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
SNE lobstermen face more effort reductions
CRYSTAL CITY, VA – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is telling lobstermen who work within the Southern New England (SNE) lobster stock area to come up with more measures to further reduce fishing effort to promote stock rebuilding.
All Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMAs) except Area 1 and Outer Cape Cod fall at least partly within the boundaries of the Southern New England stock area, so the charge impacts hundreds and hundreds of lobstermen.
At its Aug. 14 meeting here, the ASMFC American Lobster Management Board agreed to initiate two more addenda to the interstate lobster plan to meet new biological reference point targets for Southern New England that came out of last year’s stock assessment.
The board is striving to reach a new fishing mortality (F) target of 0.74, which is lower than the 2001-2003 average F estimate of 0.84, the most current number available.
Even harder will be reaching the new Southern New England stock abundance target of 23.90 million pounds. The most current 2001-2003 abundance estimate is just 14.01 million pounds.
The Lobster Conservation Management Teams (LCMTs) for Areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 had until Sept. 27 to submit recommendations to ASMFC for how they planned to achieve the new targets, particularly the F target. The lobster board will review the recommendations on Oct. 23 during ASMFC’s annual meeting in Atlantic Beach, NC.
At the Aug. 14 meeting, the board agreed to allow the LCMTs to achieve the targets in two steps rather than one.
Under this strategy, LCMTs first will need to achieve a 10% reduction in fishing mortality through Addendum XI, which will go out for public comment this fall. The LCMTs will then have to come up with additional effort reduction measures to achieve a 71% increase in abundance through Addendum XII, which will go out for public comment sometime next summer.
While board members were supportive of the two-step approach, especially given the magnitude of what was being asked of industry, the technical committee expressed reservations.
In a memo to the board, the technical committee wrote, “While meeting the target F will afford the stock some relief from harvest, the target F was calculated when the stock sizes were much larger. Achieving the target F alone will not significantly reduce the effects of harvest on a very low stock.”
Area 3
The Area 3 LCMT got an early start and met on Aug. 10 to comply with the board’s charge. It developed a proposed plan to achieve both the F and abundance targets, which will go out to public hearing under Addendum XI.
According to Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, the Area 3 LCMT opted to submit a complete package all at once.
Since Area 3 is in federal waters, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must implement the measures. And because it takes extra time to move measures through the NMFS review process, lobstermen from Area 3 hoped the technical committee could analyze the LCMT’s proposal by ASMFC’s annual meeting in October, Spinazzola said.
The proposal includes additional reductions in active traps, a 3-1/2" minimum gauge, a 7" maximum gauge that will be reduced to 6-3/4" before the end of the rebuilding program, and other measures, including the development of an industry buyout plan.
Really necessary?
Weary from the string of past addenda, several lobstermen at the ASMFC lobster board meeting were discouraged by the prospect of further reductions, especially since they were starting to see more lobsters in their catch.
Massachusetts’ representatives to ASMFC weren’t enthusiastic about the new action either.
Commissioner Bill Adler said, “I see no reason why we need to move this quickly.”
Adler pointed out that “current” estimates of F and abundance only reflected 2001-2003, but numerous additional measures have been implemented since 2003.
“We need to give those measures time to work. Effort has gone down,” he said. “Have we already gone beyond 10 percent?”
Massachusetts representative Dan McKiernan also questioned the hasty timeframe.
“The existing trap program needs to be fully evaluated,” he said. “I think we need time to assess what the ongoing effort control plan is going to do.”
“Substantial decrease”
Despite these objections, the board decided to proceed.
Like Area 3, other LCMTs can pick whether they want to achieve both the fishing mortality and abundance targets all at once in Addendum XI or split them up and meet the abundance target in Addendum XII.
As guidance, the technical committee recommended “a substantial decrease in fishing mortality – on the order of at least 30%-40% – for LCMTs trying to meet both the fishing mortality and abundance targets in one addendum.
Under the two-step approach, LCMTs only need a 10% reduction in F under the first addendum but then will have to find ways to achieve a 71% increase in abundance through the second one.
10-year timeframe?
The technical committee recommended a 10-year rebuilding timeframe for the Southern New England stock, which, assuming year 1 begins in 2006, would lead to a fully rebuilt stock by 2015.
New York Commissioner Gordon Colvin expressed some concern about the timeframe.
“I don’t think that approach makes sense right now,” he said. “I would like to see some alternatives to a 10-year rebuilding schedule. I am concerned about a rigid, formulaic approach. I think we need to give this more thought.”
Other board members agreed, and following the meeting, ASMFC lobster plan coordinator Toni Kerns confirmed that the technical committee would develop a range of alternatives for the board’s review to increase flexibility both in terms of the number of years allowed for rebuilding and the way the board evaluates whether LCMTs are reaching the rebuilding targets.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
