We 15 would propose some public hearings. Right now, 16 my staff has a suggestion of eight different 17 locations, four of which would be held -- four or 18 five on a coast-wide basis in late June, and 19 another three to four in late July, so that we 20 kind of break up the public hearing process and 21 provide folks two different chances in case 22 vacation or shrimping takes them away. 23 And we would continue to gather 24 written comment that we receive and then it -- 25 depending on the department's wishes on other .0080 1 mechanisms for reaching out and getting 2 stakeholder input. But we would have all summer 3 long to basically collate the different public 4 comment. 5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So the plan 6 would be to maximize opportunity for input? 7 MR. OSBURN: Absolutely. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: The handout that we 9 have that notes the changes from the initial 10 proposals, these are changes that are after the 11 Shrimp Advisory Committee met? 12 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: And at the time that 14 they disagreed with the proposals? So these are 15 changes subsequent to that meeting. Has the 16 Shrimp Advisory Committee had an opportunity to 17 comment on the changes or the package as you're 18 presenting it today, in a formal or informal -- 19 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: -- formal or 21 informal body? 22 MR. OSBURN: Well, what we've tried 23 to do is take a group of stakeholders, and 24 through the -- since the Shrimp Advisory 25 Committee met, as we've identified areas to make .0081 1 changes in, we've been faxing those out to the 2 Shrimp Advisory Committee and other leaders and 3 asking them for direct input. So we have not got 4 them back together in a meeting process. 5 CHAIRMAN BASS: But there's been 6 informal, so to speak, input from those people? 7 MR. OSBURN: Yes. My staff has been 8 holding meetings. We've been having real 9 constructive dialogue on getting some very 10 intense feedback from the different leader 11 groups. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: And obviously if we 13 were to go forward with publishing this for 14 further comment between now and August, there 15 would be opportunity for a formal meeting of that 16 body? 17 MR. OSBURN: Staff would be open to 18 any group that wants to have us meet with them. 19 And we would also look to you and Executive 20 Director on guidance for how to fulfill -- bring 21 other stakeholders into the process. 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. Go ahead. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I wanted to 24 ask you, Mr. Osburn, about the changes between 25 the original proposal and what you've now brought .0082 1 before us. Because it looks to me like there are 2 some that are rather significant. Such as in one 3 version it had 50 heads per pound as the proposal 4 and another it's 100 heads per pound. And then 5 it looked like there was some noticeable changes 6 in the proposal on the mesh size limits. And I 7 just wondered if you could give us maybe four or 8 five of the major modifications that you made 9 between the original proposal and now that you 10 have handed out for review and comment, even 11 though not officially. 12 MR. OSBURN: Right. And you 13 recognize that a 50 count minimum size is a 14 larger shrimp than 100 count? 15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. 16 MR. OSBURN: So those represent 17 liberalizations. Kind of back to the, you know, 18 we're in this for the long-term and wanting to 19 find rules that had the most conservation benefit 20 with the least impact on the industry, is our 21 goal now. And so those -- basically we had 22 people convince us in the industry that this was 23 not that important at this time; that we would 24 still get a conservation benefit. 25 For example, if you have a mesh .0083 1 size, when we retain the inch and three quarters 2 mesh size in November, that's going to exclude a 3 lot of those small shrimp. So forcing them down, 4 keeping the 50 count on there, would have been 5 perhaps somewhat duplicative of that, and the 100 6 count would have allowed for a reasonable harvest 7 with reasonable escapement. 8 So, you know, these are judgments 9 between a lot of competing interests. And we do 10 not have a magic formula. But we were instructed 11 by our executive director to be sensitive to 12 their needs and I think my staff did that. 13 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Well, I saw 14 those two. But what are some others where you 15 liberalized the proposal from what you originally 16 had? 17 MR. OSBURN: Probably one of the 18 most significant was to offer the industry a 19 winter bay food season in February, March, and 20 April that they had not had before, on the upper 21 coast; primarily because we see, once again, as a 22 comprehensive package, some of the conservation 23 benefits on the white shrimp on the beach that we 24 will be protecting with the gear restrictions 25 allows for an additional harvest in the bays. .0084 1 And that would -- that winter season on the upper 2 coast is going to allow additional harvest of 3 white shrimp. It would probably not be possible 4 unless you were getting some conservation on 5 those white shrimp when they're spawning on the 6 beach. So it gave us an opportunity to look at 7 an -- you know, the folks wanting to make -- 8 wanting to make some money during that time 9 period. They have all the way until May 15th 10 before their food season opens. They have never 11 had that season. We do recommend monitoring it. 12 We only offered it as a half a night because of 13 the concerns about the number of shrimp that 14 could be taken during that time period. And that 15 is a liberalization. 16 The liberalization of not having a 17 count size on the bait shrimp -- or not having a 18 requirement to keep 50 percent of your bait alive 19 is also an efficiency liberalization, where folks 20 can bring in a better quality shrimp. 21 It does -- it does give some more 22 incentive to the abuse of that bait license. And 23 staff has been criticized for that con. But the 24 pro is certainly real in that it provides -- they 25 can catch them probably easier, faster, keep them .0085 1 in a higher quality and make more money. And 2 that's part of our mandate, too. 3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Could you 4 suggest one or two proposals that you've brought 5 us today that are the most difficult for the 6 industry people, which one or two might be the 7 ones they would be most concerned about? 8 MR. OSBURN: I know that on the 9 upper coast, the gear restriction takes some of 10 the boats that have been built recently. They're 11 very large, expensive boats that had spent a lot 12 of time on that beach. It will make them 13 reassess how much net they can use or where they 14 will use those big boats. And I'm sure that 15 that's going to be problematic to that 16 industry -- that portion of the industry. 17 I'm not convinced that they cannot 18 still be successful economically with those 19 vessels in waters outside of that five nautical 20 miles, as they do in other parts of the gulf. 21 I know that the -- that the gulf 22 closure in this -- off of Padre Island is going 23 to have some local displacement of some folks who 24 maybe slipped into that zone and took shrimp 25 that -- and they were going to be complaining .0086 1 about those shrimp migrating down into Mexico. 2 Of course, our response has been, shrimp also 3 migrate up from Mexico. But the two beach areas 4 are new restrictions. I will tell you that this 5 department has never regulated the gulf shrimp 6 fishery outside of pretty much their general 7 desire on a particular rule. We've accommodated 8 that. And there's not been a lot of conservation 9 rules forced upon them in the gulf. This would 10 be that first set. 11 In the bays, I see -- I see folks 12 probably not wanting to go up to a larger mesh 13 size because of the loss of shrimp; that they're 14 not sure that they're actually going to catch 15 them when they escape and grow and are available 16 next week. They would prefer the -- you know, 17 the shrimp in hand. And that -- so the mesh size 18 there. 19 And I suspect some of the nursery 20 areas, folks are going to -- going to recall that 21 at some point during the year they did catch good 22 shrimp in that area and they would not want to 23 lose that opportunity. But that comes to mind. 24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN BASS: If I could, maybe we .0087 1 could ask Doctor McKinney to walk us through the 2 issues concerning the recreational side of the 3 equation, and then maybe get some opportunity for 4 some comment from the representatives of the 5 public. And we can come back after that with 6 further discussion or questions on these areas. 7 DR. McKINNEY: Yes, sir, Mr. 8 Chairman, I'll be glad to do that. If we'll pull 9 up the next item on the buyback. 10 Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm 11 Larry McKinney, Senior Director for aquatic 12 resources, Parks and Wildlife. This item, as the 13 chairman noted before, we pulled up out of the 14 finance committee for discussion in conjunction 15 with the shrimp rules, these statewide hunting 16 and fishing proclamation license buyback. 17 Just note, these rules have been put 18 out for public comment and your recommendations 19 today would move this forward to the Commission 20 on Thursday for implementation and action. 21 A summary of what the proposal is, 22 licensed buyback options. We had briefed the 23 Commission before. Our goal in the buyback 24 program is to retire up to 50 percent of the 25 shrimp licenses and as part of this proposal, we .0088 1 did include the ability to include crab and 2 finfish licenses as well in the buyback. But 3 certainly our focus has been and would continue 4 to be a retirement of the shrimping licenses. 5 Basically what the proposal does, it 6 increases the saltwater stamp only. It does not 7 increase the fishing license, but for only those 8 folks that buy the saltwater fishing stamp 9 separately. 10 It is set for five years, it is in 11 place for five years. It sunsets after that with 12 our efforts to meet our 50 percent goal. 13 Generates some $7 million over that period. And, 14 again, we would have the ability to, as the 15 market dictates and situations go, to retire 16 other licenses as well. But the focus is on the 17 shrimp. 18 Some of the issues that you will 19 hear and probably have heard about, I'll quickly 20 cover those. One is a concern, and we've talked 21 about that from the beginning, the concern that, 22 well, if you put a surcharge in place, it will 23 just continue afterwards and they will always 24 find use for money. To address that issue, the 25 proclamation would sunset this proposal in 2005. .0089 1 A desire for clear and measurable 2 goals to see if we're making progress toward what 3 we're trying to achieve. And as we stated 4 before, our goal is to retire 50 percent of those 5 licenses. We would certainly propose, and at the 6 pleasure of the Commission, more often, but 7 obviously annually report on where we are in 8 achieving that goal and moving forward. 9 Concerns about the fact of linking 10 conservation efforts and rules and regs to shrimp 11 management, a topic of which Hal has been talking 12 about. As Hal mentioned, it does need to be a 13 combination of these things. Our buyback program 14 has not moved as quickly as it should. This is 15 part of an effort to accelerate it. But during 16 that period, we certainly need to look at efforts 17 to not impact only shrimp but obviously what this 18 is aimed at. Some of it is the impact of 19 shrimping on other fisheries, recreational 20 fishing and others. 21 We will continue to look through 22 this process for other funds, sources of federal 23 funding that we can do to maximize -- to increase 24 our ability to buy those licenses back and reduce 25 the burden on the recreational fisheries. We .0090 1 will continue to do that. 2 A summary of comments. Since the 3 proposal was published in the Texas Register, 4 we've had very little comment, 12, actually, 5 comments during that time. Seven for and five 6 against. As I reported to you in our briefing 7 before, we had had almost a thousand comments. I 8 think that was primarily due to our outdoor 9 media, writing stories about it and those types 10 of things. We had quite a few comments. 11 What I did was -- have done here is 12 extract some information from the ongoing 13 saltwater fishing survey. At our last briefing 14 we had about 400 responses. We now have all 15 those responses in, some 887 responses. So I 16 thought it would be instructive to take a look at 17 our recreational anglers' feelings in a more 18 structured context that has some significance to 19 it, a local significance to it. 20 And basically these were the 21 results. They were asked: Would you support a 22 $1 increase, 71 percent; a $2 increase, 62 23 percent; a $3 increase, 65 percent, with a margin 24 of error of five to six percent around that. So 25 basically the comments have held pretty much as I .0091 1 reported to you at our earlier briefing, 60 to 70 2 percent in support of proceeding with the 3 program. 4 Plus our staff recommendation would 5 be that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission 6 adopt the changes as noted here on the slide. 7 And I detailed it at the bottom there. 