An evaluation of charter fishing logbook reporting compliance: Glacier Bay National Park, 2009-2011

Murdoch, Craig; Soiseth, Chad

National Park Service (NPS) Concessions Management Public Law 105-391, Sec. 418 (Commercial Use Authorizations) states that the NPS may only authorize commercial services that “will have minimal impact on resources and values of the unit of the National Park System and are consistent with the purpose for which the unit was established and with all applicable management plans and park policies and regulations” (NPS 1998) (Appendix A). Charter fishing businesses operating under a Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) or a Charter Concessions (CC) contract in Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP) have been required to report fishing effort and harvest “anywhere within park waters” as a condition of their business permits since 1995. Monitoring charter fishing activity and fisheries resource extraction is a critical tool for evaluating whether this commercial activity complies with these guidelines. Poor reporting compliance inhibits adequate evaluation and management of this activity. Misreporting, including both under-reporting and non-reporting, of fishing activity and harvest in park waters has long been a park management concern. We used multiple survey methods (aerial, vessel, creel and radio contact logs) to document charter fishing trips in park waters in order to verify compliance with self-reported NPS sportfishing logbook reporting. The objective of this study was to assess charter fishing logbook reporting compliance of both CUA and CC permitted charter fishing vessels. With our most robust sampling method we estimate that non-reporting was 49% for the years 2009-2011(n = 131; Table 2, Figure 8). We found that non-reporting was lowest in 2010. This was likely the result of letters and meetings in 2010 where park managers expressed the importance of accurate and timely reporting to CUA and CC businesses. Further, data suggest that non-reporting is highest in the Icy Strait region (Figure 9). This is likely the result of inconsistency between state and park reporting requirements, reporting area misalignment and lack of repercussions for non-reporting. This high proportion of non-reporting indicates that previous estimates of charter fishing effort and harvest are largely under estimated and likely inadequate in terms of documenting and quantifying true charter fisheries harvest. The charter fishing logbook is the only tool the park currently possesses to monitor charter fishing effort and harvest. Because the logbook is designed to be a census, it is critical that reporting compliance is high. This study demonstrates that the collection of self-reported data such as GBNP Charter Fishing Logbooks or Commercial Use Activity Reports must incorporate verification if the data are to have management utility. With no measure of data accuracy, relevant management of this extractive activity is unlikely. We recommend a variety of management actions that, if implemented, would likely improve reporting compliance and management of this activity within GBNP. The establishment of clear thresholds at which fish harvest or fishing effort is limited would help bring the park in line with current NPS management directives, while also guiding any monitoring efforts. We recommend the park have more interaction with charter fishing businesses. An annual meeting or orientation would likely help on numerous fronts. Further, continuing to verify non-reporting while increasing enforcement interactions with charter fishing vessels across the park would also likely help improve compliance and the overall management of this activity.

An evaluation of charter fishing logbook reporting compliance: Glacier Bay National Park, 2009-2011

Series