Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee
April 5 , 2000
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1
7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the
8 5th day of April 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 9:07 a.m., to wit:
14
15
APPEARANCES:
16 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
REGULATIONS COMMITTEE:
17 Lee M. Bass (absent)
Carol E. Dinkins
18 Dick W. Heath
Nolan Ryan
19 Ernest Angelo, Jr.
John Avila, Jr.
20 Alvin L. Henry
Chaired by: 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
. 2
1 APRIL 5, 2000
2 *_*_*_*_*
3 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: The meeting is
4 called to order.
5 Before we get started, I wanted to
6 say that our Chairman, Lee Bass, is recovering
7 from surgery. I know we all wish him a speedy
8 recovery.
9 Before proceeding with any
10 business, I believe Mr. Sansom has a statement to
11 make.
12 MR. SANSOM: Ms. Chairman and
13 Members, a 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. This is required by Chapter 551 of the
17 Government Code and 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 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: We need an
21 approval for the minutes of the January meeting.
22 I need a motion.
23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So moved.
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second.
25 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
. 3
1 ITEM NO. 1 - BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S CHARGES.
2 MR. SANSOM: Item 1 will be a
3 briefing of the Chairman's charges.
4 Andy?
5 MR. SANSOM: Members, the
6 particular charges that relate to the Regulations
7 Committee, first and foremost, have to do with
8 Sunset. Yesterday, Mr. Cook, Mr. McCarty, and I,
9 along with Emily Armentan of our staff, had an
10 exit interview with the Sunset Commission. They
11 have completed the staff report, and it will be
12 delivered to the Sunset Commission -- that is, the
13 legislators and public members of the Sunset
14 Commission -- next week and made public on or
15 about April 15th. So within a week we will have a
16 public release of our Sunset Commission report.
17 This process has been one in which
18 our staff has done its usual terrific job. The
19 Sunset Committee is impressed. And I believe that
20 although we will see some things in there that
21 will cause us to think hard about changes that may
22 need to be made in the Parks and Wildlife
23 Department, that overall it will be supportive of
24 our efforts; and we'll see to it to try to address
25 some of the questions that you all and we have
. 4
1 raised for them.
2 Under the Chairman's direction, we
3 have completed our review and reform of the
4 advisory committee system. All of our advisory
5 committee members have been put on standardized
6 terms, and the appointments have been unified.
7 We have developed a set of guidelines for
8 advisory committee management, and the Chairman
9 has actually created a new advisory committee
10 which has had its first meeting, which I believe
11 Mr. Watson attended, which is the Hunting Advisory
12 Committee.
13 Today you will be hearing as a part
14 of this agenda several items that relate to the
15 charges, the Statewide Proclamation itself, the
16 finfish license management program, and the
17 commercial shrimp management plan.
18 I'd like to make particular note in
19 conclusion that as a part of the charges which
20 relate directly to expanding landowner incentives
21 through the regulatory process, we have completed
22 the hiring of 10 new technical guidance biologists
23 that are now in the field working directly with
24 private landowners.
25 So I appreciate the opportunity to
. 5
1 bring the progress on these charges to your
2 attention, and that completes my report.
3 ITEM NO. 2 - ACTION - 2000-2001 STATEWIDE HUNTING
4 AND FISHING PROCLAMATION.
5 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Item 2 will
6 be the Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation.
7 Phil Durocher will discuss the proposed changes.
8 MR. DUROCHER: As soon as we get
9 this thing on. Here it is.
10 Madam Chairman and Members of the
11 Commission, I'm Phil Durocher, Director of the
12 Inland Fisheries Division. This morning I'll be
13 presenting the inland fisheries regulation
14 proposals for 2000 and 2001. All the regulation
15 changes that we're proposing this year deal with
16 one of the species of bass.
17 The first proposal is for the
18 spotted and Guadalupe bass. The current limit on
19 the spotted and Guadalupe is a 12-inch minimum
20 length limit, five-fish daily bag in combination
21 with other basses. What we are recommending is
22 to change the limit to no minimum-length limit and
23 to retain the five-fish-daily bag.
24 In justification for that, both of
25 these species remain relatively small. We have
. 6
1 very few of the fish in the wild that ever exceed
2 the minimum length limits; and because of this,
3 we're getting some increased competition for
4 forage. In other words, we have a lot of these
5 small bass that are competing with the other fish
6 in the reservoirs for forage. So we're hoping
7 that by allowing some harvest here, we can reduce
8 this competition.
9 The second proposal deals with Lake
10 Jacksonville, Cleburne State Park Lake, and
11 Meridian State Park Lake. Currently, the
12 largemouth bass regulation in those reservoirs is
13 a 14-inch minimum, five-fish daily bag; and we're
14 recommending to change to an 18-inch minimum
15 length limit and retain the five-fish daily bag.
16 At Cleburne and Meridian State
17 Parks, these proposals were made through our work
18 with the State Park staff. Their hope there is
19 to increase the angling quality on these small
20 reservoirs. Currently the bass populations are
21 at a low density, and we're hoping that these
22 regulations will protect additional quality-size
23 bass from harvest and allow these populations to
24 increase.
25 Lake Jacksonville is a little bit
. 7
1 different situation. It's a 1352-acre reservoir,
2 and the numbers of bass above 14 inches are low
3 at this time. Small bass, especially the spotted
4 bass, are abundant. And we're hoping that this
5 regulation change, in conjunction with the removal
6 of the limit on spotted bass, will reduce some of
7 this pressure on these small fish and allow
8 expansion of that population.
9 Our last proposal is for Lake
10 Austin, Town Lake, and Buescher State Park. The
11 current limit there is, of course, the statewide
12 limit, a 14-inch minimum -- this thing is slow
13 this morning -- and a five-fish daily bag. And
14 what we had proposed was to change to a 14 to
15 21-inch slot limit with a five-fish daily bag,
16 only one bass 21 inches or greater.
17 At Buescher State Park, again, this
18 regulation proposal was made in conjuncion with
19 the park staff to improve the quality of angling
20 in this lake. The lake at Buescher State Park is
21 a relatively small lake of about 25 acres. It has
22 an extremely good population right now, with a
23 high-use situation, and the Park Superintendent
24 and our staff wish to maintain that quality of
25 fishing.
. 8
1 Now, Town Lake currently has an
2 excellent bass population. It has developed
3 because of a fish consumption advisory which has
4 been on this lake for the last several years, and
5 it also was helped by limited boat access.
6 There's limited access to using this reservoir.
7 Currently the consumption advisory has been
8 lifted, and the staff feels that the potential for
9 overharvest and reduction in angling is there now
10 that this advisory has been lifted. We knew what
11 the population looked like before this advisory,
12 and we want to make sure that we can maintain
13 what's built up during this advisory.
14 On Lake Austin, Lake Austin has
15 produced numerous 10-pound bass in recent years.
16 In fact, just recently, about a week and a half
17 ago, we had a lunker turned into the program from
18 Lake Austin. And it's one of the best trophy bass
19 or quality fishing lakes anywhere in the Central
20 Texas area.
21 The proposal was one of the staff
22 trying to be proactive, and they believe that the
23 increasing population and growth, along with the
24 lake's new reputation, could increase the harvest
25 pressure and perhaps cause a decline in that
. 9
1 population.
2 Now what I want to do is give you a
3 summary of public comments. And these are both
4 from our public hearings and other public comments
5 we've received, including letters, e-mails, and
6 entries on our Website.
7 As far as the change to the
8 Guadalupe and spotted bass, at the public hearing
9 we received five comments, one in support and four
10 opposed. On the Internet and other sources, we
11 received 92 comments. Sixty-three supported the
12 proposal, and 29 were opposed.
13 For the Lake Jacksonville and
14 Cleburne and Meridian State Park proposals, there
15 were no --
16 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Excuse me.
17 What was the reason for the opposition?
18 MR. DUROCHER: There were some
19 concerns about the -- I believe it was concern
20 about the Guadalupe bass. We're trying to protect
21 the Guadalupe bass. And before we made this
22 proposal, we ran it by the person on our staff who
23 is responsible primarily for bringing back the
24 Guadalupe bass in the Central Texas area, and he
25 doesn't think it's going to have any impact on
. 10
1 that at all.
2 On the Lake Jacksonville, Cleburne,
3 and Meridian State Park proposals, we received no
4 comments at public hearings. On the Internet and
5 other sources, we received 73 comments. Sixty-one
6 were in support, and 12 were opposed.
7 On the Lake Austin, Town Lake, and
8 Buescher State Park proposals, at the public
9 hearings we received six comments, and they all
10 were opposed. And on the Internet and other
11 sources, we received 72 comments again, and most
12 were in favor of the proposals.
13 The comments that we had in
14 opposition to the proposals, and they were
15 primarily at Lake Austin, were from bass clubs in
16 the area. They felt like the population of bass
17 in the lake was doing fine. And they thought
18 that because of the pressure from other
19 recreational uses on the lake, the skiing and the
20 jetskis, that fishing pressure actually wouldn't
21 increase as we were projecting; and we really
22 can't argue with that contention.
23 We had other comments on e-mail
24 that we feel like we need to address. We had two
25 comments wanting the staff to do more about
. 11
1 cormorants in the State. For your information,
2 the cormorants are a protected species controlled
3 by international treaties with Mexico and Canada.
4 The Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife
5 Service, has put together a task force to begin
6 looking at the cormorants and seeing if there's
7 any changes that need to be made in the
8 regulations. And we have a member of our staffs
9 of both Wildlife and Fisheries working with the
10 Feds to see if some changes could be made there to
11 give us some relief with cormorants.
12 We had one comment asking us to put
13 slot limits on more lakes, and we had one asking
14 us to drop the crappie minimum on Lake Wright
15 Patman or to lower the limit from 10 inches to
16 nine or nine and a half inches. And that's a
17 type of proposal we get almost every year, and
18 what we tell the people is -- they believe that if
19 we lower it to nine to nine and a half from 10,
20 that they're going to keep more of these
21 nine-and-a-half-inch fish. And what we tell them
22 is that next year they'll want to lower it to
23 eight and a half, because that's all they will be
24 catching is fish right below the limit; and that's
25 just the way fishing is. When people fish and
. 12
1 harvest fish, as soon as they get past that limit,
2 they tend to disappear.
3 On the staff recommendations, we
4 request that the Commission approve all the
5 proposals except the Lake Austin proposal. We
6 have no data to indicate that the pressure will
7 automatically increase with the populations.
8 Since the other recreational uses are now limiting
9 pressure, those who spoke in opposition may be
10 right. We will continue to monitor that bass
11 population closely and look for changes usually
12 associated with an increase in harvest pressure.
13 So we're asking the Commission to
14 send to the full Commission tomorrow
15 recommendations that our proposals be approved,
16 with the amendment dropping the Lake Austin
17 proposal.
18 Any questions?
19 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval
20 of the recommendation.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second.
22 MR. DUROCHER: Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Thank you,
24 Phil.
25 Hal Osburn will discuss the
. 13
1 proposed changes regarding coastal fisheries.