8 Certainly, Mr. Chairman and members, I'm open for 9 any questions or comments that you may have at 10 this time. 11 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yeah. I'd like to 12 ask about the 50 -- the goal of 50 percent. How 13 did we come to that, and what do we -- I mean, 14 obviously it's a nice, round number. But how do 15 we -- how do we come to that goal and what do we 16 see that achieving versus some other level? 17 DR. McKINNEY: I'll let Hal expand 18 on it. But basically we looked back at where our 19 fleet was at a certain point in time, and where 20 we thought that it would be sustainable. And 21 that's basically the number we picked. But if 22 you want to give any details on it. 23 MR. OSBURN: We have resisted trying 24 to put a number out there because we think so 25 many things, that the way the fleet operates, .0092 1 efficiency changes can change where you really 2 want to be. 3 So the 50 percent does match up with 4 the reduction in catch rates of about 50 percent 5 since the '70s. And that reduction in catch 6 rates has gone along with the increase in 7 effort. So as you're reducing effort through 8 buy-backs, you are increasing -- you should be 9 increasing catch rates. And if you got back to 10 the catch rates in the '70s, whether that's going 11 to actually correspond with half as many 12 shrimpers, it's only speculation now. But that 13 would be at least that amount of money would give 14 us some point to go and measure that. 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Let me ask you about 16 reduction of license versus reduction of effort. 17 To date, as I recall, we've retired some 15, 16 18 percent of the licenses. I think in previous 19 discussions, much harder to measure, but you told 20 me that you felt that that probably represented a 21 reduction in effort, somewhere between five and 22 ten percent. Would you expect that same ratio of 23 license reduction to effort reduction on a whole 24 if -- at the 50 percent level? Or what's -- it's 25 really an -- effort is what has a conservation .0093 1 impact, not actual license, so -- 2 DR. McKINNEY: That's what we're 3 going to be looking for. You know, our staff to 4 this point says that for every three license we 5 retired, even to this point, it's two boats, 6 basically. For every three licenses, we've 7 gotten about two boats. 8 And a big part of the licenses -- 9 and, Hal, step in here if I'm misstating here. 10 When we put the limited entry program into place 11 and kind of set up what's the definition of 12 limited entry, it was a pretty liberal package of 13 that definition, who was in the fishery. In 14 fact, as my staff told me, it was broader than 15 what we originally conceived. We wanted to start 16 more narrow so we could have an effect more 17 quickly. And I that's one of the things, I 18 think, that has contributed not only to the fact 19 that we haven't made more progress on the 20 buyback, and also the fact that we need to look 21 at the conservation rules because we started with 22 a fairly liberal package of who was in that 23 limited entry program. 24 So what we have bought back now has 25 been, I think, those peripheral but marginal ones .0094 1 what may have -- you want to call it speculated. 2 We're holding those licenses in speculation of 3 buying back and those types of things. So as we 4 now cut those down, I think we're going to start 5 getting into the meat of the industry folks that 6 really have been trying to make a living at this, 7 and doing it, and trying to look for a way out. 8 So I gave you a long answer. I think my point 9 is, as you would expect, as we buy more into the 10 real fleet our ability to reduce efforts and 11 number of boats on the water, we'll enhance 12 increase. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: This is, in some 14 sense, a different way of asking the same 15 question. I've had some significant players and 16 I guess some people that you would say have, in 17 many respects, been in leadership roles of the 18 recreational fishery and their conservation 19 efforts over the last ten or 20 years, espouse 20 that their personal belief is that the buyback 21 really does not represent a conservation effort 22 in that what will ultimately happen is that fewer 23 license holders will simply be able to have a 24 larger share of the same pie. They will be 25 financially healthier and -- no doubt about that, .0095 1 and that those goals will be met, but that 2 basically the commercial fishery would be the 3 primary beneficiary, and that the recreational 4 fisherman won't see any significant conservation 5 efforts or results from a buyback simply because 6 the State -- the pie won't reduce in size, it's 7 just fewer people having to share it. How would 8 you-all respond to that issue? 9 DR. McKINNEY: My response would be 10 to a certain extent, you know, that's correct; 11 that as you buy a license back and you reduce the 12 group that's left, they're going to become more 13 efficient, more profitable, and that's fine. But 14 then you reach the point where there is only -- I 15 mean, only so many boats can operate. You can 16 only have so many boats out there, for one thing, 17 taking advantage of the fleet. 18 And as they become more profitable 19 and sustainable, then a lot of the pressures 20 begin to disappear. For example, right now, I 21 think, at least my view is that one of the main 22 problems we have is the fact that because of new 23 technologies with peelers and all that, that you 24 could take any size type of shrimp, where 25 historically we didn't do that. It didn't .0096 1 happen, it was not very profitable. 2 And a lot of the regs that Hal are 3 talking about are things that the shrimpers 4 frankly did voluntarily back when they could, 5 frankly, afford to do that, do take an action to 6 increase their profits and things like that. 7 So I think to a certain extent, yes, 8 it is that. But as that fleet becomes profitable 9 and reduced in size, you're going to get those 10 benefits. It can't help but accrue. Now, you do 11 have to keep conservation measures into place. 12 You're not -- I don't think it was ever 13 contemplated that you say, okay, we have 500 14 shrimpers, go do whatever you want to do, type of 15 thing. So it's going to be a combination of 16 those things. 17 But when you reduce the number of 18 boats that you have, as we're doing, for example, 19 two boats for every three licenses, you're going 20 to have some conservation benefits. It's going 21 to accrue. I wish we could tell specifically 22 what they are. But some of that we're going to 23 have to try. 24 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Well, is not 25 the -- through reduction of the number of nets .0097 1 you can use in nautical miles going to reduce the 2 efforts as well by definition? 3 DR. McKINNEY: Oh, clearly those 4 do. And, of course, a number of those rules had 5 to do with the gulf fleet, for which we have no 6 limited entry program. I think that's the 7 important thing to note what we're talking about 8 in the bay industry. That's the only place we 9 have the limited entry. That's the only place we 10 have the opportunity to take actions that are 11 not, quote/unquote, regulatory. In the gulf 12 fleet, we don't have a limited entry program. 13 The only tool we have for conversation and for 14 taking actions for where that industry affects 15 other industries is the regulatory one. It's the 16 only tool we have. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is it 18 realistic to think that this amount of money will 19 actually make it possible to buyback enough 20 licenses and to effectively cause some reduction 21 in effort? With the cost of equipment that is 22 being represented to us, and boats and everything 23 that go with it, is it a realistic thing to think 24 that we'll have enough money to actually effect 25 the impact? .0098 1 DR. McKINNEY: Well, we're in kind 2 of new ground. There's a certain element of that 3 that we can't give you the assurance. We think 4 that's the case, from what we've seen. I would 5 tell you from, Mr. Angelo, since we're both from 6 West Texas and I've been in the farming business 7 and know what -- and there's a lot of analogies. 8 Believe me, there's a lot of analogies between 9 farming and shrimping, in particular, 10 overcapitalization and dependence on rain and all 11 that type of thing. I know that if my father had 12 that opportunity about ten years ago, he'd have 13 been gone, in reality, just because -- but there 14 was no option there. And, of course, the 15 difference being is, what we're talking about 16 here is a public resource where the extraction of 17 the shrimp from that resource can have an effect 18 on lots of other users, recreational or 19 endangered species or whatever. So my impression 20 is yes. I think if we can -- combined with some 21 other actions, frankly, that the legislature, and 22 talking with staff, are contemplating about 23 joining our buyback program with access to 24 retraining programs and other State and federal 25 programs to help do that, I think it very much .0099 1 will. Because a lot of the folks there are very 2 much like my father and those types of things. 3 They have all -- they're totally invested in it. 4 They have no escape route. Any kind of escape 5 that would help set them up to move into 6 something else, at least for their families, 7 as -- could be important. That's the only answer 8 I could give you. 9 MR. OSBURN: And to follow up on 10 that, I mean, one of the -- it's nice to be on 11 the cutting edge. One of the down sizes is, you 12 don't have a real clear vision of the future with 13 lots of examples. 14 We think this model is worth trying, 15 you know. And you shoot -- I mean, you bring 16 money into a situation. We think it's got to 17 help. The alternatives were just unpalatable in 18 terms of -- for example, Florida passed a 19 constitutional amendment through a public voting 20 process to ban, you know, their shrimp fleet. 21 And you had thousands of people just displaced 22 instantly by that. And, you know, they absorbed 23 the social and economic chaos. 24 We don't think that's the right 25 management strategy. If this amount of -- we .0100 1 think this amount of money will make a 2 significant dent, and the fleet will -- and then 3 we'll move on from that point and see what else 4 we need to do. That's our strategy for you. And 5 we would like to look at it on definitely five 6 years as how, where we're doing on our goal. 7 DR. McKINNEY: I think even before 8 that, the accountability, we'll be back as often 9 as the Commission would like, but certainly 10 annually to tell you where we are and to seek 11 your advice on where we should go even at that 12 point. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Let me ask you, 14 currently under the current statute, there's a 15 portion of the commercial license that's 16 dedicated for buyback. I know in some past years 17 we have supplemented that fund, at times rather 18 significantly with funds from other sources, 19 mitigation funds from legal action that -- 20 against various pollution ^ incidents?, 21 et cetera. But if you just look at the funds 22 generated from the commercial license sales, 23 what's the annual budget, so to speak, for 24 buyback? 25 MR. OSBURN: For buyback? It's only .0101 1 about 160,000, 170,000 a year. There was a cap 2 of $25 on -- per license back in 1995. At that 3 particular legislative action, that was their -- 4 the legislature said, do $25. It did not 5 preclude the Commission from taking action. 6 DR. McKINNEY: And part of the 7 proposals that Hal is looking at is an increase 8 in that commercial -- to supplement that 9 program. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Now, the fiscal note 11 on the $3 proposed increase in the saltwater 12 stamp is a million four, so that basically is 13 almost a tenfold increase in -- some ninefold 14 increase in the budget for the buyback. 15 In the proposals from the commercial 16 side, there are some fee increases there as 17 well. Is the intent that some of that money 18 would -- or certainly I guess it could be also 19 spent -- be contributed to the buyback pool. Is 20 that part of the current proposal or -- 21 DR. McKINNEY: We would add that on 22 top of the 1.4. I think where we've left that a 23 little bit open is that as we move forward with 24 these or some version of these rules, there's 25 some law enforcement issues and other things that .0102 1 will be -- we need to make sure we provide the 2 funds to do. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: There are some other 4 financial needs, I guess. 5 DR. McKINNEY: There are. But 6 they're all directly related to these proposals. 7 But we would certainly want to use as much of 8 that as possible. And I think as I briefed you 9 at one time, our goal would be to have -- I would 10 love to have $2 million a year to shoot. But 11 that's out of our original -- we've come down 12 from that estimate a little bit, one, because 13 clearly we have some needs with this money from 14 law enforcement and others. Also -- and there's 15 a bit of projection that we've asked Jayna 16 Bergdorf to do for us as far as there will be 17 some -- one of the positive sides of this is, if 18 we put that surcharge on the -- just the 19 saltwater stamp, it will likely move people to 20 our combo, where it isn't there. So that's a 21 plus side. So that's -- 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any other questions 23 at this time, or should we move to get some 24 public comment? 