COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 34 Number 2
October 2006
DMF postpones new spawn herring restrictions
DUXBURY, MA - The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) will take no action that could disadvantage the state’s herring industry.
That was the message DMF Director Paul Diodati delivered to the Marine Fisheries Commission during its Sept. 7 meeting here. Diodati’s remarks came in the wake of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Atlantic Herring Section approval in August of Addendum 1 to Amendment 2 to the interstate herring plan.
The addendum addressed questions raised about Amendment 2’s ban on directed herring fishing inside closed spawning areas, making it clear that no directed fishing – none at all – would be allowed inside closed areas.
The original ban implementation date was Aug. 15, 2006, according DMF Deputy Director David Pierce.
But, although DMF supported the no-directed fishing provision, Diodati said the agency would not implement it this year. That’s because the Maine Department of Marine Resources recently adopted a possession prohibition on “spawn” herring – those in gonadal stages V and VI, or ripe and running – not on a total ban on fishing in the closed areas.
In the opinion of the DMF staff, going ahead and implementing the no-fishing ban would keep Massachusetts boats tied to the dock while Maine boats went fishing.
“I disagree that we would be able to control the fishery by declaring no fishing for Massachusetts (portions of the spawning) areas,” Diodati said. “It is my intention to be consistent with the state of Maine.”
Industry concerns
Dave Ellenton of Cape Seafoods Inc., a major herring processor in Gloucester, explained to the commission how confusing the situation was for the industry people affected.
“Maine says it has zero tolerance but vessels are allowed in. We just need to know where we can go,” he said. “If next year there’s no access for everyone, well, we’ll take that lump.”
Rich Ruais, speaking as executive director of the East Coast Tuna Association, said he found it hard not to be sympathetic when it came to the equity issue. However, he didn’t think it made sense for Massachusetts to allow fishing under rules similar to Maine.
“The problem is this almost encourages discards,” Ruais said. “A boat would have to do a test tow to see (what gonadal stage) the fish were in and the result could be a lot of discarded, wasted fish.”
Diodati stressed that he did not support the zero tolerance concept of managing the fishery over the long term.
Commission Chairman Vito Calomo wrapped up the discussion by restating Diodati’s original point.
“We are not going to support putting Massachusetts fishing vessels at a disadvantage,” he said.
Bluefin seiners
Another slow bluefin tuna fishing year raised the question of whether the commission should revisit the 2006 prohibition on bluefin purse seining in Cape Cod Bay.
According to a memo from Diodati to the commission, advocates for the seine fishery made it clear they wanted access to the bay restored immediately or they wanted all commercial fishing for bluefin in the bay ended until a “shared-access agreement” for all gear types was adopted.
Diodati pointed out that it was not possible to finalize an agreement without additional public hearings, so such an agreement could not happen this year. It could be considered in the future, although Diodati indicated he was skeptical that any agreement could be reached while bluefin landings remain so low.
“It is my belief that the apparent harsh conditions of tuna availability will prevent user groups from agreeing to share Cape Cod Bay on their own,” he said.
The DMF director said he was ready to propose a permanent regulation allowing the seiners into the bay as of Oct. 1 as a way to provide economic benefit to the state. He asked the commission to vote on his recommendation at its Oct. 5 meeting.
Addressing several seiner fishermen in the room, Calomo made it clear that there would be absolutely no further discussion regarding Cape Cod Bay bluefin access that day because the issue was not on the Sept. 7 meeting agenda.
“It is very disappointing to me and other commission members that the (industry) groups did not meet” to figure out a shared-access agreement, he said.
Striper enforcement
Maj. Kathleen Dolan reported that the Massachusetts Environmental Police were involved in several joint striped bass enforcement actions in federal waters with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Coast Guard officers on Aug. 8, Aug. 19, and Aug. 23.
Commercial and recreational fishing for striped bass remains illegal in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As a result of the joint enforcement actions, a total of 11 citations for illegal activity were issued, eight of them on Aug. 23.
The enforcement sweep was at least in part prompted by complaints from commercial fishermen who were not fishing in the EEZ because of the current ban.
One fisherman explained that those who engage in EEZ fishing put those who comply with the fishing ban at a significant disadvantage since the fish offshore tend to be larger than those in state waters.
Aquaculture hearing
DMF has scheduled a public hearing on Oct. 20 to discuss several aquaculture-related proposals, which will modify regulations relating to:
• Possession, propagation, culture, sale, and disposition of living marine organisms;
• Operational guidelines for aquaculture facilities; and
• Aquaculture license categories and procedures.
The hearing will start at 11 am at Hemispheres restaurant (formerly called Horizons), 98 Town Neck Rd. in Sandwich.
For more information, visit the DMF web site at <www.mass.gov/marinefisheries> or call (617) 626-1590.
Scup, fluke, budget
In other business, the commission discussed the following subjects.
• Scup – The commission gave its OK for DMF to go ahead and set the Winter II scup daily limit at 6,500 pounds for the period Nov. 1-Dec. 31.
Diodati pointed out that the action puts the state in line with the federal Winter II trip limit, which NMFS increased to 6,500 pounds per trip on July 26.
DMF made the change through its “declaratory process,” which requires the agency to provide a two-week comment period and some public notification but no longer requires that such issues be discussed at public hearings.
• Fluke closure – The sudden closure of this year’s fluke fishery took not only the industry by surprise but DMF, too. DMF Deputy Director Dan McKiernan and Dolan explained that an investigation by the Environmental Police uncovered a dealer who was running two fluke buying businesses and not filing reports.
Adding up the total fluke transactions from these two businesses resulted in a 55,000-pound overage of the state’s 2006 fluke quota. The fishery will reopen on Jan. 1 with a 2,500-pound trip limit.
• Ocean management bill – Department of Fish and Wildlife Commissioner David Peters informed the commission that the controversial ocean management bill did not pass prior to the end of the Legislature’s formal session.
The sponsors did revise the bill in an attempt to address some of the commission’s concerns about preserving DMF’s authority to make all decisions relative to fishery management, according to Peters.
Although the Legislature may take it up in an informal session later this year, most likely the bill won’t come up again until the next formal session convenes in January.
• DMF budget, reorganization – Diodati told the commission that DMF did “extremely well” during the fiscal 2007 budget process, with a budget increase of some $700,000-$800,000, much of it for improvements in red tide monitoring.
The DMF currently employs 107 people and Diodati hopes to use the new funds to fill vacancies and to “grow stronger” over the next few years.
He added that the solid fiscal position of the agency and the advances made toward creating the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School of Marine Science and Technology had prompted him to consider a reorganization.
As part of that process, Diodati said he was examining the operations of “the best” of the country’s 22 marine fisheries state agencies.
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