2 MR. OSBURN: Good morning.
3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Do we need to
4 vote on the -- I was going to ask that. Do you
5 think there's no comment that we would need to
6 reserve it? I guess we could bring it back.
7 MR. SANSOM: We will get it right
8 on the regular agenda --
9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That's what I
10 was thinking.
11 MR. SANSOM: -- with our
12 recommendation, but you need a motion to move it
13 forward.
14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I so
15 move.
16 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay. Second?
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I'll second
18 it.
19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Hal?
20 Oh, I'm so sorry. Do we have a
21 vote? Ayes? Nays?
22 (Motion carried unanimously.)
23 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Hal?
24 MR. OSBURN: Thank you,
25 Madam Chairman. I'm Hal Osburn, Coastal Fisheries
. 14
1 Divison Director. I'd like to brief you on the
2 proposed changes to the Statewide Hunting and
3 Fishing Proclamation for the Coastal Fisheries
4 Division.
5 Our first proposal is for moderate
6 increases in size limits on sailfish, white
7 marlin, and blue marlin. These rules will help
8 conservation and provide some compatibility with
9 the rules that currently exist in the Federal
10 waters.
11 Public opinion received on this
12 proposal was overwhelmingly in favor of these
13 increased size limits.
14 Staff also has a proposal on our
15 shark populations. We had proposed decreasing the
16 daily bag limit from five to one, establishing a
17 24-inch minimum size limit, and setting the
18 commercial season to be concurrent with the
19 Federal season.
20 Many of the species of sharks in
21 the Gulf are overfished, primarily due to some
22 intense commercial long-line fishing that was
23 allowed to happen in Federal waters in this last
24 decade. These proposals will complement some
25 shark conservation measures that are now being
. 15
1 enacted on the commercial and recreational fishery
2 to counter that previous overharvest.
3 I can tell you that the public
4 response we received was a very good majority in
5 favor of these rules. Those that opposed
6 generally wanted to go to a two-fish bag limit
7 rather than a one-fish; but staff does recommend
8 that we adopt the original set of proposals
9 without modification, the one-fish bag limit.
10 About 80 percent of our anglers that do land
11 sharks are within one shark now, so this proposal
12 would probably only reduce the harvest about
13 30 percent; but I think it's a conservation
14 measure that we can contribute to the Gulfwide
15 effort.
16 I'll be happy to answer any
17 questions.
18 COMMISSIONER HEATH: I just have a
19 comment here. On the billfish proposal -- and
20 this really does not, Hal, directly address the
21 proposal -- I just went with my family billfish
22 hunting, so I wanted to tell you about that, and
23 I'd like to get that in the record.
24 My daughter, who weighs 80 pounds,
25 caught a 180-pound striped marlin 10 feet long; so
. 16
1 I just thought I wanted to get that in the record.
2 Mine was smaller, so I won't tell you its size.
3 And my wife caught one, and my daughter's friend
4 caught one. I won't tell you where I was fishing,
5 but we landed four of them.
6 But, anyway, the purpose of my
7 comments -- other than to get the fact that
8 Brittany Heath, 15 years old, 80 pounds, caught a
9 180-pound fish 10 feet long -- other than that,
10 the boat that we went out of, which was out of --
11 I'm not going to tell you where.
12 The boat that we went out of and
13 that whole area have a catch-and-release
14 recognition program. And the point is that the
15 particular place that we fished out of and their
16 boats catch and release more billfish than any
17 other -- and this is out of Mexico -- any other
18 in, they say, the world.
19 Do we have any such program
20 specifically? Is there recognition for people who
21 release?
22 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir. There is a
23 big fish award, a catch-and-release award, that
24 we have in our program. Most of the participants
25 in that, of course, are reds, trout, flounder.
. 17
1 That's the most commonly caught. But billfish, I
2 believe, are part of that program.
3 I will tell you that the anglers of
4 Texas that target billfish had the catch-and-
5 release ethic way before many others in that
6 fishery thought of it. They have been releasing
7 fish, tagging them --
8 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Right.
9 MR. OSBURN: -- to help biologists
10 track. There's a group down on the Coast that we
11 have worked with, Steve Qualia, Fish Trackers,
12 Incorporated out of Corpus that provides the tags
13 to the anglers; a very good angling ethic in the
14 billfish community. The only fish that we know of
15 that are really brought in are the occasional
16 tournaments and the occasional mortality.
17 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Do you have
18 any idea what percent are released?
19 MR. OSBURN: I'd speculate that
20 it's over 90 percent.
21 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Okay; good.
22 Thank you.
23 That's Brittany Heath.
24 MR. OSBURN: By the way,
25 Commissioner, I'm a very good -- I can put bait
. 18
1 on the hook real well if you ever need that help.
2 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Thank you,
3 Hal. I really appreciate that. We have that in
4 the minutes, too.
5 MR. OSBURN: Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Didn't you
7 want to put a photograph in the minutes?
8 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Yes. That's
9 Brittany Heath.
10 MR. OSBURN: Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Thank you,
12 Hal.
13 Jerry Cooke is going to be up next.
14 We're going to wait until we've heard what
15 everybody has to say before we vote on the
16 Proclamation.
17 Good morning, Jerry.
18 MR. COOKE: Good morning, ma'am.
19 Madam Chairman and Members, my name is Jerry
20 Cooke. I'm currently the Director for Upland
21 Wildlife Ecology in the Wildlife Division. I'll
22 be presenting the Wildlife Division's proposed
23 changes to the Hunting and Fishing Proclamation
24 for 2000-2001.
25 Our first proposal was to include
. 19
1 eight new counties in the Eastern wild turkey
2 spring season. Those counties are Camp, Franklin,
3 Hunt, Morris, Panola, Rains, Shelby, and Titus
4 Counties. This will be a standard season, as we
5 have in the other counties that are shown in red.
6 It will be opening the Monday nearest April 14th
7 for 14 consecutive days. It will be shotgun,
8 lawful archery equiment, and crossbows only as a
9 means of take. No baiting will be allowed, and
10 every bird taken must be taken through a check
11 station.
12 We had 120 comments in favor of
13 this proposal and 10 in opposition to it.
14 In three counties of East Texas --
15 Cass, Marion, and Harrison Counties -- we propose
16 to create four doe days in which deer may be
17 taken, either sex. This will be opening the
18 Thanksgiving Day through the following Sunday, and
19 the map shows the relationship of these counties
20 to the counties that currently have that season.
21 There were 130 comments in favor of
22 this proposal and 17 in opposition.
23 We propose to redefine in a portion
24 of our 23 doe-day county compartment to allow
25 antlerless deer to be taken in doe days from the
. 20
1 opening day through the Sunday following
2 Thanksgiving. Currently, Thanksiving is not
3 always included in that opportunity, so we're
4 expanding it in that area. Also, we recommend to
5 include San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker Counties
6 in that compartment.
7 We had 120 comments in favor of and
8 13 in opposition to including those three
9 counties. We had 142 comments in favor of and 10
10 in opposition to redefining the doe days in those
11 counties.
12 In the 11 counties that currently
13 have the 23 doe days in that portion of the Piney
14 Woods, we would recommend to create a
15 muzzleloader-only season in those counties. It
16 would open the Saturday following the close of the
17 general season for nine consecutive days in which
18 two antlerless or two spikes may be taken during
19 that season.
20 We had 119 comments in favor of
21 that proposal and 12 in opposition.
22 I included this map to refresh the
23 Commission's memory on the distribution of deer in
24 Texas. Currently, something over a third of all
25 the white-tailed deer in Texas reside in less than
. 21
1 one-fifth of the geographic area of Texas, and
2 that's the Edwards Plateau eco-region.
3 Our proposal -- as soon as my slide
4 changes -- our proposal would be to increase the
5 bag limit in 25 counties of the Edwards Plateau,
6 all or part. This proposal would include the
7 northern portion of Val Verde County; the northern
8 half of Kinney, Uvalde, and Medina Counties; all
9 of Bexar County; and the western half of Travis
10 County, Hays County, and Comal County. All of
11 these counties currently have the four-deer, no
12 more than two-buck, bag. We would propose to
13 increase that to five deer, no more than two bucks
14 in the bag.
15 Our comments were 152 in favor of
16 the proposal and 39 in opposition.
17 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Jerry?
18 MR. COOKE: Sir?
19 MR. WATSON: Did you say Bexar
20 County?
21 MR. COOKE: Bexar County is
22 included in that.
23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: It's not
24 yellow.
25 MR. COOKE: It's not yellow on the
. 22
1 map; correct. This was my slide from the previous
2 proposal, and I didn't get the map drawn all the
3 way to the whole bag. I apologize for that.
4 That's why I named it --
5 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Good catch.
6 MR. COOKE: -- named it
7 specifically. But I did pronounce it correctly.
8 At Commissioner Angelo's request,
9 and the rest of the Commission, we took to the
10 public a proposal to increase the length of the
11 mule deer season in the western portion of the
12 Panhandle. This would be in the western half of
13 Andrews County, Bailey, Hockley, Lamb, Terry, and
14 Yoakum Counties, and to include a proposal to add
15 Cochran County to that compartment.
16 Generally, we had favorable
17 comments on the proposal of lengthening the
18 season. We had 122 in favor of lengthening the
19 season and 17 in opposition. However, there was
20 some concern about going all the way to 16 days
21 from a fairly new season in those counties. But
22 there was general support for increasing the
23 season to nine days, for example, as an
24 incremental step; and that would be the
25 recommendation to the Committee and to the
. 23
1 Commission.
2 For inclusion of Cochran County,
3 they had the same comments about the season
4 length. But there were 134 in favor of and six in
5 opposition to including Cochran County in that
6 compartment.
7 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Will Cochran
8 County also be 16 days?
9 MR. COOKE: It's whatever the
10 Commission adopts. But it would be included in
11 the compartment with the same seasonal length as
12 all the other counties in that compartment.
13 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: How about the
14 other counties in the State?
15 MR. COOKE: In the Trans-Pecos, we
16 have a 16-day season. And that was Commissioner
17 Angelo's concern was that we had an area of Texas
18 with only a five-day bag. They are not really
19 comparable populations. They're not generally
20 distributed throughout the counties. It's
21 essentially a couple of soil associations where
22 they are found, and naturally the people in the
23 county are conservative people. This is Texas,
24 you know.
25 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I think this
. 24
1 will be a big improvement, because the problem
2 last time was that with five days you only have
3 one weekend, and it turned out that the weather
4 was awful, so it pretty well eliminated the
5 hunting for a lot of people; whereas, if they had
6 two weekends, it doubles their chance to have some
7 decent weather to hunt in.
8 And I think the idea that the staff
9 is recommending to go to nine instead of 16 makes
10 sense, because this is somewhat of an experiment.
11 And there was some general opposition to having
12 the season at all to begin with, but I think it
13 became nearly unanimous that it was a good idea.
14 We don't want to mess it up by overdoing the
15 changes too quickly.
16 MR. COOKE: Thank you.
17 In a portion of Henderson County,
18 current regulations allow only shotgun and lawful
19 archery equipment to be used in hunting, and staff
20 proposes that we delete that restriction from that
21 portion of the county.