25 Mr. Watson, do you have something .0103 1 else you want to add at this time? We do have 2 some people that we have asked to give us some 3 comment, to get some flavor and some issues from 4 the affected constituent groups. And I 5 appreciate you-all agreeing to help us out here. 6 I'm just going to go in order of how they are 7 listed on the page, no particular order. 8 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Mr. Chairman, 9 before we begin, will we follow the same basic 10 rules or -- 11 CHAIRMAN BASS: I believe so. We'll 12 ask you, if you could, to -- there are eight 13 people whose names I have here at this time, too. 14 If you would limit your comments to three 15 minutes. And obviously, if the Commission has 16 some particular questions to ask of you, that 17 would be in addition to your three minutes. 18 If you could try to organize your 19 thoughts and comments to some three minutes so 20 that we can try to keep on some type of schedule, 21 we sure would appreciate that. And obviously if 22 you would try to keep your comments constructive 23 in nature, we would appreciate that as well. 24 MR. SANSOM: I will keep time on the 25 clock in front of me so you can see it. And when .0104 1 the light turns yellow, that means your time is 2 up. 30 seconds. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: To help you know 4 that you need to summarize or get anything in 5 that you want to be sure you cover. 6 C.L. Stanley, would you start things 7 off for us. Mr. Stanley is the chairman of the 8 Shrimp Advisory Committee, and obviously this is 9 not the first hour that he's put in on these 10 issues. 11 MR. STANLEY: No, sir, it's sure 12 not. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: And we appreciate 14 that. 15 MR. STANLEY: Thank you, Mr. 16 Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you 17 for this opportunity to -- I have a few 18 statements and I have to say that I have some 19 serious disagreements with some of the previous 20 comments. 21 In the executive summary that we 22 received, the blue book here, on the -- for the 23 Shrimp Advisory Committee meeting on April the 24 26th, we received it a week earlier. One of the 25 initial statements was that after several months .0105 1 of intense research, that the staff found that 2 there was serious overfishing, including a 3 continuing long-term downward trend in population 4 of adult spawners. And the letter said that was 5 something like 30 percent. 6 In the Nance report, Dr. Jim Nance, 7 in his report to the Shrimp Advisory Panel of the 8 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in, I 9 believe it was January of this year, his report, 10 he stated that the stocks were healthy, referring 11 to the Gulf of Mexico as a whole. The stocks 12 were healthy and there was no sign of overfishing 13 of any kind. And when the committee met, most of 14 us had already seen before we got this report of 15 serious overfishing that has some 25 16 proclamations, of which I believe resulted in 33 17 rule changes. 18 And we also had, at the request of 19 industry, a statistical analysis from Sea Grant, 20 the A&M Sea Grant, in which they disagreed with 21 staff's interpretation of the long-term trends. 22 And what those long-term trends did not take into 23 account were rule changes that occurred in 1990, 24 we had the most comprehensive set of rule changes 25 since -- that's occurred since 1979, especially .0106 1 with inshore fishery. 2 In 1995 we implemented the limited 3 entry program and we had a reduction in vessel -- 4 a significant number of vessel reductions 5 occurring at a level. In 1972 there were a total 6 of 5,301 bay and bait licenses. In 1983 -- and 7 this is the actual year, the period 1982 to '84, 8 that number reached 8,052. 9 Then in 1995 at the time limited 10 entry was there, it dropped to 3,627. Three 11 minutes isn't very long, so I'm -- the Shrimp 12 Advisory Committee met once in 1998. We did not 13 meet in 1999. We had one week's notice on this. 14 And we were totally bypassed. 15 And a rule here from Mr. Ribchers or 16 the letter from him, he states, this committee 17 was created to advise the department on 18 preparation and formulate the rules and 19 regulations necessary to carry out the Shrimp 20 Management Plan. And the advisory committee 21 wasn't included in this plan at all until the 22 April 26th meeting. 23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Mr. Stanley, 24 are you a bay shrimper or a gulf shrimper? 25 MR. STANLEY: I'm a bay shrimper. .0107 1 Yes, sir. I've been shrimping for 25 years. 2 Before that, I taught school. 3 COMMISSIONER HENRY: You indicated 4 that A&M board disagrees with the staff report 5 and the direction of long-term trends. 6 MR. STANLEY: Yes, sir. Using -- 7 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Would you 8 expand on that a bit, please? When you say -- 9 MR. STANLEY: I can't understand -- 10 when they get into what that -- what they 11 referred to was the trends and the sizes of 12 shrimp and so forth that were coming up. I would 13 have to have them explain that, as far as me 14 trying to explain exactly what their statement 15 was. But they got the opposite result, opposite 16 of what -- 17 COMMISSIONER HENRY: When you say, 18 they, sir -- 19 MR. STANLEY: They being Sea Grant. 20 Mr. Rush was there -- and primarily was the one. 21 He's their statistical man, and that's what he 22 came up with. But as far as trying to explain 23 how he arrived at it, it's over my head. I'm not 24 an analysis man. 25 COMMISSIONER HENRY: You must have .0108 1 pointed this out at the meeting? 2 MR. STANLEY: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER HENRY: And what was -- 4 MR. STANLEY: Well, he testified at 5 the meeting. He got up and presented -- 6 COMMISSIONER HENRY: And was there 7 just general disagreement between the two sides 8 on this issue? 9 MR. STANLEY: Just a general 10 disagreement on which way the trend was headed, 11 whether there was a threat of imminent collapse 12 of the fishery or whether the fishery was 13 healthy. And granted, mother nature has kind of 14 kicked us in the teeth the last couple of years. 15 Fisheries are kind of like the dry land farmer. 16 If we don't get freshwater inflow, rainwater and 17 freshwater inflow, we have poor shrimp crops. 18 And that also applies for recreational fishery, 19 all marine life. 20 Our bays are dependent on freshwater 21 inflow, and if we don't have it, our bays reduce 22 their productivity, accordingly. Thank you very 23 much. 24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Mr. Stanley, 25 could you characterize your view of the economic .0109 1 situation for the shrimping industry? 2 MR. STANLEY: Economics? We're like 3 the farmer. We're dealing with a perishable 4 product. And it's subject to supply and demand. 5 And prices bounce around. 1997, we had good 6 prices, made a little money, although we were 7 having dry summers, and the shrimp crop wasn't 8 anything to brag about. But the money -- the 9 profit was there because the price was up. 10 1999, the price was down. Louisiana 11 had a good crop in the spring and the price was 12 down. We had the best recruitment in Galveston 13 Bay that they've had since the 1970s of brown 14 shrimp. But because of lack of freshwater 15 inflow, they just virtually disappeared, they 16 just -- predation is what gets them. I won't say 17 they die. Something eats them. 18 But we didn't see very many shrimp 19 leave. They stayed small. And the price wasn't 20 any good. It wound up being a poor year. The 21 dry summer created a very poor white shrimp 22 crop. White shrimp are more dependent on low 23 salinities or almost -- a lot of freshwater 24 inflow does best for whites. We didn't have it. 25 We had a poor fall season as well in Texas. .0110 1 Last year inshore had one of the 2 worst seasons in a long time, especially the 3 lower coast -- or the middle coast. 4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I don't 5 believe we're going to be able to help with the 6 freshwater -- 7 MR. STANLEY: We need to blow up 8 Lake Livingston. But, yes. Mr. Chairman, if 9 you'd just let some of that water out of Fort 10 Worth up there, let it rain a little bit. But as 11 far as Galveston Bay is concerned, Trinity River 12 is our key inflow. And they're taking so much 13 water up that, that does come down now. 14 And when I was in college, they 15 stated that someday water would be more valuable 16 than gasoline. Now, that was when gasoline was 17 very cheap. And you know, we -- I don't know 18 that we'll see it, but I think our children and 19 our grandchildren will see times when that may be 20 coming true. The demands for fresh water is 21 going to be critical. And without it, our bay 22 systems are in trouble. 23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Mr. Stanley, 24 what's your view of the need or lack of need for 25 any conservation or even rule changes? .0111 1 MR. STANLEY: Well, I look to our 2 neighbors to the east in Louisiana and how they 3 fish there, and it's almost virtually wide open. 4 It's closed when they close. And when it's wide 5 open, they go after it. They keep that crop -- 6 and it's relative to all shrimp. When the volume 7 reaches its largest volume, they go after it with 8 almost no holds barred. 9 We don't do that. I don't want to 10 see that. I think there needs to be some 11 fine-tuning. I think there can be some 12 fine-tuning. There have been a lot of concern 13 about the pressure on little shrimp in the bays 14 and much of this was regulatory changes in the 15 '90s. Closure of the gulf beach at this time of 16 the year forced boats, hundreds of -- several 17 hundred boats to come into the bay that never 18 fished in the bay except in the fall. 19 And the time change, we could shrimp 20 under one license or the other, 24 hours a day. 21 You have bigger shrimp at night than you do in 22 the daytime, this time of the year, or a little 23 later in the year than this, in June and July. 24 So when we went to the two o'clock 25 cutoff, this forced boats -- you had a choice, .0112 1 either go hunting, hope you could find something 2 by two o'clock or you go after what's there. And 3 the option -- at the end of the day, we have to 4 look at the bottom line on the ticket. So we go 5 after what's there. And -- 6 But as far as any -- I don't think 7 there needs to be any major rule changes. I 8 think there can be some fine-tuning, and this is 9 what I would like to see. I would like to see us 10 sit down this winter when we're not working and 11 try to fine-tune this thing. It could be done 12 without -- you know, to the satisfaction, I 13 think, of all concerned. 14 Any other questions? 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you, sir. I 16 guarantee, if I could make it rain, I would, and 17 I'd probably be chairman for life. 18 MR. STANLEY: I refer to your area 19 up there because the Trinity River is so 20 important. 21 CHAIRMAN BASS: I understand. 22 MR. STANLEY: Thank you, sir. 23 CHAIRMAN BASS: All right. Jimmy 24 Evans, if you would come forward, and Ms. Tammy 25 Tran, if you would be prepared to come up after .0113 1 Mr. Evans gives us his comments. 2 MR. EVANS: Hello, folks. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: How are you? 4 MR. EVANS: Well, I'm fine. 5 CHAIRMAN BASS: You're a bait dealer 6 from Freeport. 7 MR. EVANS: Yes, sir. I have a 8 store, Beach, Bait, and Tackle in Freeport, 9 Texas, for many years. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Almost a member of 11 our Shrimp Advisory Committee. 12 MR. EVANS: Yes, sir. I think I've 13 solved this fishery problem. I think we just 14 need to hold one of these meetings weekly or 15 every day. 16 CHAIRMAN BASS: Not many boats in 17 the bay today, are there? 18 MR. EVANS: There wouldn't be very 19 many out today, I don't believe. That's a 20 lighter side. 21 The more serious side. I don't know 22 what the crowd would look like today if there was 23 no shrimp fishery yesterday. I do believe that 24 the shrimp fishery could collapse. Collapse 25 means that it could happen overnight, not in a .0114 1 long length of time. We -- I believe that the 2 Parks and Wildlife is one of the -- State of 3 Texas Parks and Wildlife is one of the finest in 4 the United States. I think that we need to 5 continue to abide and listen to these people. 6 The meetings -- I had some health 7 problems back on advisory committee several years 8 ago, so I didn't make a few of them. I was aware 9 of all of the meetings that were going on in the 10 area. I was invited to several of the public 11 meetings that I didn't make. 12 And I've been aware of this, the 13 buyback program has came. I'm not satisfied that 14 the buyback is a complete -- is a satisfactory 15 answer. I don't think it's -- I don't think it's 16 going to do its job. I'm kind of like you, 17 Chairman, a while ago. I think I know the 18 answer. If you and I had the last two licenses, 19 and I said, I'm fixing to sell, I don't think 20 there's any doubt that you would not catch all 21 the shrimp that the 100 percent caught. 22 The answer to the 50 percent that's 23 there, I don't think that -- I don't think that 24 we know what percentage of the shrimp that they 25 would catch. Okay? I don't think we know that. .0115 1 So I still think that we need to have stricter 2 rules to keep this fishery from collapsing. The 3 shrimp fishery can collapse. 