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 36 Number 2
October 2008
ASMFC floats state-by-state dogfish quotas
ALEXANDRIA, VA – Concerned about potential inequities in its existing allocation system, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Spiny Dogfish Management Board voted at its Aug. 21 meeting here to send two proposals out to public hearing in late September and early October that could significantly change the way annual dogfish quotas are distributed along the coast.
The first action, which would become Addendum II to the interstate dogfish plan, is intended to be a short-term “fix” to address fairness issues. The addendum proposes to regionally divide available quota between northern and southern states to ensure that Mid-Atlantic fishermen get a fair crack at harvesting the fish.
The second and more complicated action – Addendum III – goes one step further. It would establish a state-by-state quota system, an approach strongly supported by the North Carolina fishing industry.
“It should have been state-by-state quotas from the beginning,” said North Carolina fisherman Dewey Hemilright. “I don’t know why it’s taken five or six years to figure this out.”
Hemilright argued that fishermen in his state have been severely disadvantaged under the current allocation system that has made it possible for northern states to harvest more than their intended share of the available quota before dogfish ever migrate back down to the Mid-Atlantic in the fall (see table page 14A for state-by-state harvest breakdown).
“We’ve been at the short end of the stick since we’ve had this fishery management plan. It’s not fair and equitable,” said Hemilright.
Fellow North Carolina fisherman Kelly Schoolcraft added that his state used to be number two in dogfish landings.
“Now we’re number five,” he said. “This issue of state-by-state quotas, that’s something North Carolina needs. When you have a hard quota, each state needs a portion of that quota. Regional allocations are not working for us. I implore you all to put things on the right track.”
Addendum II
As it stands now, annual dogfish quotas are divided seasonally so that 57.9% of the poundage can be harvested from May through October and 42.1% can be harvested from November through April.
Besides this seasonal split, ASMFC allocates the available quota regionally so that 58% goes to “northern” states from Maine through Connecticut and 42% goes to “southern” states from New York to North Carolina.
The way it’s supposed to work is that northern states harvest 58% of the dogfish quota from May through October and southern states harvest 42% from November through April.
But it hasn’t turned out that way. Northern states have exceeded their quota share on several occasions, leaving significantly less than 42% of the fish available for southern states.
Addendum II proposes to eliminate the seasonal split completely and formalize the regional percentage allocations. Furthermore, ASMFC is proposing to require a region that exceeds the quota to “pay back” the overage the following year. This way, an overage in the north would be deducted from the north’s allocation the following year.
Assures fairness
Massachusetts, the number-one dogfish landing state in the north, has been sharply criticized as the lead offender when it comes to quota overages. In 2005, the commonwealth alone landed 87% of the total coastwide quota.
But state representative David Pierce assured the board that Massachusetts had taken steps to correct this unfair situation.
“We’ll close earlier this year in order to not create the problem we had in past years,” Pierce said.
North Carolina Commissioner Louis Daniel, chair of ASMFC’s spiny dogfish board, said he appreciated the assurance but nonetheless urged the board to include a provision in Addendum II that would make the action be retroactive to cover all of 2008.
“I have full faith that the New England states will attempt to stay within 58%, but if they don’t, we need to be sure the southern states are not disadvantaged,” said Daniel. “We need to make this retroactive to May 1 of 2008 so if there is an overage by the northern group this year, it will be deducted from the northern quota.”
The board agreed to include such a provision in the draft addendum.
Addendum III
Addendum III, on the other hand, proposes numerous alternatives for establishing state-by-state quotas. If adopted, this system would replace the regional allocation measures in Addendum II.
Most of the Addendum III options hinge on historical landings and suggest different ways that states with a stake in the fishery could be assured a fair allocation share under the new system (see story at right for list of state-by-state allocation proposals).
Sean McKeon, president of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, said he supported Addendum II as a partial solution to the allocation problems, but the end goal should be adoption of Addendum III.
“I think Addendum II is moving in the right direction,” he said, “but state-by-state quotas will solve the problem.”
Hemilright agreed and said of Addendum II, “This does nothing to guarantee any quota for my state of North Carolina. All it does is guarantee the southern end 42%.”
Complications
The two addenda are sure to travel a bumpy road for three reasons.
First, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which implements a far lower federal quota than ASMFC and significantly lower trip limits, is worried that the ASMFC proposals would create further problems for “dual permit holders” – fishermen who work under both state and federal dogfish permits.
Second, some states have greatly benefited from a boost in dogfish landings over the past two years and won’t be ready to give up that boon to a historically based state-by-state quota allocation system.
And third, two states that had insignificant or zero dogfish landings over the past two decades don’t want to be locked out of a potential future fishery.
This third problem seemed the easiest to solve at the Aug. 21 meeting. Spiny dogfish board members went to great lengths to reassure Delaware and Connecticut – two states with nominal landings – that they would at least receive 1% quota allocations under one of the public hearing alternatives. The document also includes several other “minimum threshold” allocation alternatives.
Furthermore, states with virtually no landings at all – South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and, once again, Delaware – were granted de minimis status for the 2008 and 2009 fishery and so would not need to be involved in many of the new quota allocation measures.
Federal permit holders
The dual-permit issue posed a problem for Harry Mears, NMFS’s representative on the ASMFC dogfish board.
Mears expressed serious reservations about both addenda, which he indicated could isolate even more federal dogfish permit holders who are required to abide by more restrictive federal rules.
“This further polarizes our intent to be as complimentary as we can,” said Mears, referring to the growing split between federal regulations adopted by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, which are approved and implemented by NMFS, and those endorsed by ASMFC, which allow more liberal quotas and trip limits for state-only permit holders.
Mears said he hoped ASMFC’s public hearing documents would be “up front and center” about the negative impacts these addenda would have on dual permit holders.
“I hope we explain the impacts and at least solicit comments from the constituency,” he said.
Virginia issues
Although North Carolina fishermen have had problems accessing dogfish in recent years – either because of quota problems or unavailability of the fish – Virginia fishermen have been more fortunate and have increased their landings share.
Virginia ASMFC representative Jack Travelstead said, “State-by-state management would go a long way to solving North Carolina’s problems, but it would put Virginia in a difficult position.”
If state-by-state quotas are a serious consideration, he said, “We need to add an option that looks at the most recent years in the fishery.”
Travelstead also made it clear that Virginia was prepared to hold its ground on this point.
“Dogfish has proven to be somewhat of a savior for our fishermen displaced from the blue crab fishery,” he said. “To lose this opportunity overnight through state-by-state quotas would be difficult for Virginia to support.”
Responding to these concerns, the board added an alternative in the draft addendum to consider using the most recent years in the fishery – 2000 through 2007 – as the basis for making state-by-state allocations.
More info
For more information about either of the addenda, call Chris Vonderweidt, ASMFC’s dogfish plan coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or e-mail him at <cvonderweidt@asmfc.org>.
The comment period for both addenda closes Oct. 16. See page 10A for public hearing dates and locations.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
