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 to look at lobster ITT database
ALEXANDRIA, VA – The American Lobster Management Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has agreed to send its proposed individual transferable trap (ITT) program back to technical experts and industry advisers for further review of the database needed to track trap transfers.
The board had been scheduled to cast a deciding vote on the ITT program – contained in Addendum XII to the interstate lobster plan – during its Aug. 19 meeting here. But Massachusetts officials, who had serious reservations about the scope of the proposed database system, urged the board to modify its initial expectations.
“I do believe in a database system, but I hope the board will consider a scaled-back model,” said Dan McKiernan of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
Recognizing industry’s pleas for the ability to transfer traps, the board decided in October 2007 to develop Addendum XII to standardize and monitor ITTs among all Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMAs).
But many lobstermen, particularly in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, want the ability to transfer traps now – and they have expressed deep frustration over the length of time it has taken to get a universal ITT program up and running.
Massachusetts officials, equally frustrated by their inability to allow transfers among their own lobstermen without an ASMFC-sanctioned master program, are trying to work within the system.
“Massachusetts did allow some transfers for a couple of years,” said McKiernan, “but we’ve since ceased at the request of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because it was creating some issues with dual permit holders.”
Dual permit holders are those authorized to fish in state waters under a state license and in federal waters with a vessel permitted by NMFS. The term “dual permit holders” also is often used to refer to lobstermen who have elected to fish in more than one LCMA.
LCMAs 2, 3, and Outer Cape Cod actually have ITT programs within their own management plans, but lobstermen in those areas still need authorization by state agencies and/or NMFS to carry out the transfers.
Need to “move on”
Fearing that ASMFC’s current proposed – and very comprehensive – database system would further delay the implementation of a universal ITT program, McKiernan came to the Aug. 19 meeting with a dozen recommendations for reining in the system.
“These suggestions scale back some of the goals and expectations – and some of the burden,” he said. “This thing right now is so complicated that we go from meeting to meeting with no substantial progress.”
McKiernan also urged the board to recognize Massachusetts’ experience with transfers since it did allow some to occur for a short period.
“The theme here is: Until the database gets going, let’s let these transfers go on within the states,” McKiernan said. “We need to move on.”
Rhode Island board member Mark Gibson also strongly supported the smaller-step approach in order to make progress on ITT implementation.
“Our fishermen need more flexibility than they have right now,” Gibson said.
Trap “warehouse”
At previous meetings, the board expressed concern about potential increases in effort as lobstermen transfer traps. As a result of these discussions, the board concluded it couldn’t move forward with ITTs unless it had a centralized “warehouse” – or “repository” – to record and catalogue trap transfers throughout all LCMAs where transfers occur.
The objective was to “build a system” to:
“Uniformly catalog individual fishermen’s trap allocations across all LCMAs;
“Track annual purchases of trap tags by fishermen or vessels; and
“Facilitate the administration of trap allocation transfers.”
But the cost associated with developing and running such a system has proven to be a significant obstacle.
To that end, ASMFC recently submitted a $153,390 grant proposal to the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) to develop the database.
“Allocation transfers sought by the industry and the consequent benefit of trap reductions through a trap tax cannot proceed without a tool for administering and tracking such transfers,” wrote ASMFC in the grant application.
Valuable info
According to ASMFC, a centralized database would allow ASMFC states and NMFS to have “timely access to accurate effort data in both state and federal waters.”
The system could track:
Number of permitted fishermen;
Number of allocated traps;
Number of trap tags purchased;
Areas experiencing highest effort:
Number and magnitude of trap tag transfers; and
Number of traps removed from the fishery through “conservation taxes.”
In its grant application, ASMFC noted that NMFS “has expressed reluctance to proceed with transfer-enabling rule-making until an allocation-tracking database is in place.”
The lobster board will find out at ASMFC’s annual meeting in October whether or not its proposal for funding was approved by the ACCSP.
NMFS role
Since so many lobstermen work in both state and federal waters – and because Area 3 fishermen work offshore exclusively in federal waters – NMFS’s willingness to adopt a federal ITT program that mirrors ASMFC’s is critical to the program’s success.
NMFS has been supportive of the concept and an active participant on ASMFC’s Lobster Transferability Subcommittee. The subcommittee held seven meetings between March 2007 and January 2008 to develop a history-based ITT program – first for Area 2 and then more broadly for Addendum XII, which will standardize how trap transfers occur among all areas.
However, NMFS’s Harry Mears emphasized the need for an independent centralized database that could run without NMFS being at the helm.
“This is something we have been upfront about,” said Mears. “Yes, we’ll be an integral part of it, but we cannot be the central warehouse for all transfers.”
Mears also indicated that approval of Addendum XII was essential for NMFS to proceed with its own ITT regulations.
“The purpose of Addendum XII was to decrease the gap and set a landscape where the federal government could move forward,” he said.
What’s next?
After a lengthy debate, board Chairman Brian Culhane of New York charged the Lobster Transferability Subcommittee with meeting once again to review McKiernan’s recommendations and determine whether modifications to the database system were warranted.
Furthermore, Culhane directed the Lobster Advisory Panel to stage a conference call to provide its own input.
The full board will review the results of those discussions at its next meeting, which will be held the week of Oct. 20 in conjunction with ASMFC’s annual meeting in Rehoboth, DE.
Area 3 Lobster Conservation and Management Team Chairman David Spencer expressed concern about moving forward with a scaled-back system that only allowed transfers within a single state – say, only among Massachusetts lobstermen or only among Rhode Island lobstermen.
Recognizing that state-only transfers might be a way to launch the ITT program, Spencer urged the board to progressively move toward the full-scale database.
“If this is an incremental step, OK, but industry will be watching this,” he said. “We don’t want to see something enacted and be stuck in that situation for a long time. We need a database. That is the only way we’re going to be able to have a good and workable transfer program.”
John German, president of the Long Island Sound Lobstermen’s Association, remained unswayed. He continued to express long-standing reservations about the entire ITT program.
“I see a big push for transferring these traps, but I don’t understand it,” he said. “All I’ve heard since 1976 is ‘effort reduction, effort reduction, effort reduction.’ All this plan is is an effort increase. Guys now are buying tags and hanging on to them.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