22 We had 104 comments in favor of
23 removing that restriction and 11 in opposition to
24 it.
25 Currently, there are two options
. 25
1 available to landowners within the MLD Program.
2 The first option provides
3 antlerless-only permits to be used during the
4 general season available within the county.
5 The second option is available to
6 landowners whose management has resulted in better
7 population characteristics and significantly
8 better habitat conditions than is generally found
9 in the remainder of the county. This option,
10 facilitated with permits for both bucks and
11 antlerless deer, provides a five-deer bag, no more
12 than three bucks on the property, and allows deer
13 to be hunted on the property by any legal means
14 from the Saturday nearest September 29th through
15 the Sunday nearest January 31st of the following
16 year.
17 Wildlife management plans used in
18 this program identify as deer population levels
19 that can be safely supported by native vegetation
20 without degradation of habitats, and permits are
21 issued based on harvest recommendations to
22 maintain the deer herd at that safe level. Field
23 staff is currently in training to use a browse
24 survey technique to more objectively evaluate
25 foraging impact on habitats.
. 26
1 A scoping meeting held at Canyon of
2 the Eagles in October 1999 showed general support
3 for the program while identifying some concerns.
4 Some claim that landowners using feeding programs
5 and food plots were not being acknowledged within
6 the program. The program is currently focused on
7 native vegetation, because all species of wildlife
8 depend on native vegetation for survival.
9 Those that were concerned claimed
10 that these treatments, the feeding and the food
11 plots, relieve foraging pressure on native
12 vegetation; and this claim will be addressed
13 through the use of the browse survey. Where these
14 enhancements result in protection of native
15 vegetation, their benefits will be recognized and
16 realized in the future.
17 There was concern that annual
18 review of management activities were burdensome
19 and placed landowners in the uncomfortable
20 position of justifying field staff when agreed-to
21 management practices were not accomplished; for
22 instance, during burn bans, you couldn't burn.
23 When you had really, really good habitat
24 conditions, harvest recommendations can't be
25 accomplished.
. 27
1 One way to address this concern
2 would be to only require practices to be
3 substantially accomplished within some time frame,
4 such as three years; but staff requests guidance
5 on an appropriate time frame from the Commission.
6 Also, there was concern that there
7 exists a broad gulf between the two available
8 options within the MLD Program as they are
9 currently being implemented. To address this
10 concern, staff proposed an intermediate option
11 between the above two described options to clarify
12 our understanding of the Commission's intent, the
13 enhanced season and enhanced bag option, both in
14 option requirements and the requirements for the
15 wildlife management plan as it applies to the
16 program.
17 The basic difference between the
18 current ESEB option and the proposed intermediate
19 option would be whether or not the October portion
20 of the enhanced season would be available on the
21 property, which it would not be under Option 2,
22 and whether or not all the recommended management
23 pratices needed to be substantially accomplished
24 within the time frame established by the
25 Commission, which in Option 2 would only include
. 28
1 the harvest portion of those recommendations.
2 Staff anticipates the use of the browse survey to
3 objectively distinguish between these two habitat
4 conditions.
5 Also, this proposal distinguishes
6 between the intermediate option and a general
7 season antlerless-only option based on whether or
8 not harvest recommendations are being
9 substantially accomplished within the time frame
10 established by the Commission.
11 It is important for the Commission
12 to understand that if this proposal were adopted
13 as presented, and no grace period is provided for
14 in the regulation, there will be property owners
15 who currently qualify under the ESEB option that
16 will only qualify for the intermediate or general
17 season antlerless-only option during future
18 seasons.
19 Also, there will be property owners
20 who will not qualify under the intermediate option
21 because they will not substantially meet harvest
22 recommendations within the time frame established
23 by the Commission. However, if the Commission
24 provides that substantial compliance is required
25 only within a designated time frame, these
. 29
1 situations would be minimized.
2 This proposal will mean that within
3 this program, the wildlife management plan will
4 not be an informal voluntary agreement between
5 property owners and Parks and Wildlife, but will
6 become to a certain extent a regulatory device.
7 The purpose of this proposal is an attempt to
8 address the concerns that have been brought to us
9 about the program as it is currently being
10 implemented, and to clarify the intent of the
11 Commission for this program.
12 If we understand the Commission's
13 intent for this program, staff would further
14 propose to change the name of the program to the
15 Managed Lands Permit Program to emphasize that the
16 focus of this and all other programs of Parks and
17 Wildlife is on habitat.
18 The comments for this proposal was
19 94 in favor of and 21 in opposition to.
20 Since I'm the last presentation,
21 the staff recommends that the Regulations
22 Committee forward the Statewide Hunting and
23 Fishing Proclamation to the full Commission
24 tomorrow for adoption, and this will be the
25 adoption motion that will be presented at that
. 30
1 time.
2 Do you have any questions over the
3 Wildlife portion?
4 MR. SANSOM: Ms. Chairman, if I
5 might, before we take your questions, I'd like to
6 add to what Jerry has said by noting, first of
7 all, that the public comment on the last part of
8 his proposal -- that is, the changes to the MLD
9 Program -- have been generally supportive. On the
10 other hand, these proposals have generated a great
11 deal of confusion about what our intent is and
12 about what the standards are by which we would
13 issue these permits.
14 Mr. Watson and I and some of some
15 of the staff have begun a process of visiting many
16 of the affected ranches to try to see what the
17 impact is on the ground, and that's convinced us
18 that that confusion is definitely out there.
19 I will tell you that I'm concerned,
20 as I know our Chairman is, that we have the most
21 successful program in the United States that seeks
22 to bring landowners into voluntary conservation
23 programs. We now have over 10 million acres in
24 Texas in voluntary conservation programs. We've
25 got over four million acres in MLD at this time.
. 31
1 And the last thing we want to do is to create
2 disincentives, as opposed to trying to get more
3 people into that program. We need to grow it.
4 Our programs are focused on
5 habitat. Habitat is the key to all wildlife
6 success, and so we need to make sure that
7 everyone understands that habitat is the focus of
8 our programs. But we also need to realize that
9 there are people out there who have legitimate
10 grievances, perhaps, about how this is program
11 should be administered.
12 So my proposal to you today is that
13 we leave the MLD portions of the Proclamation as
14 they are and go forward with the program as it
15 currently exists; to also defer our later item on
16 the agenda today that has to do with Triple T; and
17 working with our Chairman and Mr. Watson and
18 others, that I will appoint a group of people who
19 represent the interested parties, interested
20 people who are currently concerned about this
21 program. And we will within the next two weeks
22 begin a process of trying to work with them to
23 seek a format for this program that reaches the
24 objectives that I've laid out, if that is
25 acceptable to you.
. 32
1 That would involve only the
2 portions of this program, of the Proclamation,
3 that deal with the managed lands permits.
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I think
5 that's a good approach here, because I think these
6 are difficult to understand. And as hard as they
7 are to understand, they must be particularly
8 difficult to take advantage of and for the
9 Department to administer.
10 But both Jerry and you, Andy,
11 talked about habitat; and I think it's essential
12 that we continue to make clear that that is a
13 critical part of what the Department has to focus
14 on in this program, and I think getting a
15 committee of interested stakeholders together on
16 that issue is an excellent approach.
17 But I would just urge that you
18 continue to stress the need for protection and
19 management of the habitat; because in Texas, with
20 all of it or virtually all of it being in private
21 ownership, that's the only way that we can protect
22 our natural resources. And our private landowners
23 do a good job in that regard, and we just need to
24 make sure that this program is one that supports
25 and encourages that.
. 33
1 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Madam
2 Chairman, my motion earlier to approve the
3 fishery's part was premature. So if there's no
4 objection, I would ask that that one be withdrawn,
5 and I would move that we approve the
6 recommendation as to the appropriate changes.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And I'd
8 second that.
9 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All in
10 favor? All opposed?
11 (Motion carries unanimously.)
12 ITEM NO. 3 - ACTION - PROPOSED FINFISH LICENSE
13 LIMITATION PROGRAM.
14 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Item Number 3,
15 Proposed Finfish License Limitation Program; Paul
16 Hammerschmidt.
17 Good morning.
18 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Good morning.
19 Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name
20 is Paul Hammerschmidt, Program Director for the
21 Coastal Fisheries Division.
22 My presentation today will review
23 staff's proposals to fulfill the legislative
24 mandate to implement a license management program
25 for the commercial finfish fishery in Texas.
. 34
1 The 76th Legislature under Senate
2 Bill 1303 granted the Parks and Wildlife
3 Commission this authority.
4 Let me back up here. There we go.
5 The various proposals that we made
6 were to implement the licensed management program
7 through a new Finfish Fishery Proclamation.
8 Within that, it would delegate administrative
9 authority of the program to the Executive
10 Director. It establishes rules for the display of
11 the license plate on a vessel; sets the date of
12 the transferability of the licenses to any time
13 beginning September 1, 2000; and lays out the
14 framework for a license buyback process.
15 It also sets commercial finfish
16 fisherman license and transfer fees at $300 for
17 resident, $1,200 for nonresident; and, finally,
18 under the Statewide Hunting and Fishing
19 Proclamation, sets the total number of trotlines
20 and crab traps a fisherman may use and establishes
21 marking requirements for those trotlines and crab
22 traps.
23 We had approximately 53 responses,
24 83 percent of which were favorable toward adoption
25 of this proposal.
. 35
1 Additionally, during the public
2 hearing process, members of the commercial fishing
3 industry asked that the Commission consider new,
4 less restrictive criteria which are used to
5 determine whether fisherman can leave trotlines in
6 the water during the weekend ban on trotlines.
7 Currently, trotlines must be
8 removed from the water no later than 1:00 p.m. on
9 Fridays unless the National Weather Service has
10 issued a small-craft advisory, where wind speeds
11 are 20 knots or greater. The industry asked that
12 the criteria be lowered to a newly adopted
13 advisory category called "small craft take
14 caution," where wind speeds are 15 to 20 knots.
15 Staff obtained weather data from
16 the National Weather Service and found that the
17 number of Fridays eligible for the new advisory
18 would increase from 10 percent of the Fridays per
19 year to 50 percent of the Fridays each year.
20 Consequently, due to this
21 significant increase of potential effort, staff
22 felt no action should be taken at this time.
23 However, we would like to continue to evaluate
24 this proposal. As part of our evaluation, we will
25 solicit more input from the general public and
. 36
1 look into the potential effects from a resource
2 perspective; and we will also assess how the new
3 license management program, pending approval of
4 the Commission, may offset future commercial
5 fishing activities.
6 That's my proposal. I'll be happy
7 to answer any questions.
8 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: This may sound
9 like a silly question, but why is it important
10 that trotlines be taken out of the water?
11 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Back when that
12 issue was made, it was made as a user conflict
13 issue and as a safety issue for over the weekend.
14 And we found that in the lower Coast,
15 particularly, the small-craft advisory is a good
16 portion of the time.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER RYAN: On the buyback
19 program, how do we determine what price that we
20 offer?
