BILL ANALYSIS 1
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Sheila Kuehl, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 749
AUTHOR: Leno
AMENDED: As Introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE:June 28, 2005
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Julia McIver
SUBJECT: Fish and Game: Dungeness crab
Summary: This bill would place a limitation on the
number of traps crab fishing vessels could use at one time
in certain Department of Fish and Game ("the department")
designated districts in the state, authorize the Fish and
Game Commission ("the Commission") to adopt regulations for
the crab fishery and subsequently adjust as indicated, and
extend the initial entry program for Dungeness crab fishing
permits.
This bill is analyzed as proposed to be amended, as shown
in the accompanying mockup.
Existing Law: Fish and Game Code Sections 8275 - 8284
regulate the Dungeness crab fishery, defining, among other
things, the dates the season opens, depending on the
district, and the permit program, which regulates the
number of vessels taking crabs. In Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) designated districts roughly north of the
Mendocino County line, Districts 6, 7, 8, and 9, the season
is December 1 - July 15, but south of that line the season
is November 15 - June 30 of each year. The director of DFG
may adjust these dates based on the status of the crabs
that year.
Sections 8279.1 et seq describe the permit program,
initiated in 1994 and known colloquially as the "limited
entry program", that requires permits for the taking of
Dungeness crab in the state. The intent of this program was
to limit the number of vessels that take crab commercially
from the state's waters in order to maintain an
economically and ecologically sustainable fishery. This
program sunsets in April of 2006.
In Section 8280(b), the Legislature finds that, in order to
protect the Dungeness crab fishery, it is necessary to
limit the number of vessels participating in that fishery
and it may be necessary to limit the quantity and capacity
of the fishing gear used on each vessel taking Dungeness
crab.
Section 8280.5 provides for the director of DFG to convene
a Dungeness crab review panel ("the panel"), to assist in
the review of permit applications for Dungeness crab
vessels.
Section 7701 allows the Commission to generally regulate a
fishery to prevent the deterioration and waste of fish.
Section 7704(a) provides that it is unlawful to cause or
permit any deterioration or waste of any fish taken in the
waters of this state, or brought into this state, or to
take, receive or agree to receive more fish than can be
used without deterioration, waste, or spoilage.
Proposed Law: This bill would:
1. Find that, to ensure the sustainability of the crab fishery,
it is necessary that limitations be placed on the number of
traps used by the fishery in District 10 and south until
the commission, based on recommendations from the
department, the panel, the best available science, and the
public, adopts another limit or other regulation to control
the fishery;
2. Authorize the Commission, in concert with the Dungeness crab
review panel and the department, to adopt regulations as
necessary to ensure the protection of the fishery and
provide for an orderly crab fishery;
3. Add to the panel's duties the requirement that it advise the
commission and the department on proposed Dungeness crab
regulations, and as well as generate an annual report on
the fishery with recommendations on its management;
4. Extend the panel's sunset from April 1, 2006 to April 2012;
5. Limit the number of traps that may be used by a single
permitted vessel to 250 in District #10 and south within
the state until June 30, 2008;
6. Require the Commission, on or after March 15, 2008, to
consider recommendations from the department, the panel,
and permit holders on potential adjustments to the trap
limit;
7. Prohibit more than one crab permit on a single vessel;
8. Provide a penalty for the first violation of the 250 crab
trap limit of up to $5,000 and/or six months in jail, and
provide that, for a second offense, the penalty is
permanent revocation of a crab permit and five years'
revocation of the offender's commercial fishing license.
9. Require the Commission to adjust the vessel permit fee or
establish a landing fee or vessel stamp to cover all
reasonable costs of administering this section.
Arguments in Support: The Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), one of the bill's
sponsors, states that this bill is needed to protect the
resource, fishing men and women and consumers. They helped
draft the legislation (AB 3337, Hauser, 1994) that limits
the number of vessels operating in the crab fishery and
created the limited entry program in force today. It was
recognized even then, their letter states, that limiting
the equipment used might also be needed, as evidenced in
the Legislative findings (see Section 8280(b) in the
"Existing Law" section above). PCFFA points out that this
bill is supported by a very large number of fishing men and
women from District 10 and south, and many from the ports
in northern California as well.
