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 2009
ASMFC juggles complex lobster issues, including nontrap landings
ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) American Lobster Management Board took a number of actions during its Aug. 17 meeting here that covered everything from stock status concerns to potential increases in nontrap lobster landings.
Over the course of three-and-a-half hours, the board:
• Listened to concerns about potential increases in nontrap lobster landings in 2010 by fishermen in groundfish sectors;
• Agreed to send draft Addendum XV out to public hearing to limit entry into Area 1 for federally permitted lobster nontrap vessels that have not previously fished with traps in Area 1 federal waters (see box at right);
• Reviewed a request to adjust Restricted Gear Areas (RGAs) II and III in the Mid-Atlantic;
• Discussed the impact of increased Jonah crab fishing on lobster conservation;
• Received a report from its American Lobster Technical Committee with extensive recommendations for rebuilding the Southern New England lobster stock and the portion of the Gulf of Maine stock located in Area 514 (see related story page 14B for details);
• Voted to initiate an addendum to the interstate lobster plan to adopt new biological reference points for the resource based on options contained in the 2009 stock assessment (see related story for details and see CFN June 2009 for assessment round-up); and
• Voted to delay the Jan. 1, 2010 implementation of increased escape vent sizes for Area 6 lobstermen to June 1, 2010 (see related story next page for details).
Area 1 nontrap effort
In response to a letter from New England Fishery Management Council Executive Director Paul Howard, the board agreed to pay closer attention to lobster landings by groundfish boats.
Howard informed the board that once Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan is implemented in 2010, fishermen who work under sectors will be exempt from days-at-sea.
Currently, groundfish fishermen fishing in federal waters are limited to 100 lobsters per day, up to a maximum of 500 pounds per trip.
Howard said it was “difficult to determine” whether effort on lobsters will increase or decrease under sectors, but “effective monitoring of nontrap lobster landings from the EEZ is essential,” he wrote.
Lobster industry representatives expressed their own concerns about this issue.
Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, said, “Unfortunately, there’s very little known about what is going to happen in sectors. The lobster industry has a great deal to lose if we’re not prepared.”
Offshore lobsterman David Spencer added, “Given the uncertainty, I think monitoring is essential. I don’t think sitting back and waiting is responsible. No one monitors lobsters except for this board.”
Spencer urged the board to be proactive.
“I think it would be prudent to set up a committee and explore potential redirection of effort as a result of this new groundfish regime,” he said.
Groundfish perspective
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine said she, personally, had been at almost every meeting where sectors were discussed and the concern about additional groundfish effort on lobsters was “never raised publicly.”
“We do not see the possibility of increases in lobster bycatch in the groundfish fishery as a result of sector management,” she said. “There will actually be a reduction in the number of vessels on the water as a result of sectors.”
To illustrate the point, Raymond used the Sustainable Harvest Sector, of which her vessel is a member, as an example.
“We have over 90 permitted vessels in our sector, and we expect only 40 of them to be active in the first year,” she said.
Fisherman Joel Hovanesian, who was sitting on the board as a proxy for Rhode Island state Sen. Susan Sosnowski and is likely to become a sector member himself, concurred.
“I think there’s a potential for there to be less effort on lobsters,” he said. “Lobsters were a fallback. But with days-at-sea going away in sectors, you may see people concentrating less on lobsters and more on their finfish.”
Board responds
Several board members said they were unprepared to discuss the issue in depth since it was the first time it had been raised.
Massachusetts board member Bill Adler asked whether it would be possible to establish a small committee or working group, as Spencer suggested, to investigate the situation.
Rhode Island board member Mark Gibson said he was not opposed to the idea but, he added, “I’m not sure we have enough to go on right now to develop a working group.”
Maine board member George Lapointe also wanted a “better articulation of the problem.”
“It would be worthwhile for those people who have concerns to write them down so we’ll know what they are. Then we’ll get that list and see what’s going on,” he said.
Lapointe suggested reviewing the list at ASMFC’s annual meeting in November.
“We should keep our finger on the pulse of this. If it becomes an issue, we’ll deal with it. If not, then we’ll leave it alone,” he said.
Board representative Dan McKiernan of Massachusetts said the commonwealth had experienced a similar situation when gillnetters off the Outer Cape increased effort on lobsters. In response, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries took action to more strictly limit their lobster harvest.
“I think it’s a good idea for all of us to keep an eye on this,” he said.
McKiernan suggested that, for starters, states begin monitoring and reporting nontrap lobster landings as part of their mandatory annual lobster fishery management plan (FMP) compliance report – a suggestion the board agreed to.
ASMFC’s lobster advisory panel made a similar suggestion during its June 3 meeting. The panel recommended that the board “monitor mobile gear landings to determine if any effort shifts occur by reporting landings by gear type in the annual FMP review.”
Addendum XV
On another nontrap related issue, the board voted to send Addendum XV to the interstate lobster plan out to public hearing.