4 I did not vote with the advisory 5 committee to vote against all of those 6 procedures. I actually think that the original 7 proposals were things that we probably need to do 8 with this fishery. One of them was, particularly 9 that -- not particularly to salvage a fishery, 10 but from the other area of the turtles is the 11 fact that the closure on the southern coast out 12 to ten fathoms would be a significant improvement 13 to the turtle coming back. And some day if that 14 turtle did come back, then we probably would not 15 have turtle excluder devices in any of the nets. 16 That's what we're -- that's the goal, is to try 17 to get it back. 18 The answer from some of the turtle 19 people on a scale of one to ten, how significant 20 would this closure be, they answered nine. And 21 only two percent -- less than two percent of the 22 shrimp are harvested in that area. And they 23 could also be harvested later in deeper water. 24 So that was a good proposal that we just blanket 25 voted down. We came to a meeting to vote it .0116 1 down. I didn't. I vote for those proposals. I 2 didn't say before the meeting that I was going to 3 come in here and vote against all of these 4 proposals, just for the sake of voting against 5 them. Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions for 7 Mr. Evans at this time? Appreciate your time and 8 commitment. 9 MR. EVANS: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Ms. Tran? And Kevin 11 Daniels, if you'd be prepared to speak next. 12 Good morning. I guess it's still 13 morning. 14 MS. TRAN: Yes, it's still morning. 15 Good morning. 16 Mr. Chairman, distinguished 17 Commissioners, and Mr. Sansom, can you hear me? 18 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yes, we can. 19 MS. TRAN: My name is Tammy Tran and 20 I'm going to be short and sweet. I'm serving as 21 a licensed counsel for the Vietnamese 22 Asian-American Shrimper Association in Texas, 23 which is also known as VAASA. This association 24 represents 60 percent of the Vietnamese-American 25 shrimpers in Texas. We also represent the .0117 1 related industries in the Vietnamese community, 2 such as medical, legal profession, insurance, 3 automobile dealerships, restaurants, supermarket 4 owners. Meaning that if the shrimpers collapse, 5 we all will collapse. 6 The Vietnamese community in Texas, 7 as you all know, consists of 400,000 people, 8 since the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. We also 9 have been requested by over 2 million Vietnamese 10 Americans in the United States, all over the 50 11 states, to be here to submit to the Commission 12 the following point. 13 As I have indicated, I am going to 14 be very short and sweet and all of the questions 15 I would defer to my cocounsel, Mr. Robert Miller 16 from Locke, Liddell & Sapp. 17 First, the Vietnamese-American 18 shrimpers have not been taken seriously. That is 19 our point. 20 Second, the proposed regulations, 21 even the revised ones, lack scientific data; and, 22 therefore, are very faulty. 23 Thirdly, we have not been invited to 24 participate in the discussions of the proposed 25 regulation, and that is the fact. From the very .0118 1 beginning, we were left in the dark, until 2 April. We were only informed of the proposed 3 regulation in April within the -- in the last 4 meeting. 5 We suggest the adoption of more 6 formal procedures for the Shrimp Advisory 7 Committee and its interaction with the staff and 8 the department. We feel blindsided by the 9 proposed regulations. We cannot do business this 10 way. 11 We would like to have more members 12 participating -- to be on the advisory board. 13 In conclusion, we would love to work 14 with the Commission and the Texas Parks and 15 Wildlife department. We want to achieve the best 16 result for the shrimping industry while 17 preventing overfishing. But it has to be both 18 ways. 19 Mr. Chairman and distinguished board 20 members, last April, April 30th of this year, 21 marked the 25 years of the Vietnamese American in 22 this country after the fall of South Vietnam. 23 For 25 years, the Vietnamese American shrimpers, 24 together with over two million people, have 25 contributed sweat, blood, and tears to be of this .0119 1 country and this state. 2 According to the Rice report in 3 1996, of the Rice University, we make the top 4 contribution in the State of Texas. That is the 5 fact. 6 MR. SANSOM: Thank you, Ms. Tran, 7 your time is up. 8 MS. TRAN: Yes. I will be short. 9 This is our second homeland. Scientifics have 10 proven our achievements; therefore, we submit 11 that. This is time to take us seriously. I 12 thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Questions? 14 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Mr. Chairman, I 15 have two. You indicated that you felt that there 16 was a lack of scientific data to support what 17 particular conclusion? 18 MS. TRAN: Right. Supporting the 19 conclusion that, you know, the shrimping industry 20 is about to collapse. I am not an expert. And 21 our expert has submitted comment. I am only 22 legal counsel. But from what I saw and from what 23 I read, there are conflicting evidence concerning 24 whether the shrimping industry is about to be 25 collapsed. And we submit that this is not. And .0120 1 we would like -- we submit that this 2 distinguished commission should delay adopting 3 the regulation so that we would have time to sit 4 down and work out a fair plan. 5 COMMISSIONER HENRY: You also 6 indicated that the group that you represent was 7 not invited to participate. Would you -- 8 MS. TRAN: Not enough. For example, 9 we submit a letter to the staff and asking the 10 names of the people who were invited previously, 11 before April of the year of 2000. We were 12 informed that only two Vietnamese, and they are 13 not shrimpers. For example, if you ask me about 14 shrimping, I cannot know. I always have to refer 15 to my expert. They are Texas shrimpers. 16 And by the way, the new generation 17 of the Vietnamese Texas shrimpers are very 18 well-educated. So we feel like we were left in 19 the dark. We have not been invited. 20 COMMISSIONER HENRY: You also 21 indicated that either you were not represented or 22 was it a lack of representation on the advisory 23 committee. Is this the same point that you're 24 making? 25 MS. TRAN: Both. Recently, for 25 .0121 1 years -- and this is the first time, you know, 2 you know, because of the outcry of the public, 3 there is only one Vietnamese woman has just been 4 invited to the board. And by the way, I'm very 5 impressed because she's woman. 6 COMMISSIONER HENRY: And, finally, 7 you said that you felt blindsided. Are you 8 suggesting a conspiracy or something like that? 9 MS. TRAN: No. No, sir. I would 10 never dare to make that allegation. I would like 11 to see more participation. 12 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Thank you. 13 MS. TRAN: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Ms. Tran? 15 MS. TRAN: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN BASS: Let's have a little 17 decorum. We don't need to applaud and boo here. 18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: These are 19 proposed regulations. And I hope that if the 20 Commission does forward them for public comment 21 through the Texas Register, that your 22 organization will file comments. But while 23 you're here today and we are considering these 24 proposed regulations, could you share with us 25 which particular ones your group finds most .0122 1 objectionable, and also why? 2 MS. TRAN: Well, with respect to 3 that issue, I would like to refer to my 4 colleague, who is a very known colleague, 5 Mr. Robert Miller from Locke, Liddell & Sapp, who 6 will answer those questions. And we also shall 7 submit all of our comments in writing. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Mr. Miller, would 9 you come forward and answer Ms. Dinkins' 10 question, if you would, please? 11 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we 12 actually have Ms. Thuy Vu who is on the 13 Shrimper's Advisory Board who is the one who is 14 our technical person who would answer that. She 15 may be outside. So -- 16 MS. TRAN: Thuy Vu is the next 17 generation of the Vietnamese shrimpers and we're 18 very proud of her. 19 MS. VU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 20 committee members, for allowing me to be up here 21 to address my comments. 22 As you asked Ms. Tammy about which 23 proposal we are opposing and which one we are not 24 opposing, as of this date, I'd like to get more 25 meetings out throughout the industry before we .0123 1 give you that comment. I know that when we sit 2 down to talk, there's going to be some dispute 3 between us. But we haven't had enough meeting 4 scheduled throughout the coastal. 5 You know, when I asked, is there any 6 meeting been scheduled for our people, especially 7 our people, they said there was four. But when I 8 asked them, they said they didn't know anything 9 about all these proposals coming out. The first 10 time I learned about this was back in April -- a 11 week before the April 26th meeting. That's when 12 I started putting my time out, calling everybody 13 along the coast and ask them what's their input 14 on this proposal. And a lot of them said that, 15 really, there might be some fine-tuning need to 16 be done but we need more time. And you have to 17 understand, this is our busiest time of the 18 year. We have to be out there making money. 19 Like all the people out there standing, they 20 should be out there making money for their 21 family. But they're not. They have to come here 22 to show that their livelihood could be in your 23 hand. It's up to you to decide what we were able 24 to do. 25 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any other .0124 1 questions? 2 MS. VU: And we also request that if 3 you can, before any public hearing to give us 4 time to the winter months to do more study. 5 Because when it turn into public, our people are 6 busy and a lot of time we may not be able to get 7 all the comments in and it's not fair for us to, 8 you know, be trying to work and trying to take 9 care of our -- the regulation and stuff like 10 that. 11 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Did we not 12 understand that some of the hearings this summer 13 would be during closed season? Is that not -- 14 MR. SANSOM: Is that correct? 15 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is that not 16 correct? 17 MS. VU: No, sir. Because 18 Mr. Howell said that the bay closed from July to 19 August the 15th. But some of them have a gulf 20 license and they have to go out there if the bay 21 is not producing what they can make. 22 And the gulf, right now, the gulf is 23 closed but we are allowed to go to Louisiana to 24 shrimp, to keep up our bills. 25 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: What months are .0125 1 best for your groups? 2 MS. VU: After January. 3 And also, I wanted to comment on 4 Mr. Howell trying to refer us to, like -- he said 5 the Florida closure and the Louisiana closure. 6 Shrimp are very unique. It depend on the -- 7 mother nature. Every state, the water is 8 different. We cannot take Texas and apply to 9 Louisiana. There is no way. And if you not out 10 there shrimping, there is no way you will 11 understand the trend and the movement of the 12 shrimp. 13 I can address one. Like the closure 14 of the brown from the South Padre Island or, I 15 guess, Corpus Christi Bay down to Brownsville. 16 If you close that area, what you do is you're 17 going to -- all those shrimp will migrate to 18 Mexico because there's no bay down that area. 19 And also the shrimp migrate from Louisiana -- if 20 Louisiana have a good season, we going to have a 21 good season. If Louisiana don't have a good 22 season, we're not going to have a good season. 23 Last year, the bay was the worst 24 season we ever had. But we had a pretty good 25 season out of the gulf because the shrimp migrate .0126 1 from Florida, Mississippi, downward. And then 2 when we address the issue on the white shrimp, 3 you have to understand how the white shrimp 4 spawn, which Parks and Wildlife already done a 5 pretty good job of closing whenever they need 6 to. We don't get to shrimp at night at all. 7 During the year, from January till 8 February the 1st of -- let me go back. December 9 the 15th to February the 1st the inshore gulf are 10 closed for the shrimp spawning. And then from 11 February the 1st, it's open back up until May the 12 15th, or which sometime if the department feel 13 like the shrimp is moving out to be spawning, 14 then they will close it. Like this year, instead 15 of May the 15th, they went ahead and closed it on 16 May the 11th, which we understand. And then it's 17 closed until July the 15th. 18 All that time, the shrimp spawn. 19 And then after that, if we don't shrimp in that 20 area, it's all going to be gone, migrate down to 21 Texas. Because white shrimp are different. Like 22 Mr. Sandy said, it need fresh water and -- you 23 know. And in the bay, there is enough regulation 24 out there for them already. 25 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you, ma'am. .0127 1 Any further -- hello, Mr. Ryan. We saved a seat 2 for you. 3 Any other questions at this time? 4 Thank you, ladies, very much. 5 MS. VU: Thank you. 6 MS. TRAN: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN BASS: I appreciate your 8 help this morning. 9 Mr. Kevin Daniels, if you would come 10 forward. And, Richard Morrison, if you would be 11 prepared to speak after Mr. Daniels. 12 MR. DANIELS: Thank you, Mr. 13 Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I'm really 14 here to comment about the licensed buyback 15 program. But before I do that, I'd like to make 16 a comment about the -- 17 CHAIRMAN BASS: If I could, would 18 you let us -- I know what group you're with and 19 what constituency you represent. But if you 20 would, just for the record -- 21 MR. DANIELS: Right. I'm Kevin 22 Daniels and I'm the executive director of the 23 Coastal Conservation Association. 