PCFFA further notes that trap limits are also used in
Alaska and Washington State, and that California has a trap
limit for sport-caught crab. Trap limits are also widely
used around the country in other fisheries, such as Maine's
lobster fishery. PCFFA believes the trap limits will
accomplish the following goals:
Prevent waste of the resource and assure consumers
fresh, locally-caught crab over a longer season by
spreading the catch over a longer period;
Provide safer conditions by removing the increased
early pressure to fish caused by the increase in fishing
activity at the start of the season, thus allowing boats
to sit out bad weather without worrying about the crab
being caught by others; and
Halt the gear loss that results from using large
numbers of traps on a single vessel - derelict gear can
continue to "ghost fish", harming other ocean life and
will foul other fishing gear.
According to the PCFFA, the number of traps was determined
by the crab fishermen in the three principal ports in "the
area", presumably the San Francisco Area. They state that
250 is the average number of traps that can be run by an
average sized vessel in a day.
The Crab Boat Owners Association describes the same goals,
but also strongly supports this bill because of the safety
issue that arises from the increased pressure to go out at
the beginning of the season regardless of the weather. The
fear that all the crabs will be fished out in the first two
weeks drives vessel owners to go out even if the conditions
are dangerous for smaller boats.
The author's office states that there has been a 500%
increase in the past 20 years in the number of crab traps
used in the state's crab fishing grounds. Although there is
provision in the Fish and Game code (section 8280) to limit
the number of vessels taking crabs, there is no limit on
the number of traps or a catch limit.
The Farallones Marine Sanctuary and several environmental
groups note that controls are needed in order to maintain a
sustainable fishery. NRDC supports the bill, noting that
the fishery brought in over $40 million in 2004 and also
noting that the industry is volatile, as crab populations
fluctuate with environmental conditions. Given climate
change and the drastically increased pressure on the
fishery, they commend the bill for taking a proactive step
in attempting to assure the sustainability of the fishery.
Osprey Seafood and other crab processors and retail stores
describe the waste that occurs when the market is inundated
with excessive catches of crab, and the decline in quality
and catch over the length of the crab season. They believe
the bill is extremely important to preventing the waste of
hundreds of thousands of pounds of local crab every year,
and supporting the retail seafood economy.
Contrary to claims of opponents that limiting the number of
traps will harm consumers by increasing the price of
Dungeness crab, supporters such as The Golden Gate
Restaurant Association say the current system harms
consumers. After the first two weeks of the season, they
have to settle for frozen crab or more expensive crab
imported from Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Historically,
the crab season has lasted for seven months of the year
with fresh crab being available in local markets and
restaurants for much of that time.
Fishermen write that the price of crab fell to $1.50/pound
while the price of steel and fuel skyrocketed. They also
state that an unknown quantity of crab was illegally
disposed of at sea because the processors couldn't process
the huge quantities fast enough and the crabs died while
still on board. They also note that the fishery to consumer
relationship operated relatively smoothly until recent
years when, with the advent of the large vessels with 1,000
traps or more, an imbalance has occurred that needs to be
repaired.
Arguments in Opposition: The California Fisheries and
Seafood Institute argues that this is not a resource issue
and that the fishery is already well regulated, noting the
rules about size limits and limiting the take to male
crabs. Neither of these is the subject of the bill. They
also argue that pot limits will stifle competition and lead
to higher prices and no crab for Californians during the
beginning of the season when demand is high. They also
state that this resource belongs to all Californians, and
many look forward to buying crab at the beginning of the
season.
Fishermen note that the 250 limit may not be appropriate
for all boats, and that costs vary and are escalating. They
also note that the bill provides for an undetermined
potential fee increase to cover the department's
administrative costs.
Comments: The opponents' arguments that this is not a
resource issue are not consistent with the observations of
the waste of thousands of pounds of crab described by both
vessel owners and processors, nor with environmental
concerns about overfishing in the beginning of the season.