The addendum primarily is intended to prevent federally permitted lobster nontrap vessels that have never fished with traps in Area 1 from doing so in the future. The fear is that displaced groundfish fishermen might take up lobster trap fishing, putting additional pressure on the resource.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), at ASMFC’s request, has already established a Jan. 2, 2009 control date for the federal waters of Area 1. The addendum would go a step further and impose specific criteria to cap effort at current levels, defined as fishing years 2004 through 2008.
According to ASMFC, effort in the Gulf of Maine lobster fishery has increased since 2000 and is now at the highest levels since 1981.
“An unchecked increase in effort in the lobster trap fishery as a result of a shift from nontrap to trap-gear and/or as a result of an influx of fishing operations from other areas to Lobster Conservation and Management Area (LCMA) 1 may jeopardize current efforts to achieve the objectives of the (FMP) and rebuild stocks,” said ASMFC in the draft addendum.
Who qualifies?
Under the addendum, fishermen would need to meet three criteria to obtain a federal lobster permit for Area 1 in the future:
• Possess a valid federal American lobster permit;
• Show proof of their LCMA 1 designation on the federal lobster permit as of Jan. 2, 2009; and
• Show proof of purchase of lobster trap tags for the EEZ waters of LCMA 1 for any single fishing year between the fishing years 2004 through 2008 as of Jan. 2, 2009.
Public hearings were scheduled to take place in late September and early October. The deadline for comments is Oct. 9.
For more info or to comment, visit ASMFC’s web site at <asmfc.org> and click on “Breaking News,” or call lobster plan coordinator Toni Kerns at (202) 289-6400.
If the ASMFC lobster board approves the addendum, the limited-entry criteria will be sent to NMFS as a “recommendation.” ASMFC member states cannot independently implement the criteria because the proposal only affects federal waters. NMFS will have to put the final rule in place.
Change RGAs?
As a result of a letter from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the lobster board reviewed a request to alter two of the restricted gear areas (RGAs) in the Hudson Canyon area.
The RGAs initially were imposed to reduce gear conflicts between lobstermen and mobile gear fishermen and, according to offshore lobstermen, have worked well in keeping conflicts at bay.
The issue is back in the forefront because the Mid-Atlantic council is in the process of implementing a five-year rebuilding plan for butterfish that could close the Loligo squid fishery early depending on butterfish bycatch levels.
Hank Lackner, a Mid-Atlantic fisherman, submitted a proposal to the council with potential alternatives for reducing butterfish bycatch. However, the proposal would require adjusting the opening and closing dates of RGAs II and III so that squid fishermen could access RGA III a little earlier and better avoid butterfish.
“Due to the vastness of this RGA III and weather constraints, the fleet is being pushed right into a butterfish hotspot,” wrote Lackner in his proposal. “A very simple solution to alleviate some of the discard problems we face is to allow the squid fleet a little more flexibility in the fall months in the area of the Hudson Canyon.”
According to Lackner, the RGAs were not initially a problem for the squid fleet because the fall migration of squid typically occurred inside 35 fathoms. But now, whether it’s due to changing water temperatures or increases in predators such as dogfish and scup, squid are found in deeper waters, which is why the RGAs need to be modified, he said.
Lobstermen opposed
Offshore lobster representatives present at the ASMFC meeting fiercely opposed any RGA changes.
“What happens in two years, three years when the fish shift again?” asked Spinazzola.
Several board members said they thought the issue was extremely complicated and needed further investigation. Some said they were reluctant to change boundaries or timeframes because the existing RGAs were established only after extensive deliberations and compromise on all sides and seemed to achieve a reduction in gear conflicts.
Board members agreed to stay in touch with the Mid-Atlantic council, which is working on the issue through its Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee.
And, in a follow-up Aug. 20 letter to the Mid-Atlantic council, ASMFC Executive Director Vince O’Shea said that if the council does, indeed, find that “a significant reduction in butterfish bycatch” could be achieved by changing the RGAs, then ASMFC would like the council to evaluate both the impacts of the new RGAs on the lobster fishery and whether they achieve the same level of gear conflict reduction.
O’Shea concluded, “After all evaluations have been conducted, the board felt any decision to revise the RGAs be made through a public process that would enable input from both mobile and fixed gear fishermen who might be impacted by any change.”
Jonah crabs
The board also discussed whether potential increases in the Jonah/rock crab fishery had the ability to undermine lobster conservation efforts.
David Spencer said, “To allow an unregulated fishery to fish in an area that’s capable of catching lobsters has the potential to undermine everything we’re done. I think this is a serious issue that the board has to address.”
The lobster board agreed to refer the issue to ASMFC’s policy board, which then referred it to the American Lobster Plan Review Team and Law Enforcement Committee for “further exploration.”
The plan review team will look into existing state regulations for Jonah crabs to see what controls on harvest and effort currently are in place.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