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. 25 MR. DANIELS: Thank you, .0128 1 Mr. Chairman. Before I make a comment on the 2 licensed buyback program, I would really like to 3 comment on some discussion that I've heard here 4 about being left in the dark and not communicated 5 with. I'll tell you that our organization, as a 6 stakeholder, was communicated regularly with by 7 the staff at Parks and Wildlife. Now, while it 8 may be true that this -- the briefing book with 9 actual regulations were only recently published, 10 over the last 18 months, we've had numerous 11 opportunity to comment on ideas that were being 12 considered. So only in our experience have we 13 seen that -- I think they have done the job they 14 were supposed to do. 15 I'd like to really comment again 16 about the -- about your consideration, about the 17 Commission's consideration of an increase in the 18 saltwater stamp for the purpose of shrimp license 19 buyback. We like the buyback idea. Let me 20 preface all this with that. But our belief is 21 that initially the buy-out of shrimp license in 22 and of itself has less conservation benefit than 23 is believed, I think, generally by the public. 24 At the very least, it's going to be difficult to 25 quantify that. The reality is that most .0129 1 shrimpers possess two licenses, both a bait and a 2 bay license, and this buy-out plan really 3 proposes the purchase of only the license, not 4 the vessel. So there's really no direct 5 one-to-one reduction of shrimping effort. 6 To buy back a license is no 7 guarantee that we'll see less shrimping, or more 8 importantly, that we'll see fewer and fewer 9 shrimp caught. The reality is, as you pointed 10 out earlier, what we're really doing is reducing 11 the competition for the remaining people in the 12 industry. And you can bet that those are many in 13 the fishery -- in the industry will catch the 14 same amount of shrimp, if not more perhaps. 15 They'll just do so with less competition. 16 Perhaps they will catch them quicker, which is a 17 conservation benefit, because perhaps they will 18 have to trawl less hours, and also they will 19 probably reduce the operating costs. Hopefully 20 that would be a benefit. 21 But at some point in the future, 22 when enough licenses and vessels have been 23 retired to a point where the operator won't be 24 able to catch all the shrimp available to him, at 25 that point, they can be profitable to their own .0130 1 level of satisfaction. 2 Because of this reality, because of 3 the reality of the lack of a direct one-to-one 4 reduction in effort, what we would really like to 5 see are some strong conservation measures, which 6 is what we're seeing right now, what we're 7 talking about. 8 I think that the proposed regulation 9 changes that Parks and Wildlife staff has made 10 are the kind of things that we're going to -- I 11 think that we will see to help ensure a healthy 12 fishery for quite a time to come. 13 Really, what we'd like to have 14 happen is to directly link this license buy-out, 15 the spending of those dollars to some 16 conservation measures. Only when those measures 17 are in place would you trigger the funding 18 mechanism to buy out. That way, I think that the 19 recreational fisherman is somehow assured that 20 he's going to approve his dollars right now to 21 spend his money now, but he'll have some real 22 conservation benefit sometime in the future. 23 I'd like to compliment the staff on 24 all their work, not only on this license buyback 25 but to really make some of the tough and .0131 1 courageous recommendations that they're making in 2 light of the criticism they're receiving. And we 3 feel that most of this criticism is really sorely 4 incorrect. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. I think 7 part of your comments are something that we're 8 certainly in agreement with, which is that the 9 buyback program and the increased funding of it 10 from recreational fishermen is part and parcel of 11 the same issue as the proposed conservation 12 measures that would impact the commercial 13 fishery, which is why we're talking about two 14 agenda items and two different committees at the 15 same time. You know, unfortunately they're not 16 on exactly the same time line in terms of when 17 they would go into effect, and therefore, when 18 they need to be finalized and -- 19 MR. DANIELS: Mr. Chairman, we look 20 at the buyback program as a tool in the whole 21 package. 22 CHAIRMAN BASS: I think the 23 department would agree. 24 MR. DANIELS: Absolutely. I mean, 25 the buyback in and of itself is not enough. It .0132 1 will help. And I think it will not only help 2 from a conservation aspect, it will also help 3 economically for those who want to exit the 4 industry. 5 But without the conservation 6 measures it's an incomplete opportunity to really 7 fix something. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: I think what we've 9 heard from staff this morning is that they would 10 agree with you in principle. 11 Questions or comments from the 12 Commission at this time? Yes, ma'am, 13 Ms. Dinkins. 14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I just wanted 15 to make sure that I understood what you were 16 saying, Mr. Daniels. When you say you want to 17 see us link spending the dollars to conservation 18 measures, is what you're saying very simply that 19 you would recommend that we not adopt one without 20 the other? 21 MR. DANIELS: I think you have a 22 timing problem right now. You obviously are 23 going to be asked to consider for approval 24 tomorrow on an increase in the saltwater stamp. 25 You will not be able to -- or you will not be .0133 1 discussing or considering these regulatory 2 conservation changes, really, until I believe the 3 end of August. So we've kind of got the cart 4 before the horse here. And I think what we would 5 like to see is to -- let me give you an example. 6 If you consider tomorrow and approve that 7 recommendation to increase the saltwater stamp 8 fee, that you may hold that money, almost like a 9 dedicated fund, restricted fund, and not really 10 release those dollars until certain conservation 11 measures were approved and in place. 12 Now, that may happen on August the 13 31st, it may not. And I believe the staff and -- 14 could develop a series of trigger points, whether 15 that be -- let's say there's four key items that 16 have to occur before the license buyback would 17 proceed. For example, let's say that the 18 approval of BRDs in the bay, for example, is 19 one. Perhaps a certain percentage of nursery 20 area. I believe that area is proposed to be 21 increased. Maybe that would be another. 22 But, I mean, a series of trigger 23 points that would occur that would then allow 24 that money to be released, you know, for the 25 buyback program. And what that really would do, .0134 1 I think, is give the recreational fishermen -- 2 the recreational fisherman I think is willing to 3 stand up now and say, we'll pay our fair share. 4 We would just like to see in 90 days when you're 5 considering the other part of this that nobody 6 loses their will. The recreational fisherman is 7 going to participate. I think the other 8 participant in this fishery needs to participate, 9 too. And I think they're willing to do that. 10 They're asking to give up a lot in many cases, 11 and we understand that. 12 I think that today is an example -- 13 and, really, since the Shrimp Advisory panel 14 meeting, and all that occurred there, from that 15 point to today I think the staff has displayed 16 their willingness to work on an issue-by-issue 17 basis with the industry, and I think they will 18 continue to do that. 19 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Kevin, you 20 would agree that the buyback is one of the tools 21 in our toolbox, as you've just said? 22 MR. DANIELS: Absolutely. 23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: And you 24 wouldn't want us to defer using one of our tools 25 just to, you know, inordinately wait on getting .0135 1 something else done? 2 MR. DANIELS: No. I think that what 3 I'm trying to say is, I believe that if you 4 choose to move forward on it -- we think it's a 5 good idea. We just would have much rather 6 seen -- the conservation measures, we would 7 rather see the regulatory changes occur first and 8 then the recreational fishermen step up to the 9 plate and contribute whatever dollars he can or 10 is willing to do. 11 I think the scenario I'm trying to 12 describe is one in which you go ahead and you 13 approve the -- an increase, but you basically 14 restrict those dollars, you designate those 15 dollars to be used only when certain other things 16 occur. And that may be 90 days, it may be 17 longer. But, you know, you basically would be 18 building a fund to use for the buy-out program. 19 I'm not suggesting that you delay. 20 I think that we've waited long enough to take 21 some of these actions, and I think we should 22 probably do that. 23 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you, Kevin. 24 Any other questions? We appreciate 25 you helping us out and being here. .0136 1 MR. DANIELS: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN BASS: Richard Morrison. 3 And Ms. Pam Baker from EDF, if you would be 4 prepared to speak after Mr. Morrison. Good 5 morning. 6 MR. MORRISON: Good morning. No. 7 Good afternoon. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: It is afternoon 9 now. It is afternoon. 10 MR. MORRISON: Thank you for 11 allowing me to come today, Mr. Chairman, members 12 of the Commission. I'm Richard Morrison and I'm 13 representing the Calhoun County shrimpers. I 14 want to try to keep my time as short as I 15 possibly can. 16 The Calhoun County shrimpers are bay 17 shrimpers out of Calhoun County. They shrimp 18 along the mid coast. What I'm here on their 19 behalf asking for today is a postponement of 20 publishing these rules in the Texas Register. 21 You've heard today things from 22 Mr. Osburn. He said if it was a perfect world, 23 he would have liked to have had more time. He 24 said he knew it was a short time frame. It's a 25 very complex set of rules. Those were his words, .0137 1 and we agree with all of that. 2 Today y'all have the power to 3 postpone the publishing of these rules to let the 4 shrimp industry have time when they're not 5 working, when they don't have to be out there 6 every day. You have the power today to postpone 7 that so they can come together, they can martial, 8 they can get their ducks in a row, they can 9 discuss this with every member of the industry 10 that wants a meaningful discussion on the issues, 11 and come to a resolution that the staff and the 12 industry can live with. We want to -- 13 Mr. Stanley said it perfect, is, 14 we're not opposed to regulations. We believe 15 that some of these regulations are possible, but 16 they need tweaking. We believe that the buyback 17 program is a good program. Based on the science 18 out there today on fishery management, if you 19 have a buyback program and a comprehensive set of 20 rules, that's about the best there is out there. 21 And you already have a comprehensive set of rules 22 that governs the bay industry and the bait 23 industry. Putting forth the buyback program, 24 letting it have a chance to work is something 25 that we believe will work. .0138 1 But in light of that, we also say 2 that we want to have time to look at these 3 regulations. We have to have time to review 4 them. 5 Everyone in the industry -- I 6 shouldn't say everyone. Most in the industry 7 rely on the shrimp management council -- or the 8 shrimp management committee, as their 9 representatives. When the shrimp management 10 committee got the blue book a week or so before, 11 it sent a shock wave through the industry that 12 Parks and Wildlife was trying to do too much with 13 too little of a time for everyone to get a look 14 at it. And all we are today is, we're just 15 asking Parks and Wildlife to don't publish these 16 rules, because once you publish them in the Texas 17 Register, that just sets the clock ticking on 18 deadlines and everything else, and it puts a lot 19 of pressure on the industry. And we would ask -- 20 MR. SANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Morris. 21 MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir. We would 22 ask Parks and Wildlife today, you the Commission, 23 to postpone those until December. Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions? 25 Thank you for your time. Appreciate .0139 1 you being here. 2 MR. MORRISON: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Ms. Baker. And 4 Ms. Wilma Anderson, if you would be prepared to 5 speak after Ms. Baker. 6 MS. BAKER: Good afternoon, Chairman 7 and members of the Commission. My name is Pam 8 Baker. I'm a fishery biologist with a public 9 interest group called Environmental Defense. I 10 live in Corpus Christi. 11 The negative trends in the health of 12 our shrimp stocks reported by Texas Parks and 13 Wildlife and confirmed by the National Marine 14 Fishery Service are disturbing to our group. The 15 persistent excessive harvesting of very small 16 shrimp and size of a drop in the number of shrimp 17 escaping from bays to offshore spawning grounds 18 provide a serious warning. 19 Similar overfishing trends have been 20 documented among fishery stocks worldwide that 21 have ultimately declined or even collapsed. 