21 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: We have not
22 done that yet. What we're waiting for is for one
23 full year of the licenses to be issued, to get
24 that to settle out first, so we know who all the
25 players are in the program. Then we'll start
. 37
1 looking at that, and we will be doing that
2 currently with the crab industry. We've had one
3 full year of it. That's the way we did it with
4 the shrimp industry as well. We like to know who
5 our players are, how they're distributed up and
6 down the Coast, and then we'll look and see how to
7 establish a buyback process on that. There are
8 several options.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Paul, what's
10 been the history over the last 20 years of the
11 population of the finfish, given that it was
12 about that long ago that some of the restrictions
13 came into play?
14 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Yes, ma'am. On
15 the game fish, red drum and spotted sea trout,
16 we're seeing some of the best fishing we've ever
17 seen in 20 years. Tomorrow you'll be seeing a
18 fishing forecast on coastal fishing.
19 Black drum seem to be doing okay,
20 seem to be holding their own, which is a
21 commercial species. And that's the one that is
22 particularly targeted by trotliners.
23 Flounder are not doing so well.
24 We're still working on some issues with flounder.
25 We have in the last couple of years
. 38
1 established a bag limit on commercial fishermen.
2 We've changed the size limit a little bit, which
3 should allow the fish to spawn once before they
4 are targeted for the fishery, both recreational
5 and commercial.
6 So in general everything looks
7 pretty good except for flounder.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
9 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Yes, ma'am.
10 Any other questions? If not, then
11 staff recommends the following motion: That the
12 Regulations Committee of the Texas Parks and
13 Wildlife Commission authorize staff to bring the
14 proposed changes before the full Commission to be
15 considered for adoption.
16 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Do I have a
17 motion?
18 COMMISSIONER HEATH: So moved.
19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second?
20 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
21 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All in favor?
22 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
23 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All opposed?
24 (No response, and motion carries
25 unanimously.)
. 39
1 ITEM NO. 4 - BRIEFING - SHRIMP REGULATORY REVIEW
2 INITIATIVES.
3 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All right.
4 Number 4 is the status of the Shrimp Management
5 Initiative. Hal Osburn will give us a status
6 report.
7 MR. OSBURN: Thank you, Madam
8 Chairman. Commissioners, I'm Hal Osburn, Coastal
9 Fisheries Division Director.
10 The Shrimp Regulation Review
11 Initiative, which we started about a year and a
12 half ago, is entering its final phase. I'd like
13 to update you on its status.
14 Let me start by noting how
15 important shrimp are to the ecology of our
16 estuaries. They do provide a critical link
17 between the primary producers, top consumers in
18 that marine environment. Basically, if you don't
19 have healthy shrimp populations, you won't have
20 healthy estuaries. Shrimp are an important food
21 source for virtually all of our game fish: red
22 drum, spotted sea trout, and flounder. These are
23 the species that support a recreational fishing
24 industry worth about $2 billion to the State.
25 Of course, humans are also in the
. 40
1 food chain at the top, and we enjoy eating shrimp;
2 and those consumptive demands have fostered a
3 commercial industry which is worth about a half a
4 billion dollars to the State.
5 In Texas there are three primary
6 species. White, brown, and pink are their common
7 names. Each has a complex but predictable annual
8 life cycle. It includes spawning in the Gulf, and
9 then the larval movement into the back bays. They
10 have several months of rapid growth. They move
11 down back into the primary bays, and then they
12 will move out into the Gulf once again as adults
13 within that year.
14 Throughout most of a shrimp's life
15 history, they are pursued by a fleet of commercial
16 vessels. When they're in the back bays, there is
17 a fleet of about 1400 bait-shrimp vessels that
18 seek those shrimp out. As they grow and move to
19 the primary bays, they are sought as food; and
20 that fleet also consists of about 1400 licensed
21 vessels. As the shrimp reaches maturity and moves
22 back to the Gulf, it is hunted by a fleet of about
23 2300 licensed vessels. Those are Texas vessels.
24 There's also numerous out-of-state vessels which
25 are not required to be licensed in Texas and fish
. 41
1 just outside the Texas waters.
2 Unfortunately -- there's my Gulf
3 slide, the shrimp returning to the Gulf -- we
4 had a balance originally a number of decades ago
5 between the bait and the bay and the Gulf shrimper
6 and the available shrimp population. That balance
7 has been disrupted in the last few decades with
8 numerous changes in the fishery, some of them
9 listed here. These collectively have created some
10 biological, economic, and social stresses on our
11 fishery.
12 I wanted to highlight some of the
13 trends that cause concern for staff. We've seen
14 the shrimping efforts in the bays increase about
15 300 percent since the early '70s. A limited entry
16 program, which came in in about 1995, does appear
17 to have leveled out the effort, but is has not
18 reversed that trend.
19 During that same time period, we
20 have seen a none of bay shrimp harvested increase
21 actually about 400 percent as the technology, the
22 efficiency of the vessels, has increased.
23 The catch rate of the bay shrimp
24 has declined about 50 percent in that time period,
25 and this to us indicates a reduction in the
. 42
1 relative abundance of those shrimp that are
2 migrating to the Gulf as they make their way out
3 of the bay.
4 And perhaps the most disturbing
5 trend is the decline of the adult spawners in the
6 Gulf, about a 30 percent decline. This means to
7 us that the number of adult shrimp available to
8 provide the crop of larvae for the following year
9 in the bays is basically steadily diminishing.
10 Reversing these trends is
11 considered by staff to be a biological mandate.
12 We do think that we need to prevent any
13 possibility of a collapse of this valuable
14 resource. I will tell you it is not clear how
15 long we could go ignoring these trends before we
16 saw actual recruitment over fishing, but we
17 believe it is prudent to take action now. A lot
18 of folks will tell you that it is impossible to
19 collapse a shrimp stock, but there are numerous
20 examples in the scientific literature which
21 actually say just the opposite. This kind of
22 biological disaster in Texas would obviously have
23 an enormous economic impact on the shrimpers and
24 the processers; but beyond that, on the tourist
25 and recreational fisheries that depend on that
. 43
1 healthy estuary.
2 Excess shrimping effort in our bays
3 and Gulf does affect more than just the shrimp
4 stocks. Staff continues to be concerned about the
5 huge bycatch of other species, the interaction of
6 the shrimper with the sea turtle strandings, and
7 the impacts of trawling on bottom habitat and
8 water turbidity.
9 Our management strategy for this
10 fishery is mandated to be a compromise between
11 biological, social, and economic factors. Given
12 our current status, though, we believe that if
13 we're goind to achieve optimum yield, we do have
14 to reduce the overall impact of this fishery on
15 the estuary.
16 One of the least disruptive ways to
17 do that is is the licensed buyback program. It
18 has been very popular with industry. It was
19 supported by the Legislature, established by the
20 Legislature. But I will tell you it is not quick,
21 and it is also not cheap. Following my
22 presentation, Dr. McKinney will present some ideas
23 on how to accelerate that program.
24 Less popular with the shrimping
25 industry, but certainly less expensive and more
. 44
1 effective in the short term, are additional
2 restrictions on where, when, and how shrimp are
3 allowed to be harvested. In addition, license
4 fees can be adjusted on the commercial side to
5 properly fund management of this public resoucre.
6 We find ourselves with three basic
7 options. One is to take no action right now,
8 which we believe would incur a lot of economic and
9 biological risk. We could impose some very
10 restrictive rule changes on the fleet. That would
11 cause some short-term economic disruption along
12 the Coast. Or we could adopt a moderate package
13 of rule changes which would begin the recovery
14 process by addressing some of the most serious
15 parts of our concern.
16 I do need to point out to you that
17 even new rule changes cannot guarantee success.
18 The reason is that you still have environmental
19 concerns; pollution. Fresh-water inflow must
20 continue to be given a high priority. Law
21 unforcement must be given the resources to get
22 adequate compliance from our rules so that it's
23 not just a paper exercise. And because of our
24 economic stresses in the fleet that have generated
25 for many numbers of years now, we have not reached
. 45
1 the point where the industry in general is willing
2 to accept new conservation measures, so we have
3 not gotten to that co-management phase that we
4 want to be at.
5 Staff does seek guidance from the
6 Commission on what is admittedly a very difficult
7 management issue in natural resources. With your
8 concurrence, we will develop a moderate package of
9 rule changes which we will take to the Shrimp
10 Advisory Committee later this month, and we will
11 then present any modifications of that to you at
12 your next meeting.
13 And that concludes my presentation.
14 I'll be happy to answer any questions.
15 COMMISSIONER RYAN: I have a couple
16 of questions. Are we seeing sea turtle strandings
17 off bay shrimp?
18 MR. OSBURN: There are some. That
19 is a minor part. Probably only in the 10 percent
20 range of the sea turtle strandings appear to
21 generate from the bays.
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Okay. Another
23 thing is: On our buyback program, are we buying
24 back more bay shrimpers than we are Gulf
25 shrimpers?
. 46
1 MR. OSBURN: The Gulf shrimper is
2 not a part of the buyback program. It's bay and
3 bait licenses only is what the Legislature
4 established. I will tell you I wish I had a
5 limited-entry program on the Gulf fleet. We do
6 not have that. So we're buying bay and bait
7 licenses, and we've bought about 50/50 of those,
8 about even to their proportion.
9 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Would there be
10 an interest from those shrimpers on the Gulf?
11 MR. OSBURN: We have received some
12 recent interest from leaders in that arena, and
13 I'm very encouraged by that. I know it's
14 something that we're going to pursue. We do have
15 to get legislative authority to do it, though.
16 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Do you think
17 that's something we'll do in the near future?
18 MR. OSBURN: It's on the next phase
19 of the shrimp management strategy. This is a
20 long-term process. We started in 1985, when the
21 Legislature spoke to us to give us new regulatory
22 authority. In 1989 we got the shrimp FMP. In
23 1995 we got the limited entry. We will be taking
24 an action this year, possibly, and then in the
25 future years there are still things to do. I
. 47
1 think Gulf limited entry is not a -- just because
2 Texas does limited entry, we still have to deal
3 with the other states that can come in right
4 outside of nine miles. I will tell you we are
5 working with those states and the Gulf of Mexico
6 Fishery Management Council Counsel to propose that
7 sort of limitation system.
8 MR. SANSOM: And it's interesting,
9 Commissioner -- and I know that Hal has already
10 mentioned it -- but for the first time in quite a
11 while, we have had members of the Gulf industry
12 approach us and ask about it. But it's got to be
13 a Gulfwide solution. It cannot be Texas alone.
14 DR. McKINNEY: Madam Chairman --
15 COMMISSIONER HEATH: A Gulfwide --
16 DR. McKINNEY: I'm sorry.
17 COMMISSIONER AVILA: I have one
18 more question. A Gulfwide solution: Does that
19 mean Mexico, inclusive, or are you just talking
20 about U. S.?