To argue that pot limitations will limit competition and
lead to higher prices and a lack of crab during the start
of the season is not borne out by statements from the
processors and retail operations who observe that the crab
supply has been steady for many years, and furthermore has
lasted over the seven months of the season in the past. To
observe that this resource belongs to Californians does the
opposition credit, and it's apparent from the support
letters that the other vessel owners, and, further, the
people who want to enjoy locally caught fresh crab for
seven months instead of two weeks, would agree with them.
The bill puts in place the 250 trap limit for two fishing
seasons and, following that, requires the Commission to
reexamine that policy. Proposed amendments would increase
the fisherpeoples' participation in that process through
the participation of the panel, which is made up of one
nonvoting member of the department, one crab processor, and
two licensed crab fishers, one each representing the
geographic areas roughly north and south from the
Sonoma-Mendocino county line (reasonably equivalent to the
border of District 10). In addition, proposed amendments
address the concerns about sustainability, requiring the
Commission to include the best available science and the
panel to make recommendations for further improvements for
management of the fishery.
One point that should be made clear about using the panel
is that doing so should not increase costs, nor drive up
the fees. The panel was established in 1994, and the
funding to support it comes from the existing $200 fee paid
for crab fishing permits.
Fish and Game Commission landing reports for 2004 for
Dungeness crab in the San Francisco area ports show that
over 75% of the crabs are harvested during the first two
weeks after the season opening in November, with a dramatic
decline in landings in December, and an even smaller
harvest in January, from 2,700,000 pounds to 649,000 pounds
to 158,000 pounds from start to the eighth week. The
landing reports also show a steep increase in the amount of
crab harvested in the month of November in recent years
increasing from November of 2002, when 1.7 million pounds
were harvested, to November of 2004, when over 2.7 million
were caught. These numbers speak for themselves in painting
a vivid picture of the recent harvest trend.
This bill is nearly identical to AB 2146 (Leno) that was
passed by the Legislature in 2004 and vetoed by the
Governor. The veto message said, in part,
"However, I am concerned that the significant changes
this bill mandates in the Dungeness crab fishery
should be considered and addressed through the Fish
and Game Commission following its thorough review and
open public hearing
process.
One of the principal tasks of the Fish and Game
Commission is the regulation and management of our
States fisheries...Such an effort...should not be made
without significant scientific and biological
analysis, public discussion and consideration of
alternatives. That is the role of the Fish and Game
Commission.
I encourage the Legislature to vest the Commission
with fishery management responsibility for Dungeness
crab and then let the Commission proceed with the
dozens of complex decisions necessary to effect
sustainable fishery management."
This bill responds to the message by vesting the management
of the fishery with the Commission, the panel, the
department and the public, and incorporating consideration
of scientific analysis, public discussion and consideration
of alternatives.
SUPPORT: ASQEW Grill
Bodega Bay Fishermen's Association
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Chinese Commercial Fishing Association
City and County of San Francisco
Crab Boat Owners Association, Inc.
Crab Fishermen of Eureka California (67 individuals listed)
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Defense
Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association
Fishermen's Marketing Association of Bodega Bay
Golden Gate Restaurant Association (co-sponsor)
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (U.S.
Dept. of Commerce)
H. Young Enterprises
Half Moon Bay Fishermen (36 individuals listed)
Half Moon Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association
Hawthorne Lane Restaurant
Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants, LLC
Martini House
Max's Restaurant
Mendonoma Marine Life Conservancy
Monterey Commercial Fishermen's Association
Monterey Fish Market
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Next Seafood Company
Osprey Seafood
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association
(co-sponsor)
Palio d' Asti Resaturant
Pier 23 Caf?
Planning and Conservation League
Ports Seafood
Rickey's Restaurant
San Francisco Tomorrow
San Mateo County Harbor District
Santa Cruz Commercial Fishermen's Association
Save Our Shores
Scoma's Restaurant
Sierra Club
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association
Sonoma County Water Agency
The Brazen Head Restaurant and Public House
The City Club
The Grove Caf?
The Ocean Conservancy
The Puccini Restaurant Group
Vasco Restaurant
Vine Solutions
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION: California Seafood and Fisheries Institute
Coalition Opposed to AB 749 (100 individuals listed)
Numerous individuals