22 We recognize that pollution, habitat 23 degradation, fresh water inflows, and even 24 weather can affect shrimp and other marine life. 25 However, we agree with Texas Parks and Wildlife .0140 1 scientists that current overfishing of shrimp is 2 a serious problem that demands action. We 3 believe that the Texas Parks and Wildlife review 4 and outreach process over the past year and a 5 half or so involving the shrimp industry, 6 environmentalists, and coastal citizens has 7 resulted in some proposals that are worthy of 8 serious consideration. I'll very briefly give 9 you our views. 10 We oppose the proposed minimum count 11 limits because they can increase the waste of 12 shrimp; and bag and possession limits and 13 restrictions on the number and sizes of nets used 14 can cause inefficiencies and drive up fishermen's 15 costs without helping shrimp stocks. 16 Second, we support rules that 17 designate no shrimping zones and reduce 18 incidental damage. We fully support year-round 19 disclosures and designated zones where special 20 protection is needed. The proposed southern 21 shrimp zone will protect mating sea turtles and 22 spawning white shrimp. In fact, we recommend 23 that this closure be also applied to the northern 24 shrimp zone. 25 We support proposed closures of bays .0141 1 designated as nursery habitat to enhance juvenile 2 shrimp survival, and seasonal closures designed 3 to protect specific life stages, migration paths, 4 or special needs of shrimp and other marine life 5 species. 6 Finally, we support gear 7 improvements that help reduce the bycatch of 8 fish, turtles, and small shrimp. 9 The rules we support further 10 restrict areas available to shrimping and may 11 increase the cost of shrimping. However, we 12 believe the benefits will exceed the cost because 13 the rules will help improve the long-term health 14 of the marine ecosystem, including shrimp 15 stocks. 16 In addition, they will allow shrimp 17 to be captured when they are larger and more 18 valuable. 19 Third, we recommend a plan for 20 sustainable and profitable shrimping. 21 Overfishing of shrimp and the industry's high 22 level of bycatch and environmental damage is 23 caused by overcapitalization and excess effort. 24 The amount of shrimp available could be harvested 25 by fewer fishermen trawling significantly fewer .0142 1 hours, thus reducing their fishing costs and 2 opportunities to capture unwanted fish, turtles, 3 and bycatch. 4 The proposal to raise additional 5 money by increasing the fee for the sports 6 saltwater fishing stamp and industry license fees 7 could speed up the buy-out of shrimp, fishing 8 licenses -- 9 MR. SANSOM: Thank you, Ms. Baker. 10 MS. BAKER: Okay. 11 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any -- were you 12 finished? 13 MS. BAKER: No. I had a few more 14 sentences. 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: If you have one or 16 two sentences to close with -- 17 MS. BAKER: I'll just summarize. In 18 summary, we urge the Texas Parks and Wildlife 19 Commission to move forward with public hearings 20 this summer. We believe a delay could 21 unnecessarily risk the health of our coastal 22 ecosystems and our public resources. 23 We also recommend that regulators 24 and coastal stakeholders take this opportunity to 25 speed up the license buyback program and begin .0143 1 work toward ending excess shrimping effort and 2 overcapitalization. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER HENRY: What 5 organization were you representing again? 6 MS. BAKER: Environmental Defense. 7 CHAIRMAN BASS: Formally known as 8 Environmental Defense Fund? 9 MS. BAKER: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Name change, same 11 organization. Correct? 12 MS. BAKER: Right. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any other 14 questions? 15 Thank you for bringing us your 16 perspectives. We appreciate your time and 17 effort. 18 Wilma Anderson. And Brian Seibert, 19 if you would be prepared to speak after 20 Ms. Anderson. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, 22 Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm 23 Wilma Anderson, executive director of the Texas 24 Shrimp Association. We represent the offshore 25 trawlers -- I'm not with the bay industry -- and .0144 1 the shore side facilities that service that 2 industry. We have approximately 963 gulf 3 trawlers that belong to our association. 4 I'd like to hit on some things that 5 I haven't heard in here today. Shrimp is a 6 species utilized by five states and the country 7 of Mexico. It's in a very high demand for its 8 value. It is not just a Texas species. It 9 belongs to everybody. 10 If we lost our Texas crop under a 11 yearly renewable resource such as shrimp, it 12 would be replenished the following year. You are 13 not in a decline. You are not in a collapse. 14 I serve on the Shrimp Advisory Panel 15 for the Gulf Council. I work with Doctor Nance, 16 and we look at the shrimp stock every year. 17 We're not in a state of overfishing, nor are we 18 approaching overfishing. The shrimp stock has to 19 drop below the parent stock for two years in a 20 row to be in trouble. We have not seen that. 21 The long portfolios that we're going 22 to look at on these offshore trawlers on these 23 closures that's proposed for the gulf will be 24 devastating. For those of you not familiar with 25 the gulf trawler, to build a new one today ranges .0145 1 anywhere from 450,000 to 650,000. It's a very 2 large investment. 3 To close waters when we're already 4 being penalized with testimony TEDs and BRDs in 5 closed areas, the lenders that's sitting with 6 these boat loans have hefty loan portfolios that 7 could go into trouble, taking the bank and the 8 fisherman into bankruptcy. 9 We are very heavy committed in our 10 schools, cities, and counties on the ad valorem 11 taxes that supports and our leases that we pay. 12 One vote in the 600,000 category may pay 18 to 20 13 thousand dollars in ad valorem taxes. We're a 14 very substantial economic base to these fishing 15 communities. 16 In your shrimping industry, you have 17 all ethnic groups that has the ability to come 18 in, work hard. Under the free enterprise, they 19 can own a boat. It is very discouraging to take 20 a look that none of these proposed rules was 21 there a regulatory analysis prepared to show any 22 benefit or any impact that these rules would 23 impose. I own vessels. I own three. I know 24 what that five-mile closure is going to do in the 25 Gulf of Mexico. It's going to be devastating. .0146 1 Fishing gear will have to be 2 changed. We will have to change from four nets 3 to two 65s. You're talking approximately $4,000 4 a boat for that change. 5 On sea turtles, I've heard and 6 heard, and yesterday I faxed to you, Mr. Sansom, 7 what is happening at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. The 8 highest nesting you have ever seen is occurring 9 this year on Rancho Nuevo. Over 5,000 nests will 10 be in Mexico. 11 MR. SANSOM: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Do you have a 13 summarizing remark you would like to make? 14 MS. ANDERSON: I think that these 15 regs need to be totally relooked at. You cannot 16 manage this fishery on politics and media 17 science. It has to be on sound science and 18 common sense. 19 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions for 20 Ms. Anderson from the Commission? 21 COMMISSIONER HENRY: There was a 22 question raised earlier concerning the nets and 23 the changes that would need to be made. Would 24 you -- you referred to that in your comments. 25 MS. ANDERSON: Yes. What we .0147 1 normally pull is four flat nets because they're 2 more economical in deep water. You're not going 3 to decrease any fishing effort in that zone of 4 265s. You're probably going to increase when you 5 look at it. But for us to change from a 432 or a 6 38-foot net to a two 65, we're probably talking, 7 per rig, about $4,000 a side. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Ms. Dinkins? 9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Ms. Anderson, 10 in addition to the $4,000 for the net change, 11 though, the question that I had asked Mr. Osburn 12 earlier was whether there was an impact that you 13 could describe to -- with regard to the BRD being 14 added, in terms of would it increase difficulty 15 or time required for shrimping? 16 MS. ANDERSON: We're already in 17 compliance with that, Ms. Dinkins. Once they 18 mandated it in the federal waters and you put 19 BRDs in the nets -- there's one in each net in 20 four nets, they're already being pulled in State 21 waters. We already have the TEDs. We're under a 22 mandate there under the Endangered Species Act. 23 So we've been pulling the TEDs and BRDs. 24 We just got a recent report on what 25 the impact on the shrimp fishery is, and that's .0148 1 $39 million in shrimp loss, what we're incurring 2 with TEDs and BRDs. 3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is that just in 4 Texas? 5 MS. ANDERSON: No. That is for the 6 gulf. 7 CHAIRMAN BASS: Gulfwide. 8 MS. ANDERSON: That is a dock-side 9 landing with no economic added to it, Mr. Bass. 10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: But on the 11 nets, if you put those on, would you see an 12 impact in addition to the $4,000 for the 13 out-of-pocket costs to the net itself. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Well, that would be 15 to change your gear over from the four 38-foots 16 to a two 65-foot. You would have to buy new gear 17 and new doors, the whole bit. What I'm saying 18 is, for us to take the four nets off of the 19 current rig boat and put two 65s on to meet the 20 mandate, we would be incurring that 4,000 per 21 side, gear cost increase just to fish in those 22 waters. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Other questions? 25 Thank you, ma'am. .0149 1 The last person we have on tap today 2 is Brian Sybert. Good morning -- afternoon. 3 MR. SYBERT: Hi, Mr. Chairman, 4 members of the Committee. My name is Brian 5 Sybert. I'm the natural resources director for 6 the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. 7 I would like to strongly urge the 8 Commission today to move forward with the 9 proposed regulations and publish in the Texas 10 Register. There's been an extensive amount of 11 work done on this very difficult and complex 12 issue by the Parks and Wildlife staff. I feel 13 that they have done a commendable job on trying 14 to tackle this very difficult issue. It took a 15 year and a half of study. There were numerous 16 workshops held up and down the coast to gather 17 input from the shrimp industry. We were well 18 aware throughout the entire process of the 19 shrimp -- of the entire shrimp regulation review 20 initiative. So there was an opportunity, ample 21 opportunity for both industry and other 22 stakeholders to comment on this process. And, 23 again, I would strongly urge that we keep this 24 process on the original time scale and keep 25 moving forward. .0150 1 One thing that's been left out is 2 that we've been focusing a lot lately on how this 3 will affect the shrimp industry. And I agree, 4 the shrimp industry is a very important 5 stakeholder in this process. But there's another 6 important stakeholder, and that is the public. 7 The shrimp fishery, the saltwater game fish that 8 are caught as bycatch, the five species of 9 endangered sea turtles are all public resources. 10 And the general public, the citizens 11 of our state deserve an opportunity to comment on 12 the management of these -- on the management of 13 the shrimp fishery in a timely manner through an 14 official public comment period. 15 There's -- the Sierra Club, even 16 though we don't agree with everything in the 17 proposed regulations, we still want to see them 18 move forward. There's some aspects of it that 19 we're very strongly supportive of. There's other 20 aspects we'd like to see changed. We feel that 21 the proposed closures will go a long way towards 22 protecting habitat for white shrimp, the spawning 23 grounds, protecting the five species of 24 endangered sea turtles that migrate along the 25 coast, and reducing bycatch of saltwater fish. .0151 1 For the northern half of the coast, 2 we would like to see more protective measures 3 than the gear restrictions. We don't feel that 4 the gear restrictions from basically Corpus 5 Christi to the Texas/Louisiana border are 6 sufficient to reduce the effort over the 7 long-term because there will still be numerous 8 boats that will still have access to that near 9 shore area. 10 We feel that the most effective way 11 to reduce the effort in the northern part of the 12 Texas coast would be through a closure similar to 13 that that has been proposed for the southern half 14 of the Texas coast. 15 But, again, I would urge that we 16 continue to move forward with this process. This 17 is a very important issue. And the public does 18 deserve their opportunity to comment through an 19 official public comment period. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions? 21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is your 22 organization's primary concern the turtles or the 23 shrimp? 24 MR. SYBERT: Primarily our concern 25 is going to be the bycatch, which is going to .0152 1 be -- a significant part of that is going to be 2 the turtles, yes. 3 We feel that the proposed -- as 4 Jimmy Evans mentioned earlier, we feel that the 5 proposed closure for the southern half of the 6 Texas coast is very significant and will go a 7 long way towards helping to reduce that problem. 8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. 