21 MR. SANSOM: Ideally, yes, sir.
22 COMMISSIONER AVILA: And the other
23 question is: If there's been a shrimp fishery
24 collapse that includes Mexico and Brazil, did they
25 see that coming and take any action and try to put
. 48
1 in any regulation, or have we looked at that?
2 MR. OSBURN: Most of these
3 collapses around the world have taken action.
4 Obviously, when something that dramatic happens,
5 you take note of it. Primarily, those fisheries
6 allowed a harvest, a tremendous harvest of the
7 very smallest shrimp in their bays. And in some
8 cases, they would literally close the -- put nets
9 across the passes. The tide rushed out with the
10 equivalent to cheesecloth across the pass to catch
11 everything that went out, and it didn't take long
12 before, "What happened to the big ones offshore?"
13 They have taken action in all of the situations
14 that I know of, but most of it has transferred to
15 another area, and then you get another overfishing
16 problem.
17 So we're still learning those
18 lessons. Fishery management is not where it needs
19 to be around the world.
20 COMMISSIONER AVILA: But the point
21 is, they're taking reactive action, and you're
22 trying to take some proactive action?
23 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir.
24 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Okay.
25 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Hal, could you
. 49
1 define for me a "collapse"?
2 MR. OSBURN: That is an interesting
3 term, and it means a lot of different things to a
4 lot of different people. You can have an economic
5 collapse, which would not be as bad as biological
6 collapse. An economic collapse would be that it's
7 not worth going out there and fishing, and we're
8 certainly going to get to that point before we
9 get to a biological collapse.
10 A biological collapse for us would
11 be when we first see recruitment over fishing,
12 which is when the number of shrimp spawned and
13 sent into the bays is not equivalent to the number
14 that the bays can actually hold. Right now there
15 probably is a surplus of shrimp in the bays that
16 the bays can hold, but the number of adults
17 producing them is going down. At some point
18 there's just not enough babies being produced, and
19 the bays become less fertile with shrimp so that
20 the biomass of shrimp is not as large as it would
21 be on average. And that, to us, is at least the
22 start of a collapse.
23 MR. SANSOM: Now, Hal, from an
24 ecological standpoint, would it not be the case,
25 then, that that would also affect everything else?
. 50
1 MR. OSBURN: Absolutely.
2 MR. SANSOM: I mean, not just the
3 catch of shrimp, but the redfish and trout that
4 feed on them.
5 MR. OSBURN: I could spend --
6 we've had a wonderful opportunity to look at
7 data. We've created some biomass pictures of
8 shrimp; and it's really wonderful, the biomass
9 that the estuaries produce for us every year,
10 when you think of how much shrimp biomass is out
11 there. But that biomass has to be shared with the
12 other fish, it has to be shared with the shrimp
13 population so they can rejuvenate themselves, and
14 it has to be shared recreationally and has to be
15 shared commercially.
16 And so the first two, what the
17 other species need and what the shrimp populations
18 need, is the biological side of it that we're
19 trying to prioritize, and the socioeconomic side.
20 We have to give Mother Nature part of this stuff
21 back, and we're not doing a very good job of that
22 right now.
23 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Carol?
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Hal, the
25 bycatch of 80 million pounds --
. 51
1 MR. OSBURN: Yes, ma'am.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: -- you
3 didn't give us a chart that compared that over
4 time or showed a trend. What does that look like
5 in terms of history?
6 MR. OSBURN: The bycatch is going
7 to basically parallel in poundage the effort on
8 the first increase, which was about a 300 percent
9 increase, because the amount of bycatch per trawl,
10 I think, has been fairly steady over time. We
11 don't have as good a number on that as we do on
12 the actual shrimp populations. That's what
13 scientists have been measuring. Well, you study
14 the shrimp. Well, the bycatch is something that
15 we've only discovered in the last decade or so as
16 to, "Well, what about all this other stuff?" But,
17 yes, the steady increase in the bycatch.
18 And I will tell you that our
19 Number 1 concern out of the bycatch is those
20 flounder. Paul Hammerschmidt spoke about the
21 flounder. One of the things we've identified that
22 is holding back the recovery of flounder is the
23 literally millions of flounder juveniles being
24 caught in shrimp trawls.
25 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Any other
. 52
1 comments?
2 DR. McKINNEY: If there's no
3 additional comments, I'll go ahead and continue
4 with the second part.
5 Madam Chairman, for the record, I'm
6 Larry McKinney, Senior Director for Aquatic
7 Resources.
8 As Hal, I think, so eloquently
9 presented, one of the important aspects of our
10 long-term strategy is to reduce that pressure.
11 And one of the options that we briefed the
12 Commission on at your last meeting was ways in
13 which we could accelerate that buyback program and
14 some options that we were looking at and that we
15 went out and scoped, and that's what I want to
16 talk with you about today. I'll give you the
17 results of that and have a little bit of
18 discussion and recommendation of where we go with
19 that.
20 Just in a quick summary, the option
21 we're looking at is increasing the salt-water
22 fishing stamp by $1 to $3, or overall fishing
23 license by that amount, in order to generate funds
24 to accelerate that program. We scoped those
25 ideas; and fortunately, because we have an ongoing
. 53
1 survey of our salt-water anglers right now that's
2 underway and being tabulated, we were able to have
3 a question in there and extract that information.
4 And we've looked at over 1,000
5 responses to the question, "Would you support an
6 increase in the salt-water stamp to accelerate the
7 buyback program?" And Statewide that response has
8 been 68 percent in favor.
9 Where we did specific scopings
10 along the Coast, for example, as part of our
11 process, that support was as high as 73 percent in
12 favor of accelerating that program.
13 A couple of major concerns were
14 raised if we do that. One is that -- and, again,
15 we discussed this with the Commission -- we
16 definitely wanted to look at a sunset provision
17 with that fee increase that not only accomplished
18 our goal, but that that fee went away at that
19 time. And clearly our sport recreational anglers
20 were saying that if we're going to do this, we
21 really need to make sure that we're accomplishing
22 a conservation goal.
23 And I think in the discussion we
24 just had, making a point of if we can reduce 80
25 million pounds of bycatch -- four pounds of
. 54
1 bycatch for every pound of shrimp we take in the
2 bays -- that if we can reduce the pressure and
3 reduce that bycatch, we will greatly benefit our
4 fishery.
5 Also, if we can reduce the
6 trawling -- in which many of our bays, all of our
7 bays are completely turned over, trawled over,
8 from three to eight times each years, creating a
9 lot of pressure -- if we can reduce that, that has
10 definite conservation values.
11 So considering that and the
12 results, staff kind of seeks your guidance to move
13 forward. And what we would like to do is propose
14 that we increase the salt-water stamp fee by $3;
15 not the overall license fee, but the salt-water
16 stamp fee alone. We looked at the overall
17 issues; but because of the Combo and the success
18 of the Super Combo and where it is, we don't want
19 to mess with a good thing, although I think this
20 may accelerate more purchases of that program, and
21 that's good.
22 So our recommendation is to go
23 forward with the $3 stamp fee. We would sunset
24 that increase by September of 2005. We would
25 propose putting it forward to you in June for your
. 55
1 consideration of adoption. It would become
2 effective in September of 2000. If we do that, we
3 would generate some $1.5 million annually for our
4 buyback accounts.
5 I do want to point out at this time
6 we have it set as buyback accounts, not
7 necessarily shrimp accounts. Our concern there is
8 that if we generate those funds through the year,
9 we don't want to be caught where we can't expend
10 them for those shrimp things.
11 We have some limits, obviously,
12 from the legislative authority and so forth as to
13 what we can or can't do in a year, and we want to
14 make sure that we make the best use of that money.
15 And to there might be occasions where we would
16 want to help on the other buybacks of crabs or
17 finfish in order to make the best of the money.
18 But our clear goal -- clear goal --
19 is that 50 percent reduction in shrimp. But
20 until we can make sure we've addressed perhaps the
21 fiscal and some of the legislative limits, we
22 don't want to lock ourselves in there until we can
23 make sure that we will make the best use of that
24 money.
25 So, at this time, certainly, if you
. 56
1 have any additional questions, we would just seek
2 your guidance and comments on proceeding with that
3 proposal.
4 MR. SANSOM: Commissioners, the
5 effect of this conversation would be that if you
6 have no objection, we would go the The Texas
7 Register during the next few weeks with a proposal
8 to raise the salt-water stamp $3 for this purpose.
9 It would be sunsetted, have a sunset provision;
10 and we would bring it back to you for concurrence
11 in June.
12 Let me say here that this is a big
13 deal. I mean, I want to reiterate what Hal has
14 said. This is a big deal. This is a serious
15 resource issue, both in terms of the shrimp and in
16 terms of the bay bottom and all the other species
17 that are affected by the bycatch. We will look at
18 some alternatives, to even borrowing money to
19 leverage against this so that we can take these
20 revenues and potentially even act quicker, because
21 it is a problem.
22 On the other hand, because of the
23 support of people like Edmond Kemple and others
24 and members of the industry and the hard work that
25 Hal, and Gene before him, have done, and Larry, we
. 57
1 have as good a relationship with this industry as
2 we've ever had. I mean, it is a good partnership.
3 And so we want to stick with an approach that
4 allows us to try to address this problem in
5 partnership with the industry, because they're the
6 ones with the most to lose if this industry
7 collapses economically.
8 DR. McKINNEY: Well said, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER AVILA: You were
10 saying you're looking to move forward with this
11 accelerated license for the buyback program, but
12 you also are going to meet with the advisory
13 committee and come up with some restrictive
14 measures, as well?
15 DR. McKINNEY: What this is is the
16 long-term strategy. It's going to take us five
17 years to even get that to happen, so this is a
18 long-term strategy. But that's not going to
19 alleviate the concerns that Hal has raised over
20 the short term and where we are, so it has to be a
21 combination at this point.
22 COMMISSIONER AVILA: But we are
23 going to do something short-term?
24 DR. McKINNEY: Yes, sir.
25 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Since shrimp
. 58
1 is the immediate concern, did you consider
2 restricting the funding for that period of time to
3 shrimp, and one to two to three years and later to
4 deal with the other?
5 DR. McKINNEY: We did look at that
6 scenario, but the unknowns of what our
7 restrictions might be legislatively and so
8 forth -- and, for example, we'll generate one and
9 a half million dollars next year; and that's just
10 from the -- if we do this proposal, that's just
11 from the salt-water stamp that the industry itself
12 contributes. So over the biennium, we could have
13 three to four million dollars to work with.
14 I want to buy as many of those
15 licenses as we can, but I don't want to get into a
16 situation where I'm just handing out money to
17 spend the money to buy it. And so until we can
18 make sure we have the legislative authority and
19 direction to do that, I want to make sure we can
20 use that money the best way we can to reduce all
21 of our commercial fishing impact, crab and finfish
22 as well.
23 So at this point, our goal, our
24 clear goal, is 50 percent of that shrimping
25 license; but I don't want to put us in a situation
. 59
1 where we get the limit and don't make the best use
2 of the money, if that explains it. That's where
3 I'm caught right now, just because of the
4 uncertainties of how I can spend that money wisely
5 if we do so.
