1501:31-13-08 Fish daily bag limits: protected species.

 

 

 

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis (Part A)

 

Department of Natural Resources

Agency Name

 

Division of Wildlife                                             Mike Shelton

Division                                                                  Contact

 

2045 Morse Road Bldg. D-3 Columbus OH 43229-6693

614-265-6891        6142619601

Agency Mailing Address (Plus Zip)                                       Phone                     Fax

1501:31-13-08

Rule Number

AMENDMENT

TYPE of rule filing

Rule Title/Tag Line              Fish daily bag limits: protected species.

RULE SUMMARY

1.  Is the rule being filed consistent with the requirements of the RC 119.032 review? Yes

2.  Are you proposing this rule as a result of recent legislation? No

3.  Statute prescribing the procedure in accordance with the agency is required to adopt the rule: 119.03

4.  Statute(s) authorizing agency to adopt the rule: 1531.06, 1531.08

5.  Statute(s) the rule, as filed, amplifies or implements: 1531.06, 1531.08

6.  State the reason(s) for proposing (i.e., why are you filing,) this rule:

This rule establishes bag limits for certain fish species and also identifies special bag limits in different waters of the state. As such, this rule is used to prevent general over harvest of fish species, promote equitable distribution of the harvest among Ohio??s anglers, and comply with the Quota Management System in use on Lake Erie by Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario.

In the case of the proposed bag limit reduction from 30 to 25 for yellow perch in western Lake Erie, poor reproduction in 2004-2006 has resulted in low adult populations, and a corresponding reduction in Ohio??s yellow perch quota for 2008. Ohio??s quota has been reduced to the point in Management Unit 1 (western

Lake Erie), that if the sport bag limit is not reduced to 25, Ohio anglers will likely exceed our quota by an estimated 15-20 percent. As a signatory to the Lake Erie Quota Management Agreement between the above mentioned states and province, Ohio has agreed to employ whatever management techniques are necessary to remain within its assigned quota. Perch harvest estimates under a number of bag limit scenarios indicate that a bag limit reduction from 30 to 25 has a high probability of keeping Ohio within its assigned quota.

The Division of Wildlife is also proposing to reduce the daily bag limit for muskellunge from 2 fish to 1. Ohio??s muskellunge anglers practice

catch-and-release for this species 98% of the time based on angler survey data collected by the Division. These anglers have lobbied the Division for a reduction in the daily bag limit for many years to help promote catch-and-release fishing for this trophy species. Reducing the daily limit from 2 to 1 allows an angler to keep a trophy muskellunge, while supporting Ohio??s muskellunge fishing club??s desire to minimize harvest on this species.

7.  If the rule is an AMENDMENT, then summarize the changes and the content of the proposed rule; If the rule type is RESCISSION, NEW or NO CHANGE, then summarize the content of the rule:

Established three fishing units in Lake Erie for yellow perch and established the bag limits for yellow perch in those units.

Reduced the bag limit for muskellunge and tiger muskies from two to one per day.

8.  If the rule incorporates a text or other material by reference and the agency claims the incorporation by reference is exempt from compliance with sections

121.71 to 121.74 of the Revised Code because the text or other material is generally available to persons who reasonably can be expected to be affected by the rule, provide an explanation of how the text or other material is generally available to those persons:

This response left blank because filer specified online that the rule does not incorporate a text or other material by reference.

9.  If the rule incorporates a text or other material by reference, and it was infeasible for the agency to file the text or other material electronically, provide an explanation of why filing the text or other material electronically was infeasible:

This response left blank because filer specified online that the rule does not incorporate a text or other material by reference.

10.  If the rule is being rescinded and incorporates a text or other material by reference, and it was infeasible for the agency to file the text or other material, provide an explanation of why filing the text or other material was infeasible:

Not Applicable.

11.  If revising or refiling this rule, identify changes made from the previously filed version of this rule; if none, please state so:

02/04/2008 - Correction was made on the year in the public hearing notice. The year 2007 was changed to 2008.

2/24/2008 - Additional documentation was added to the rule summary and fiscal analysis.

12. 119.032 Rule Review Date: 2/4/2008

(If the rule is not exempt and you answered NO to question No. 1, provide the scheduled review date. If you answered YES to No. 1, the review date for this rule is the filing date.)

NOTE: If the rule is not exempt at the time of final filing, two dates are required: the current review date plus a date not to exceed 5 years from the effective date for Amended rules or a date not to exceed 5 years from the review date for No Change rules.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

13.  Estimate the total amount by which this proposed rule would increase / decrease either revenues / expenditures for the agency during the current biennium (in dollars): Explain the net impact of the proposed changes to the budget of your agency/department.

This will have no impact on revenues or expenditures. 0

This change will not affect fees, require additional personnel or require additional equipment. This rule modification will have no impact on the agencies revenue or expenditures.

14.  Identify the appropriation (by line item etc.) that authorizes each expenditure necessitated by the proposed rule:

A.M. Sub HB95, line 740-401 HB119, line 740-401

15.  Provide a summary of the estimated cost of compliance with the rule to all directly affected persons. When appropriate, please include the source for your information/estimated costs, e.g. industry, CFR, internal/agency:

The economic benefits from sport fishing accrue from equipment purchases and fishing trip expenditures, both directly (e.g., on gasoline, lodging, bait, food, tackle, etc.) and indirectly through the businesses that provide these services. The American Sportfishing Association estimated the economic output from Ohio's Lake Erie sport fishery at about $801 million in 2006. Division of Wildlife creel survey data shows that while walleye are targeted predominantly by Ohio anglers (484,000 trips, 2.9 million angler hours in 2006), yellow perch do contribute significantly to the fisheries as well (291,000 trips, 1.3 million angler hours in 2006). Therefore, the short-term potential economic impact of reducing the daily bag limit from 30 fish to 25 fish will be directly related to impacts on angler participation in the fishery. Because a 25-fish bag limit would be the lowest on record (by 5 fish), there is no precedent to draw from regarding impacts on participation. However, most anglers do not routinely catch a 30-fish limit every trip (only about 17% of the total perch trips resulted in boat limits in 2006).

Therefore, we believe the bag reduction will not have a major influence on the decision to participate in the fishery for an overwhelming majority of people. Similarly, we did not observe any reduction in fishing participation when the perch bag limit was changed from unlimited in 1995 to 30-fish in 1996. In contrast, the long-term impact of exceeding the harvest quota and potential over-fishing on the west basin fish population, as a result of not enacting the bag limit change, could far outweigh the short-term impacts, by reducing the future supply of fish available to anglers. Reduction of the muskellunge bag limit from 2 fish to 1 is not likely to have a measurable impact on cost to anglers or businesses related to fishing. Since muskellunge fishing is primarily a catch-and-release sport anyway, the bag limit reduction will have very little effect on harvest. If anything, the bag limit reduction may contribute to improved fishing opportunities for this species, which may have a positive economic impact on the sport and related businesses.

16.  Does this rule have a fiscal effect on school districts, counties, townships, or municipal corporations? No

17.  Does this rule deal with environmental protection or contain a component dealing with environmental protection as defined in R. C. 121.39? No