9 MR. SYBERT: Thank you very much. 10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Mr. Sansom has 11 pointed out to me that I may have inadvertently 12 precluded Mr. Miller from the opportunity to make 13 comments. He gave his chair up rather quickly. 14 And was -- 15 MR. MILLER: Didn't want to go out 16 of turn, Mr. Chairman. 17 CHAIRMAN BASS: -- and never quite 18 had an opportunity to get back. 19 MR. MILLER: Right. 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: If you would, 21 please, give us what comments you have to add to 22 today's proceedings. 23 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. 24 Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Robert 25 Miller. I'm an attorney with Locke, Liddell & .0153 1 Sapp, and we're cocounsel to the Vietnamese 2 American Shrimpers Association. On their behalf 3 we ask that you not adopt these regulations 4 today. We ask that you delay them until the 5 winter months so that a consensus can be 6 reached. 7 We believe that the regulations are 8 not based on sound science. Mr. Osburn himself 9 conceded or stated in the Houston Chronicle on 10 Sunday that there is not a biological crisis. He 11 stated that the reason for the regulations is to 12 improve the profits of the industry. Obviously 13 the industry has great concern that their profit 14 is going to be improved, as you heard from their 15 compensate comments and their presence here 16 today. There's also been a lack of, shall we 17 say, consensus in developing these. I think 18 there needs to be a better process of 19 communicating with the association. They very 20 much do want to work with Parks and Wildlife. 21 Obviously they are stewards in this resource but 22 there certainly is a distrust and a 23 misunderstanding or nonunderstanding as to the 24 reason for these regulations. 25 So what we ask is that, again, you .0154 1 delay the regulations. Let's go back, let's sit 2 down with the Shrimper's Advisory Board. Let's 3 have a dialogue. Let's see if we can reach 4 consensus. What is the rush? Why do they need 5 to be adopted now? This is not a moderate 6 package in my clients' viewpoint. They believe 7 the regulations are restrictive and very 8 burdensome on them. They believe that it may 9 cause severe economic arm to their industry 10 without a sound scientific basis. And they urge 11 you not to adopt the regulations today. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions? 13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I would just 14 say that we're not proposing to adopt the 15 regulations today. We're proposing to propose 16 the regulations today. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I had a 18 comment or question in the same direction, 19 really. I'm not sure that I understand why 20 delaying publishing them is going to be that -- 21 make that much difference in the outcome. I know 22 that there's been testimony that people will have 23 a difficult time being available to give their 24 input. But it seems to me that the organizations 25 that represent the various parties can certainly .0155 1 make the input at any time. And even if we 2 decided to publish them, there's no commitment or 3 obligation on the part of any of the 4 commissioners to ultimately vote for them as 5 presented. 6 So it seems to me that if we had a 7 90-day period, whenever that period was, to have 8 them discussed publicly, to get all the input, 9 that the Commission would then be in a much 10 better position to make a decision on the 11 specific rules at the time of considering 12 adoption than we can right today. And I don't 13 know that our position is going to be benefited 14 by waiting 90 days, 180 days, whatever it is, to 15 get this public input that only comes once 16 they're published. Am I off track on that or -- 17 MR. MILLER: Commissioner, I think 18 you have two issues. One is what you alluded to, 19 is the fact that they are constantly working and 20 this is their busy season and they don't feel 21 like they have the opportunity to be able to 22 adequately study and evaluate and input this 23 process. 24 I think the second issue is, you 25 have a community, a very large community that .0156 1 feels like they've been excluded from this 2 process. Now, whether they have or not, they 3 feel that way. And I think that that's a very 4 great issue. 5 And what we're asking is, let's take 6 the time, let's go back and see if we can develop 7 the consensus. I know, as commissioners, 8 ultimately you're going to have to listen to the 9 staff and the public testimony and then make an 10 informed decision. But I do think that you will 11 agree that certainly this community feels like it 12 has not been included in this process. And all 13 we're asking is, let's give them an opportunity. 14 Let's see if we can make that work. And at the 15 end of the day, if you have to go forth, then 16 you're going to have to go forth. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: And your 18 position is that the 90 days that would start 19 tomorrow are not sufficient? 20 MR. MILLER: It's basically a loaded 21 gun to their head. It starts the clock ticking, 22 that the intent has been stated that the 23 regulations will be adopted on August 31. And so 24 their perception will be, no, that it's not going 25 to be a fair opportunity. .0157 1 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: From my 2 perspective, that's not a correct perception. 3 The perception is not the correct view as -- 4 certainly we're not obligated to adopt them at 5 the end of that period. 6 CHAIRMAN BASS: I do think it's good 7 to make clear that if we start the clock ticking, 8 as you put it, with -- by publishing something 9 that -- that does not obligate us to take 10 anything into consideration in August. It simply 11 allows us to as the earliest date. We could 12 obviously extend past that should we so choose. 13 And there have been issues in the past that that 14 has been the case after publication, that it's 15 been extended for further discussion or 16 revision. 17 I think it's also very important 18 that everybody understand that if we were to go 19 forward and publish this for comment, that does 20 not bind the Commission to only voting on or 21 considering the regulations strictly as published 22 in August. 23 Basically the government codes allow 24 us to be less restrictive than what's published 25 without publishing for a second time. But the .0158 1 law requires that if we wish to propose 2 regulations which are more restrictive, it would 3 require a second publication and review period in 4 the Texas Register. 5 So if this committee today does go 6 forward with publishing as proposed, it's very 7 important that everyone understand, one, that 8 does not bind us to having to vote in August on a 9 set of regulations, nor does it limit us to only 10 considering those proposed rules as published. 11 We can change from the published format as long 12 as that is one that is less restrictive on the 13 industry. So -- 14 And, Mr. Miller, I'm sure that you 15 understand that. But I want to be sure everybody 16 in the audience understands those two very 17 important points of government procedure that we 18 have to operate under. 19 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: It's also 20 important that everyone realize that the 21 Commission definitely had no intent to limit 22 anyone's input. And if that perception is out 23 there, again, that's not -- it's not based on 24 intent or fact. 25 MR. MILLER: We understand. There .0159 1 is a feeling, though, that the community has not 2 been adequately consulted by the Parks and 3 Wildlife staff. 4 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Well, what I 5 would like to add is, I think we hear that loud 6 and clear. Certainly the testimony has been 7 given here today, and certainly the amount of 8 Vietnamese Americans that have, you know, come to 9 Austin to express their sentiments just by being 10 here. 11 Plus, I hear a lot of, we need to do 12 some fine-tuning coming from all parties. And as 13 the chairman said, we have, in the past, been 14 less restrictive when presented with, you know, 15 some more scientific data or information. And I 16 would submit to you that I've also heard a lot of 17 people speaking that said, we need to refer to 18 the technical experts and y'all are all going to 19 go to the same technical experts that are going 20 to advise us, yourselves and us, as to what the 21 situation is. 22 And just for whatever, I was -- for 23 the Vietnamese, I was an advisor to your 2nd 24 Battalion 42nd armored regiment South Vietnamese 25 Army in 1969-70 in Vietnam. .0160 1 CHAIRMAN BASS: Other questions for 2 Mr. Miller? 3 MR. MILLER: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you. 5 Appreciate your comments and patience. 6 Doctor McKinney, if you and 7 Mr. Osburn would return for -- go back to -- just 8 so we understand where we are in the committee 9 process, I think what we have before us at this 10 time for consideration by the committee are two 11 different items and two different proposed 12 motions by staff. 13 The first would relate to the 14 proposal and request by staff to publish in the 15 Texas Register for public comment, the amended 16 set of commercial shrimping regulations. That 17 would then be open for public comment, and during 18 which time, between now and our next meeting, 19 staff's intent would be to conduct quite a number 20 of subsequent meetings with constituent groups up 21 and down the coast. 22 The second item before us for 23 consideration at this time is from the -- Item 6 24 from the finance committee, which is 25 consideration of a $3 increase in the .0161 1 recreational saltwater stamp fee. Those monies 2 which would be spent dedicated to the buyback 3 program with a five-year sunset on that, and that 4 that action item would be to put that on the 5 Commission's agenda for consideration tomorrow to 6 actually be enacted as an action item and put 7 into regulation for the license season commencing 8 September 1. So we have two issues to consider. 9 I guess back to square one with Doctor McKinney 10 and Mr. Osburn. 11 The Chair would entertain further 12 discussion or questions on these -- either of 13 these issues. 14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I did want to 15 ask Mr. Osburn to go back to the reference to the 16 Houston Chronicle article over the weekend, 17 because I didn't understand that your motivation 18 for working on these rules was only an economic 19 motivation. I had understood that it was also 20 related to the future of the fishery on a basis 21 other than just economics, as well as the 22 bycatch. And I wondered if you could just 23 address that briefly. 24 MR. OSBURN: Yes, ma'am. Let me 25 tell you, I did not read the article. I found .0162 1 that having this debate in the media has not been 2 very successful. So -- but there is a biological 3 need associated with our proactive management 4 strategy. Bycatch is one of them. The habitat 5 impacts is another. 6 The shrimp resource itself, for the 7 long-term, we see trends in the size and numbers 8 of shrimp that indicate, for the long-term, we -- 9 without reversing those trends, we will be in 10 a -- we will be in a biological threat. Today 11 we're not in that -- we're not in a threat today 12 in the sense that we have no time to do anything 13 but enact stringent new regulations. 14 We have an opportunity to be 15 proactive, which is what this whole debate is 16 about, is just getting a handle on this early. 17 But without -- certainly there is an economic 18 benefit to doing that and certainly the economic 19 benefit parallels the biological benefit if our 20 strategy of more shrimp and larger shrimp works. 21 So we'd like to emphasize the economic benefits 22 because that's how we can get better buy-in from 23 the industry. But the biological benefits are 24 part of our underlying rationale. 25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I also heard .0163 1 two references to Doctor Nance's work. And I 2 wondered if you could comment, because the 3 remarks that were made about his work I took as 4 being at odds with your conclusions and those of 5 NMFS on the biological issue. 6 MR. OSBURN: I certainly regret that 7 misunderstanding being there. I take 8 responsibility for that. The exact same report 9 that we're talking about, once again, definition 10 of recruitment overfishing. The stocks are not 11 recruitment overfished. But that same report 12 indicates a 39-year downward trend in catch rates 13 and a 39-year downward trend in size of shrimp. 14 That same report says that the stocks are at full 15 maximum exploitation. 16 Doctor Nance, in a previous 17 publication in his office, describes the need for 18 proactive management before you get to a fully 19 maximum exploited shrimp stock. That's been 20 their standard advice to managers. 21 When they are asked for a technical 22 definition of overfishing, what they have been 23 able to come up with is defining the edge of the 24 cliff. And that's what they use. And this 25 department does not favor that as the technical .0164 1 definition of overfishing. We think it's not 2 precautionary enough. We are going to ask 3 National Marine Fishery Service to review their 4 technical definition of that overfishing to move 5 it back to a safer level. 6 All of the advice from the 7 scientific community, no matter what species 8 you're studying, says, give yourself a margin of 9 error. We want to build a margin of error in the 10 Texas shrimp fishery. And that is -- but there 11 is no difference between our conclusions and 12 Doctor Nance's. And the exact same report is the 13 basis for that. So I'm afraid that it's just 14 folks that are aware of parts of it that aren't 15 fully aware of the whole context. Certainly 16 there's a lot of room for debate on something 17 like how many shrimp are out there in the world. 