6 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Larry, is
7 there any way to quantify the effect of being a
8 purchaser, Texas Parks and Wildlife as a purchaser
9 of these licenses? Has that caused an upward
10 pressure on the price of the licenses? Are we
11 having to pay a little more by doing it this way,
12 a little at a time?
13 DR. McKINNEY: I think this
14 program, what we're talking about, will cause it
15 to go up more. Right now it hasn't, because there
16 just hasn't been that money.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I believe last
18 meeting you said the licenses -- or maybe you had
19 it here, too -- were about $6,000?
20 DR. McKINNEY: Around that, yes.
21 It would definitely go up, as you expect, if we
22 start buying them back. They become more
23 valuable. But also if people think you have
24 money, they're going to try to hold out or
25 whatever. So that's kind of the unknown. We've
. 60
1 figured that in our models to go up, but that's
2 part of the issue.
3 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: One more
4 question on it: Can you tell me where the price
5 of licenses have been in the last five years,
6 from the most you've paid and the least you've
7 paid?
8 MR. OSBURN: On these commercial
9 licenses?
10 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: On the
11 buyback.
12 MR. OSBURN: Oh. The least we've
13 probably paid was a couple of thousand dollars,
14 and I think the most was about $8,500.
15 COMMISSIONER HENRY: How does this
16 compare to transfers and transferabilities, and
17 what are the major restrictions there?
18 MR. OSBURN: The Legislature -- and
19 this was a compromise with industry -- the
20 Legislature established an open transferability as
21 of September of this last year. Before that, only
22 historical participants in the fishery could buy
23 someone else's license.
24 Now anyone can walk down to the
25 dock and buy somebody's license, and you can go
. 61
1 shrimping; or you could transfer it to the State,
2 and we have a program to transfer them to the
3 State with what we call buyback agents. We have
4 not had anybody do that for us yet, but it is open
5 transferability, which makes it a market
6 commodity. It's now a free market on those
7 licenses. And, of course, that means we have
8 competition to buy them, and that will drive the
9 price up.
10 But the poor economic situation in
11 shrimping makes it to where you don't have a lot
12 of competition right now on buying thoses
13 licenses.
14 As our programs succeed, it will be
15 harder and harder to buy a license back. But
16 that's where we want to be. That's the kind of
17 problem we want. That means the catch rates have
18 turned around.
19 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Hal, what's the
20 average cost of a shrimp boat?
21 MR. OSBURN: Shrimp boat? There
22 are some members of the industry here that could
23 probably answer that better than I. It depends on
24 the conditions. I will tell you that in the Gulf
25 fleet you were asking about, we've had some
. 62
1 recent brand-new vessels over 100 feet long with
2 big Caterpillar engines in them that have gone for
3 $1 million; but in our bay fleet, I think it's in
4 the $30,000 to $100,000 range.
5 COMMISSIONER RYAN: If we buy those
6 people's license out, where do those boats end up
7 going?
8 MR. OSBURN: We're going to try to
9 track that. In some cases, the vessels are in
10 need of a lot of repair, and they just choose not
11 to spend any more money on the vessel.
12 COMMISSIONER RYAN: It's
13 depreciated them out, then?
14 MR. OSBURN: Right. It's
15 depreciated them out. And a lot these vessels, if
16 you look at the fleet, they have been depreciating
17 for a while.
18 DR. McKINNEY: And, as would make
19 sense, those individuals that would be most
20 interested in a buyback program are probably on
21 the edge or under, and their vessel is not going
22 to be worth that much.
23 MR. OSBURN: There are, of course,
24 shrimp fisheries throughout the Gulf and South
25 Atlantic; and there's big broker systems to buy
. 63
1 boats.
2 COMMISSIONER RYAN: So we don't
3 really know what percentage of boats that we
4 actually take out of the fleet?
5 MR. OSBURN: Yes, we do know the
6 number that we're taking out, because the license
7 is associated with the vessel.
8 COMMISSIONER RYAN: But what I'm
9 saying is: That boat could go somewhere else and
10 continue to shrimp?
11 MR. OSBURN: Not in our waters.
12 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Right. But it
13 could still go somewhere else?
14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Another
15 state, or --
16 COMMISSIONER RYAN: We don't know
17 what percentage of those boats actually are taken
18 out of the industry?
19 DR. McKINNEY: In other words,
20 drydocked or whatever?
21 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Right;
22 destroyed or whatever.
23 MR. OSBURN: We have begun to ask
24 them to do a questionnaire on our buybacks of,
25 "What kind of history do you have in the fishery?
. 64
1 What is the condition your boat? What are you
2 going to do with your boat?" We're going to try
3 to track that for you.
4 COMMISSIONER RYAN: I think that
5 would be good information.
6 MR. OSBURN: Yes, sir. And it does
7 speak to the social issue here; and it's part of
8 the reason to take what I call the kinder, gentler
9 approach on this, because these are fishing
10 communities.
11 These are hard-working people.
12 They have put their lives into this fishery, and
13 a lot of these fisheries would not be where they
14 are without their efforts. We're reaping the
15 benefits as to the economy, but they don't need to
16 be just suddenly displaced. And that certainly
17 has some precedent around the Gulf, and even in
18 this State, of just a sudden displacement: You're
19 not in there any more. We think this soft exit
20 stragegy reduces the social impacts on the coastal
21 communities.
22 MR. SANSOM: I would like to add
23 there that in addition to those contributions, the
24 earliest proponents of environmental protection in
25 the coastal waters were commercial fishermen as
. 65
1 well. So they have also led the way in
2 conservation.
3 MR. OSBURN: They will speak to you
4 about the environmental concerns, and a lot of
5 them will tell you it's all environment: "If you
6 would just fix the pollution." As a manager, I
7 have to take what I have to work with in that bay
8 system and what shrimp it can hold, and prioritize
9 its sustainability. But they are conservationists
10 at heart.
11 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Larry, what
12 was the number again of the coastal anglers
13 surveyed who support this?
14 DR. McKINNEY: 73 percent. Out of
15 our responses from our e-mails or public meetings,
16 letters and phones and so forth, we had a total of
17 360 responses. From that, 259 were in favor, and
18 94 were opposed. So we're talking about 73
19 percent. I can get you those numbers in
20 particular.
21 The bulk of it, I guess, of course
22 came from the fact that we were able to extract
23 that one question from the Statewide survey that
24 the fisheries are doing to get a total of 1,000
25 responses. That's Statewide in regards to this
. 66
1 issue.
2 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Any other
3 comments?
4 Hal and Larry, thank you for your
5 comments.
6 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you, Madam
7 Chairman.
8 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: These are
9 difficult issues.
10 ITEM NO. 5 - ACTION - PUBLIC HUNTING LANDS
11 PROCLAMATION AND PROPOSED STATE PARK HUNTS.
12 Item No. 5, Public Hunting Lands
13 Proclamation and Proposed State Park Hunts;
14 Herb Kothmann.
15 Good morning, Herb.
16 MR. KOTHMANN: Madam Chairman and
17 members of the Regulations Committee, my name is
18 Herb Kothmann. I'm a Director of Public Hunts.
19 This presentation deals with
20 proposed changes to the Public Lands Proclamation
21 and proposals for public hunts on State Park lands
22 during the 2000-2001 season.
23 The first portion of this
24 presentation deals with the changes to the Public
25 Lands Proclamation. This first proposal for
. 67
1 change would promote youth participation in
2 hunting on Parks and Wildlife public hunting lands
3 by lowering from 21 to 18 years the minimum age at
4 which young adults may supervise youth. Our legal
5 staff advised that the age of majority in Texas
6 for signing legal contracts is 18. Therefore, a
7 person 18 years of age may assume legal
8 responsibility for the liability of a youth.
9 Another recommended change would
10 authorize holders of an annual hunting public
11 permit, a limited public use permit or one of the
12 Texas Conservation Passports, to use our public
13 hunting lands to access adjacent public waters and
14 to fish in those adjacent public waters from the
15 bank of public hunting lands. Presently, our
16 regulation require people to have a $40 annual
17 public hunting permit only for this activity.
18 COMMISSIONER HEATH: What's the
19 economic impact of that, Herb?
20 MR. KOTHMANN: The economic impact
21 of that would be to possibly sell a few less
22 annual hunting permits. Hopefully, we would
23 stimulate the sale of Texas Conservations
24 Passports.
25 COMMISSIONER HEATH: What do we see
. 68
1 as the potential downside of the number of
2 permits? What kind of numbers are you talking
3 about?
4 MR. KOTHMANN: The $40 permit, this
5 year we're selling approximately 38,000 total of
6 the $40 annual public hunting permits.
7 COMMISSIONER HEATH: So the risk is
8 38,000 times $40?
9 MR. KOTHMANN: Times $40, yes.
10 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Well, let me
11 wait till Andy gets back, and then we can comment
12 on that.
13 MR. KOTHMANN: Okay.
14 Another proposal would remove the
15 current provisions for hunting small game and
16 feral hog on U. S. Forest Service lands under a
17 $10 limited public use permit. Staff is
18 recommending that this proposal be withdrawn at
19 the request of the U. S. Forest Service, which has
20 requested additional time to evaluate the impact
21 upon public users. This is a current provision
22 applicable only to the five U. S. Forest Service
23 units under our public hunting program.
24 Everywhere else, hunting activity on our lands
25 requires the $40 permit.
. 69
1 Another proposal would establish an
2 anterless-deer permit to regulate the harvest of
3 anterless deer during the general season on those
4 five U. S. Forest Service WMAs, where hunting
5 where hunting is managed by this agency. The
6 existing Parks and Wildlife permit, such as
7 LAMPs, the managed lands deer permit, and
8 anterless deer control permit, are not suitable to
9 meet this need. Plans are that the U. S. Forest
10 Service would distribute these permits through a
11 drawing system to people who possess a $40 annual
12 public hunting permit. Therefore, it would not
13 cost the Department any additional staff time,
14 and we do not anticipate charging a fee for these
15 anterless permits.
16 Another proposal would waive any
17 applicable regular or daily permit fees for people
18 who participate in authorized nonconsumptive
19 activities under any one of the four annual
20 permits. Those would be the $40 annual public
21 hunting permit, the $10 limited public use permit,
22 the $25 TCP or $50 TCP. A similar waiver of the
23 regular and daily permit fees currently is in
24 place for our consumptive users. This would
25 simply put our nonconsumptive users' activities on
. 70
1 par with our consumptive users.
2 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Herb, can we
3 just go back to that issue or --
4 MR. KOTHMANN: Yes, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER HEATH: -- just
6 clarify those numbers for the Commission on those
7 permits?
8 MR. KOTHMANN: Okay. This year, we
9 are issuing approximately 38,000 $40 annual public
10 hunting permits and approximately 2500 limited
11 public use permits that provide access to public
12 hunting lands. This proposal would allow access
13 through those lands to adjacent public waters,
14 which presently is not allowed under the
15 additional $10 TCP and the $50 TCP; and also
16 would allow fishing from the bank in adjacent
17 public waters under any of those four permits,
18 where previously the $40 was the only thing that
19 allows that.