18 And, you know, having to drain the gulf and prove 19 that is just something we're not going to be able 20 to do. But we see warning signs, biological 21 warning signs. Basically if we can't manage for 22 those warning signs, then I guess we're not 23 managing at all. 24 DR. McKINNEY: I would make one 25 observation. I know the hour is late, so I'll be .0165 1 very quick. But I'm not a fishery biologist. I 2 am an ecologist. And one of the things that I've 3 been doing through this past year and looking at 4 Hal's -- the proposal from coastal fisheries, and 5 working with this fishery is looking at what has 6 happened historically in other types of 7 fisheries. I mean, that's the issue we have 8 before us. 9 And what I've seen in those types of 10 situations is really classically what's happening 11 here, is that taking a look and raising issues of 12 science and challenging science and looking at 13 less delay and try to work this thing out as Hal 14 as put it, moving over the cliff, and what 15 historically has happened is that then a lot of 16 action is taken as hurtling down the cliff side, 17 that is really too late. And I don't think 18 anyone wants to be in that position. 19 So the proposal, I think, before 20 everyone here is, what can we do now? What 21 combination can we do now so that we don't get 22 into that problem? Because I don't think you 23 want to have us before you-all saying we have a 24 problem to solve. I think our job is to come to 25 you and say, how can we prevent those problems .0166 1 from happening? And that's really what we're 2 trying to get at. 3 MR. OSBURN: I might also point out 4 that we recognize and acknowledge the lack of 5 consensus in the fishery. And I will tell you 6 that since 1985, when the legislature asked us to 7 look into taking, you know, management authority 8 for shrimp, we've been holding workshops for 9 different industry groups. And we can categorize 10 different stakeholders in terms of their 11 positions on these issues. And the last 18 12 months was a review of that same process, is 13 where are the different stakeholders coming 14 from? What suggestions do they offer? No, we 15 did not hold up exact rules in front of them, but 16 they had a -- they have a fishery and we were 17 trying to describe and have them describe back to 18 us how could we make this fishery better. We got 19 a very full range of comments, including from the 20 Asian-Americans, including from turtle advocates, 21 including from gulf bay recreational. My staff 22 was very diligent in having outreach efforts to 23 folks. And we categorized positions of 24 stakeholders. 25 Our approach at that point was to .0167 1 take those different positions back and weigh 2 them against the biological science, the 3 economics, other sciences in anthropology, and 4 try to fit them together into a plan that 5 captured the needs of as many stakeholders as we 6 could within our biological mandates. 7 So I don't think it's -- I recognize 8 we don't have a consensus. I would offer to you 9 that we could have meetings from now until the 10 end of the next century and not be able to 11 develop consensus on some of these things. You 12 heard diametrically opposed positions about the 13 status of sea turtles, for example. And there is 14 a balance in there somewhere that I know it's 15 your job to achieve. And our part in it was to 16 try to find that balance and provide you pros and 17 cons. And that's why each of the recommendations 18 before you has a list of pros and cons. They're 19 in an attempt to show you that consensus is not 20 there but there is rationale on the side of each 21 of these proposals. And if they don't have a 22 positive overall benefit, then we are not 23 recommending them. 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any further comments 25 or discussion, questions? .0168 1 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Just one, 2 Mr. Chairman, get back to the COMMISSIONERman's 3 question a little earlier concerning the 4 information that we received this morning and the 5 differences between this information and that 6 that we already had. And I think, Carol, your 7 question was that there were just two major 8 differences? I just want to get that clear. 9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Because that's 11 something else that we're going to have to take 12 into consideration as we move forward for the 13 full meeting. 14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I've been 15 looking through the package while we've been here 16 this morning. And what I had asked Mr. Osburn 17 was if he could identify one or two of the most 18 dramatic changes between what we have seen in our 19 briefing materials and what we got here, which he 20 kindly did. 21 But I think that the summary that 22 they have at the very beginning of what we saw in 23 the bold type, about the more restrictive rules 24 that were deleted from the first proposals -- and 25 correct me if I've misunderstood this. I think .0169 1 that's what their real summary is, to try and 2 tell us upfront how reduced or sought to reduce 3 the impact of the proposed regulations by making 4 these five changes and what they had originally 5 proposed and what we got now. 6 But I'm not saying that all of those 7 are different from what was in the briefing. 8 But, really, I think what I was trying to 9 highlight, also, was what had changed, what had 10 been reduced by way of severity of the proposed 11 regulations from what they presented to us the 12 last time before they got more workshops and more 13 discussions with people in the fisheries and what 14 we saw this morning. 15 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I just raised 16 that issue because certainly that would have some 17 consideration -- could possibly have some 18 consideration on the comments that were made this 19 morning, since they haven't seen these proposed 20 changes that are before us, I believe. 21 CHAIRMAN BASS: I believe they 22 have. 23 COMMISSIONER HENRY: They have? 24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yeah. These are 25 changes from the proposals that were discussed in .0170 1 the April meeting with the Shrimp Advisory 2 Council. 3 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Okay. I see. 4 CHAIRMAN BASS: But these changes 5 have been in the public realm for various lengths 6 of time since then. 7 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Okay. I 8 think -- 9 DR. McKINNEY: My comment. I think 10 Commissioner Angelo summarized it very concisely 11 about what the staff position would be as far as 12 moving forward. I mean, I was very gratified to 13 hear a number of the speakers this morning talk 14 about well, fine-tuning, we would like to work 15 through some process to try to come to a 16 conclusion. 17 I would submit that I will not use 18 Mr. Miller's terms of holding a gun to the head. 19 But I think more of an incentive, putting the 20 rules on the table as proposed, as incentive to 21 work through that period of time, over 90 days. 22 Frankly, if we can't reach it over that period of 23 time, we probably won't. But I think if we work 24 together like they're talking about, we can make 25 some good progress to come back to you in .0171 1 August. And then you can, obviously, as 2 appropriate, make a decision on whether we have 3 done so or not. But I think that incentive to 4 move forward is pretty necessary, just from my 5 experience. 6 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: In that 7 regard, I would have a very difficult time if we 8 were talking about voting on these regulations 9 tomorrow, to vote for them, with all the comment 10 we've heard today from people who feel they 11 weren't adequately informed or who have very 12 strong differences of opinion about the facts. 13 But I would certainly hope that 14 within 90 days, we could be presented with a lot 15 more information that would aid us in reaching a 16 decision that would be as fair as possible and 17 also accomplish something. So it seems to me 18 that 90 days should be long enough to do that. 19 COMMISSIONER AVILA: And even 20 moreover than that, but in fact the fine-tuning 21 has taken place. 22 DR. McKINNEY: Quite a bit of it 23 has, I believe, yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, I think 25 the staff ought to be complemented on the .0172 1 presentation they've made today. I think it's 2 been very helpful to us. 3 And I agree with Commissioner 4 Angelo. I believe that, you know, the next 90 5 days ought to be a sufficient time for us to get 6 up to speed to make any further changes or 7 modifications to lessen the impact of the 8 regulations. And, you know, I -- I don't know if 9 it's appropriate right now. But I would like to 10 have us move to support the recommendation of the 11 staff to publish these regulations in the Texas 12 Register. 13 CHAIRMAN BASS: We have a motion. 14 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: The motion is 16 seconded. Any further discussion of the motion? 17 I think -- I just want to call a vote. I think 18 that there certainly, as on all issues, a desire 19 by the Commission that all stakeholders and 20 constituents have opportunity to comment and have 21 a voice. And I think as Mr. Osburn pointed out, 22 having your feelings known doesn't -- isn't 23 always synonymous with having an agreement. But 24 I would admonish the staff to continue to make 25 every effort to see that all stakeholders have an .0173 1 opportunity to have whatever degree of input and 2 level of input in the process as they are willing 3 to come to the table with. 4 The Chair has a motion and a 5 second. Any further discussion? The Chair would 6 call a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? 7 Hearing none, the motion carries. 8 (Motion passed unanimously.) 9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I would, if 10 it's appropriate, move approval of the 11 recommendation regarding the $3 increase. 12 CHAIRMAN BASS: Motion to -- 13 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN BASS: Second for the 15 finance committee, Item 6, to accept the staff's 16 recommendation on that for consideration in 17 tomorrow's meeting. All in favor? Any opposed? 18 Motion carries. 19 (Motion passed unanimously.) 20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Ms. Dinkins would 21 like to make a comment before we adjourn the regs 22 committee meeting, please. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I just wanted 24 to say that I hope we will also be cognizant in 25 considering the proposed regulations as to .0174 1 whether we do need to take a look at any specific 2 law enforcement issues. Because I'm very 3 concerned that as we consider the regs at a 4 future meeting, after comments, that we also 5 recognize that to make them effective, that they 6 have to be evenhanded in compliance. And I 7 greatly appreciate that the compliance level is 8 high. But I wouldn't want them to be competitive 9 disadvantaged to those who comply if we do adopt 10 more restrictive regulations at some point in the 11 future. 12 And so if we need to consider that 13 in the budget process, I would surely hope that 14 it would be part of the consideration. 15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Point well taken. 16 There's no further business to come 17 before the regulations committee, which I will 18 declare adjourned. 19 We, at this point, will go into 20 executive session, which I would like to announce 21 that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 551 22 Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings 23 Law, an executive session will be held at this 24 time for the purpose of consideration of land 25 transactions. .0175 1 I would -- those division directors 2 and members of the staff that are here that have 3 issues on this -- on the rest of today's agenda, 4 I would urge you to be sure that you're prepared 5 to make very expedited and efficient 6 presentations this afternoon. We have not gotten 7 very far in our agenda and we're well into the 8 afternoon. So be prepared to move quick and be 9 concise and to the point when we reconvene. 10 Thank you very much. We'll see you after lunch. 11 *-*-*-*-* 12 (HEARING ADJOURNED.) 13 *-*-*-*-* 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .0176 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF TRAVIS ) 3 4 I, MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, a Certified Court 5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby 6 certify that the above and foregoing 174 pages 7 constitute a full, true and correct transcript of 8 the minutes of the Texas Parks and Wildlife 9 Commission on MAY 31, 2000, in the commission 10 hearing room of the Texas Parks and Wildlife 11 Headquarters Complex, Austin, Travis County, 12 Texas. 13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that a stenographic record 14 was made by me a the time of the public meeting 15 and said stenographic notes were thereafter 16 reduced to computerized transcription under my 17 supervision and control. 18 WITNESS MY HAND this the 8TH day of AUGUST, 19 2000. 20 21 22 MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, RPR, CSR NO. 3226 Expiration Date: 12-31-00 23 3101 Bee Caves Road Centre II, Suite 220 24 Austin, Texas 78746 (512) 328-5557 25 EBS NO. 40483