20 MR. GRAHAM: Commissioner, if I
21 understood your question, it would be trying to
22 get at what would be the impact of not requiring
23 the annual public hunt permits for those people
24 who are principally interested in nonconsumptive,
25 and that would be a lot less than 38,000. I don't
. 71
1 know that we could actually track that number, but
2 I'd bet it would be 500 or less. So the impact
3 would not be the 38,000. It would be much, much
4 smaller than that.
5 MR. KOTHMANN: I would not
6 anticipate a negative impact revenuwise.
7 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Yes. I'm
8 sorry, but I think at least a couple of us here
9 thought we were talking about 38,000 permits at
10 $40 a whack. I was just double-checking my zeros,
11 and that was a million and a half dollars.
12 MR. KOTHMANN: Right.
13 COMMISSIONER HEATH: I just wanted
14 to be sure that number was right. So we're
15 talking about less than a thousand permits in --
16 MR. SANSOM: I'd say probably a lot
17 less than that, but we can't give you a hard
18 number. I agree with Herb's assessment. The
19 fiscal impact would be miniscule, if any.
20 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Okay. So this
21 may be a $10,000 impact or a $20,000, assuming
22 there's not an offset against that in the sale of
23 other revenue-producing --
24 MR. KOTHMANN: Not having my
25 soothsayer credentials, I couldn't promise it, but
. 72
1 I would not anticipate a negative revenue impact.
2 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Okay. I just
3 wanted to be sure that what it sounded like at
4 first to me is not accurate, and that we're
5 talking about a minimum impact, and we're all in
6 agreement with that. Thank you very much.
7 MR. KOTHMANN: Okay. And in the
8 real world, in effect, what this has done would be
9 clearing up a situation that is relatively already
10 existing where our enforcement officers are
11 recognizing any of these access permits --
12 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Sure.
13 MR. KOTHMANN: -- as to the
14 pricing. It's an area of gray that we hope to
15 clear up.
16 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Okay.
17 MR. KOTHMANN: Another proposal
18 would specifically prohibit the distribution or
19 removal of wood, rock, gravel, sand, soil, or
20 shell from our Departmental public hunting lands,
21 except as authorized by the Department. The
22 reason we're proposing this is that we have had
23 some problem with some theft of soil in some units
24 and found our rules did not specifically say you
25 could not remove soil without our approval. So
. 73
1 we're touching another base here.
2 On the proposal for changes in the
3 Public Lands Proclamation, the Commission was
4 briefed on those on January 20th. You gave
5 permission to publish in The Register, which we
6 did on March 3. The proposals were presented at
7 11 public hearings around the State in February
8 and March. We distributed them via our
9 Departmental news releases. They were posted on
10 our Internet home page.
11 Our summary of public comments to
12 date have been zero. Apparently, things are
13 pretty good out there.
14 The only comments I have received
15 have been primarily from cooperating agencies,
16 that being the U. S. Forest Service, relative to
17 that proposal that we request be withdrawn.
18 The second portion of this
19 presentation deals with the recommendations for
20 public hunts on 42 units of the State Park System
21 during the 2000-2001 season. This is the same
22 number of units, 42, on which public hunts were
23 scheduled last year for the '99-2000 season, when
24 a total of 1838 people participated in the drawn
25 hunts and harvested 932 deer, 101 exotic animals,
. 74
1 eight javelina. The turkey hunts and some of the
2 feral hog hunts are still ongoing for the current
3 season.
4 Forty-one of the 42 proposed parks
5 for hunts are the same as last year, and South
6 Llano River would be replacing Dinosaur Valley on
7 that list for the coming year.
8 We would be offering approximately
9 the same number of drawn hunt positions as last
10 year. That would be about 2257. Actually, it's
11 down roughly 141. But that number will vary
12 slightly, depending upon how the computer draws
13 numbers of parties for each of the hunt periods;
14 so roughly about 2200, 2300 drawn hunt positions.
15 We would be offering over 200 youth-only hunt
16 positions, which would up about 25 from last year.
17 I have a series of three slides
18 indicating the names of the 42 units on which
19 public hunts are proposed. I'll try to go through
20 these fairly slowly so that the Commission can
21 look at them. I will read them out briefly for
22 the benefit of the audience: Arroyo Colorado,
23 Atlanta, Big Bend Ranch, Brazos Bend, Brownwood,
24 Bryan Beach, Caddo Lake State Park Wildlife
25 Management Area, Caprock Canyons, Choke Canyon-
. 75
1 Callahan, Choke Canyon-North Shore, Colorado Bend,
2 Davis Mountains, Devil's River, Devil's Sinkhole.
3 I've been advised that don't need
4 to read all these, so I'll give you a pause to
5 read the list yourself. I was sort of enjoying
6 it.
7 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: While we're
8 doing that, I have a question about the demand for
9 the permits. How is that running? Does it change
10 from year to year, or what is the level?
11 MR. KOTHMANN: The number of
12 applications has leveled off fairly close at about
13 12 to 13 applications for every drawn hunt
14 position. It reaches obvious exaggerations in
15 both extremes. We have a few areas that are
16 leased to man that you might have one position for
17 every two people that apply. That's the
18 exception. The extreme will be something like our
19 quality deer hunts in South Texas, where we may
20 have 50 positions with over 4,000 people applying.
21 But it averages about one position for every 12
22 or 13 people.
23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, Herb,
24 what does it take to get more state parks
25 involved?
. 76
1 MR. KOTHMANN: We are currently
2 offering hunts on about all the suitable sites
3 that we've been able to identify on state park
4 lands and wildlife management areas, in view of
5 other activities that are ongoing out there. On
6 our parks that are developed for other activities,
7 we certainly have to avoid impacting those
8 established park activities. That's why we
9 schedule our hunts on weekdays rather than
10 weekends, avoid holidays, and try to hunt in
11 December and January when our historic park
12 visitation has been lowest out there. We
13 certainly can eke out, I think, some additional
14 opportunity in the area of small game; maybe some
15 squirrel hunting, dove hunting. But I think as
16 far as the obvious choices for deer hunts, exotic
17 hunts, feral hog, javelina, those have been pretty
18 well identiied.
19 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, what's
20 the potential of Government Canyon?
21 MR. KOTHMANN: Government Canyon
22 certainly has potential.
23 We did attempt feral hog hunts on
24 Government Canyon several years, with very low
25 hunter success. Since that time, they have gone
. 77
1 into contract removal quite successfully to
2 address the feral-hog issue.
3 We did hold some mourning dove
4 hunts on Government Canyon. We found that the
5 suitable spot for dove hunting was a small
6 opening near the entrance, which unfortunately is
7 near where a new subdivision has gone in. And
8 everybody crammed into about a 20, 25-acre
9 opening there and really created a pretty spooky
10 situation, to say nothing of a parking logjam
11 right there.
12 But I think that there certainly
13 might be something in the realm of archery hunts
14 in that type of situation. That certainly would
15 provide opportunity for hunting activity.
16 But unless you want to alter the
17 scene on the ground drastically, I really can't
18 see that Government Canyon is going to be
19 providing a large amount of hunting in the realm
20 of firearms right now. That's just my thought.
21 I'm open to suggestions.
22 MR. GRAHAM: Commissioner, the
23 process is a fairly involved one, where we get
24 staff input from the beginning, both from the
25 Wildlife Division and the State Park Division, in
. 78
1 terms of the opportunities and the resource
2 issues. Then that gets processed all way up, and
3 Andy takes a look at it; and so there's a lot of
4 checks and balances along the way. But it starts
5 off from a resource perspective, and we're also
6 looking at it from an opportunity perspective.
7 MR. KOTHMANN: Any more questions
8 on that issue?
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. I have
10 just a comment, rather than a question. I
11 continue to be concerned about not having all the
12 parks in one area to be closed on the same days
13 for public hunting, which I raised with you last
14 year --
15 MR. KOTHMANN: Right.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: -- when we
17 had this discussion. And I see that sometimes
18 there's a day on either side of a three-day period
19 when one or the other of them will be open or
20 closed, but not both, like Pedernales Falls and
21 Enchanted Rock.
22 But you've got quite a few state
23 parks in that area, going all the way up to
24 Colorado Bend; and I would just urge that you work
25 with the State Park Division to make sure that the
. 79
1 publicity gets out as to what parks are closed on
2 what days, and that there be signs posted at the
3 parks also to say, "Please visit these parks in
4 this area," because that falls over the Christmas
5 holidays. And even though it's low visitation,
6 those who may have driven a good piece, never
7 imagining that they would be closed for public
8 hunting, I think, will be quite disappointed.
9 And I just want to be sure that we
10 put the word out that there are other
11 opportunities and that we be cautious about not
12 closing all the parks in one area on the same
13 days.
14 MR. KOTHMANN: Yes, Commissioner
15 Dinkins. We addressed this specific issue at
16 length yesterday at a meeting in San Angelo of
17 Parks and Wildlife staff trying to, in the
18 scheduling process, avoid that overlap of hunt
19 dates in this geographic area through the
20 coordination of all those proposals is developed.
21 Certainly, we need to put out the
22 information. Once that has been, the schedule is
23 set. And as soon as these schedules, if they are
24 approved by the Commission tomorrow, we would have
25 that information in our Park Reservation System
. 80
1 that would not accept reservations on those hunt
2 dates on those specific parks. But additionally,
3 we have that information posted on our
4 Departmental home page on the Internet.
5 But possibly some on-the-ground
6 signage needs to be increased out there, giving
7 advance warning that a park will be closed on
8 certain dates.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's the
10 day-trippers, not the campers, that I'm concerned
11 with. And I appreciate your efforts on this,
12 because I know it's hard to coordinate all of
13 that. But I think it's important for the part of
14 public that's not going there to hunt.
15 MR. KOTHMANN: I believe every one
16 of those people eventually gets referred to me, so
17 I'm well aware of the complaints.
18 On the State Park Hunt proposals,
19 the initial proposals were developed last fall
20 through the joint efforts of our field staff in
21 State Parks and Wildlife. The Regulations
22 Committee was briefed on January 20th on the
23 proposals. We distributed them via our news
24 releases. They were listed on our home page.
25 They were presented at 11 public hearings.
. 81
1 Only one comment on the proposed
2 public hunts on state parks has been received,
3 and that was favorable. It's surprising how the
4 controversy of past years appears to have been
5 largely set to rest. Hopefully, that will be a
6 good sign and continue.
7 The favorable comment was from an
8 adjacent landowner to Devil's River State Park,
9 who expressed support for the hunts. He said,
10 "You're at least keeping the deer moving. You
11 know, they don't go reside on you until the season
12 is over. You're acting like all the other
13 property owners in the Hill Country now." But
14 that was pleasing.
15 The proposals were recently
16 reviewed and confirmed by all of the concerned
17 Park Superintendents, because it has been about
18 five months since they were initially developed,
19 to let us know that yes, they are still valid.
20 The Commission approval of the
21 proposals is required in order to be proceed with
22 implementation of the hunts. I will be presenting
23 three motions, if Regulations Committee authorizes
24 us to go the Commission.
25 One would be to approve the
. 82
1 proposals for changes in the Proclamation.
2 One would be to approve the
3 proposed state park hunts.
4 And then we would be asking the
5 Commission to approve a hunting season on
6 Departmental public hunting lands, to run from
7 September 1 of 2000 to August 31 of 2001. You'd
8 need to open the season before we can hold any of
9 these hunts.
10 But, Madam Chairman, that
11 concludes my presentation. Do you have any
12 questions?
13 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Herb, are we
14 going to need three individual motions on these?
15 MR. KOTHMANN: There will be three
16 motions listed. I would say that you could vote
17 on them simultaneously as Motions 1, 2, and 3.
18 That works for me.
19 COMMISSIONER RYAN: So moved.
20 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second?
21 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Second.
22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All in favor?
23 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All opposed?
25 (No response, and motion carries
. 83
1 unanimously.)
2 ITEM NO. 6 - BRIEFING - TRIPLE T PROGRAM
3 (TRANSPORTATION AND IMPORTATION) - (CANCELED).
4 ITEM NO. 7 - ACTION - PROPOSED EXOTIC SPECIES
5 RULES.
6 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Item No. 7,
7 Proposed Exotic Species Rules; Joedy Gray.
8 MR. GRAY: Good morning, Madam
9 Chair and Committee members.
10 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Good morning.
11 MR. GRAY: My name is Joedy Gray,
12 and I'm a Staff Support Specialist for the Inland
13 Fisheries Division.
14 Staff is proposing amendments
15 concerning the harmful or potential harmful exotic
16 fish and aquatic plant rules. These amendments
17 are intended to simplify the permitting process.
18 The first proposed amendment will
19 provide permits for removal of prohibited plant
20 species from public waters. Currently, operators
21 of mechanical harvesters have to obtain a research
22 permit in order to remove prohibited species such
23 as water hyacinth and hyrilla from public waters.
24 This amendment will allow them to obtain a permit
25 without having to write a research proposal.
. 84
1 The second proposed amendment will
2 allow operators of wastewater treatment facilities
3 to possess permitted exotic fish species, provided
4 they are used for water treatment purposes only.
5 The third amendment will require
6 permitees that import, transport, transfer, or
7 sell Triple A grass carp to submit annual reports
8 instead of quarterly reports.
9 And, finally, the scientific name
10 for several penaeid shrimp species referred to
11 throughout the rules will be corrected to reflect
12 the change in nomenclature.
13 Staff is requesting the Regulations
14 Committee's approval to publish the proposed
15 amendments in The Texas Register for public
16 comment. And I'll answer any questions.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Any questions?
18 Do you want a motion for approval?
19 And this will be a candidate for the Consent
20 Agenda. Do we have a motion?
21 MR. DUROCHER: This is just to
22 publish it.
23 MR. GRAY: This is just to publish
24 it in The Register.
25 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Oh, I am so
. 85
1 sorry. I thought you were asking for a motion. I
2 apologize.
3 Do we need a motion to publish?
4 Okay. We need a motion to publish.
5 COMMISSIONER HENRY: That's what
6 I'll move.
7 COMMISSIONER RYAN: And I'll
8 second.
9 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay. All in
10 favor?
11 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
12 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Opposed?
13 (No response, and motion carries
14 unanimously.)
15 ITEM NO. 8 - ACTION - 2000-2001 MIGRATORY GAMEBIRD
16 PROCLAMATION.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Item No. 8,
18 2000-2001 Migratory Game Bird Proclamation; Vernon
19 Bevill.
20 MR. GRAHAM: Madam Chairman, I'm
21 Gary Graham, Director of the Wildlife Division.
22 Vernon is unfortunately ill today, and so I've
23 asked Jay Roberson to present today's proposal.
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Good morning.
25 MR. ROBERSON: Good morning. Madam
. 86
1 Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, my
2 name is Jay Roberson. I'm Wildlife Program Leader
3 in the Migratory Wildlife Program. I will be
4 presenting the Wildlife Division's proposed
5 regulation changes for migratory game birds for
6 this coming year. This is an Action Item, and
7 we're requesting your approval to publish these
8 proposed migratory game bird rules in The Texas
9 Register for the required public comment period.
10 In June we'll be coming back to
11 you, seeking approval to adopt those season dates
12 and bag limits for those species that begin
13 hunting in September; and then in August we're
14 coming back to you for adoption for those species
15 that begin hunting after that date, including the
16 ducks and geese.
17 We have four proposed changes that
18 we'd like to discuss with you this morning. Two
19 of those were included your Draft Proclamation in
20 your Commission briefing document.
21 Two others have resulted from
22 discussions and actions of the Flyway Councils
23 last week in Chicago and were received too late to
24 include in your briefing document. These include
25 a delay in the standard teal season opening date
. 87
1 by six days; adjustment of the goose zone
2 boundaries to forego loss of hunting opportunity
3 because of the special light goose conservation
4 action; and a possible extension of the closing
5 date for the duck season in the North and South
6 Zones; and, finally, to extend the area open for
7 sandhill crane hunting along the mid and lower
8 Gulf Coast. Of course, all of these changes are
9 contingent U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10 approval at their Regulations Meeting in late
11 June.
12 With regard to teal, our standard
13 opening date for the 16-day season that we've had
14 recently has been the second Saturday in
15 September; so that would be, for this fall,
16 September 9th through the 24th. However, we're
17 proposing a change and a delay in that by six
18 days, to open that on Friday, September 15th, and
19 run it through Saturday, September 30th.
20 Our data indicate higher teal
21 numbers and hunter success, the later in September
22 that we open that season; and that's due primarily
23 to an influx of green-winged teal.
24 We also find, in those years when
25 the hunting season begins later in September,
. 88
1 higher hunter participation and higher total teal
2 harvest.
3 With regard to goose zone boundary
4 changes, Federal regulations currently do not
5 allow waterfowl or crane hunting during the
6 special light goose conservation action. This
7 action must begin before the regular goose seasons
8 end to effectively reduce light goose or light
9 geese in Texas. As a result, the dark geese
10 seasons have been shortened by about a week.
11 This reduces dark goose hunting opportunity in
12 North Central Texas, of course, where we have a
13 few light geese during this period.
14 We've received several comments
15 from goose guides and hunters in this area
16 requesting a continuation of hunting of dark geese
17 during this period. The Central Zone will allow
18 the action to begin later than in the Western and
19 Eastern Zones and provide more hunting
20 opportunity.
21 So the specific dates for the light
22 goose season that we're proposing are really
23 basically no change from last year in the Western
24 and Eastern Zones, but the new portion of the
25 Central Zone will begin a week later.
. 89
1 Of course, since we know we're
2 going to have a conservation action or a
3 conservation season this coming year, we can
4 adjust our regular goose seasons to take advantage
5 of it and to provide maximum hunting opportunity.
6 We propose that in the Western Zone
7 that the regular goose season start a week
8 earlier -- that is, October 21st instead of
9 October 28th -- and thus it would end a week
10 earlier. This would still allow a maximum of 107
11 days. Bag limits would remain unchanged from
12 last year.
13 In the Central Zone, we propose no
14 change from last year in season dates. We propose
15 the start of the conservation action after the
16 dark season ends on February 11th. This would
17 still allow a maximum of 107 days.
18 In the Eastern goose zone, last
19 year the season dates ended the second Sunday in
20 February. This year we propose to open the
21 special light goose conservation season the day
22 after the duck season closes in order to have the
23 greatest impact on snow geese. This will mean the
24 closing of the regular goose season on January
25 21st. For Canada geese, this means a reduction in
. 90
1 the total season days from 95 to 86, or a
2 reduction of nine days. This reduction in hunting
3 opportunity is necessary in order to address the
4 larger habitat conservation issues resulting from
5 snow goose overpopulation.
6 Now, with regard to duck season
7 framework dates, recently three or four Flyway
8 Councils have had some discussion with the U. S.
9 Fish and Wildlife Service requesting both earlier
10 and later framework closing dates. Specifically
11 with regard to closing dates, there was discussion
12 of being allowed to close the season on the Sunday
13 nearest January 25th. Last year it was on
14 January 23rd.
15 We have received several comments
16 in the past, particularly from the North Zone
17 duck hunters, wanting to extend that season to
18 allow them to take mallards and other
19 late-arriving species later into January.
20 We would like to obtain public
21 comment on this proposal in case it is approved by
22 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service at their June
23 Regulations Meeting.
24 With regard to sandhill crane
25 hunting zone boundaries, we are proposing the
. 91
1 opening of two areas in yellow along the coast
2 that have been previously closed in Federal
3 frameworks. Data now indicates, from research
4 that we have done here in Texas, a higher
5 population of greater sandhill cranes than
6 previously estimated. There is sufficient
7 population size, we think, to sustain the
8 additional hunting pressure.
9 The area in between, around Aransas
10 National Wildlife Refuge, we propose to remain
11 closed for the protection of whooping cranes.
12 We propose a three-bird bag limit
13 in that area that, if the Service agrees, will be
14 rolled into Zone C. If it's less than three, we
15 may ask your permission to create a separate zone
16 out of that.
17 All other changes proposed are
18 simply due to calendar shift. Therefore, we
19 request your adoption of this motion to allow us
20 to publish the appropriate sections in The Texas
21 Register for the required public comment period.
22 Thank you, and that concludes my
23 presentation.
24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: With respect
25 to the Central goose zone, what's the reason for
. 92
1 holding it to one white-front goose there? I know
2 the population of white-fronts in that area has
3 gotten a lot heavier in the last few years.
4 MR. ROBERSON: Of course, we have
5 to deal with the Federal Government on those, and
6 I think that's a requirement.
7 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Federal
8 requirement?
9 MR. ROBERSON: Right. Following
10 your charges, we're taking the maximum allowed in
11 the Federal parameters. We're not restricting
12 them at any points.
13 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I wonder if
14 anybody is really looking at that. Have we done
15 anything to see what we think about the
16 white-front population in that area.
17 MR. GRAHAM: In the past, we've had
18 staff that really have been deeply engaged in that
19 issue and have consistently maximized the
20 opportunity within Texas. We didn't have a staff
21 there specifically addressing that issue, although
22 Vernon is always on top of it. So although I
23 haven't spoken to him specifically about that, I'm
24 sure that he was there pressing for that increased
25 opportunity.
. 93
1 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: He and I
2 visited about that before, too.
3 MR. GRAHAM: Right.
4 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay. I'm
5 going to need a motion to publish the proposed
6 regulations in The Texas Register for public
7 comment. Do I have a motion?
8 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I so move.
9 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: A second?
10 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Second.
11 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All in favor?
12 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
13 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: All opposed?
14 (No response, and motion carries
15 unanimously.)
16 MR. ROBERSON: Thank you.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Is there any
18 other business? We'll move to the Finance
19 Committee, then.
20 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Can we have a
21 five- or ten-minute break?
22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: We're going to
23 take a five- or ten-minute break.
24 (BRIEF PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS)
25