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 3
November 2006
High stakes provoke intense herring debate
NE council endorses Area 1A TAC reduction
PEABODY, MA – Concerned about the inshore Gulf of Maine component of the Atlantic herring resource, the New England Fishery Management Council endorsed a 10,000 metric ton (mt) reduction in the Area 1A quota for the next three fishing years.
The cut – if adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – would result in a total allowable catch (TAC) of 50,000 mt instead of 60,000 mt for Area 1A from 2007 through 2009. This equates to a reduction of roughly 22 million pounds annually.
In making its decision, the council specified that only 5,000 mt of the 50,000 mt could be harvested during the January-May timeframe. Furthermore, the council made a commitment to conduct a one-year review of all herring specifications to determine whether changes need to be made either up or down following 2007.
The action came as a complete surprise to herring fishermen who had come to the Sept. 26-28 meeting in Peabody expecting a different outcome. They based their expectation on the fact that the council’s herring committee voted on Sept. 12 to recommend the same area-by-area TACs as 2006, which included a 60,000-mt quota for Area 1A.
Aware that several council members were concerned about the committee’s recommendation, industry members knew that some on the council were posturing for a 10% reduction in the Area 1A quota.
But then Massachusetts council member Rip Cunningham immediately opened the debate by substituting the committee’s recommendation with the most restrictive alternative on the table –one that proposed slashing the Area 1A quota to 45,000 mt.
In the end, the 50,000-mt TAC was adopted as a compromise, but only after considerable wrangling and some deep concessions from those who wanted status quo.
Case for caution
The possibility of dropping from 60,000 mt to 45,000 mt clearly jolted many people around the table and in the audience.
But Cunningham, providing his rationale for the proposal, said, “We continuously hear about the need to be cautious. We hear about the need to have herring as a forage base. We say we want to move this effort offshore, yet we continue to have the bulk of the harvest inshore.”
He also said the herring resource in general was exhibiting a “trend downward” and pointed to scientists’ cautionary notes about the “retrospective pattern” in the stock assessment, meaning the model used to assess the status of the stock tends to overestimate the size of the spawning stock biomass and underestimate fishing mortality in the most recent years of the assessment.
Connecticut council member Eric Smith immediately opposed the 45,000-mt alternative.
“I think it’s wise to be prudent and cautious, but a 25% reduction is too extreme,” he said. “We have to look at the whole assessment, which says that overall we have a robust stock. The biomass is almost double Bmsy. The fishing mortality rate is about one-third Fmsy.”
Bmsy is the biomass (or total weight of fish) that produces maximum sustainable yield. Fmsy is the fishing mortality rate that, if applied constantly, would result in maximum sustainable yield.
Maine council member Dana Rice also expressed vehement opposition.
“Nobody is any more concerned about the stock component in Area 1A than I am, but this amount of a cut in one year is too much,” he said. “It is a huge, huge mistake. It is going to cripple the lobster industry in New England.”
Rice, a lobster dealer who buys and sells on the order of a million pounds of lobsters per year, expressed grave reservations about whether the council understood the implications of a 25% reduction. In all likelihood, the 45,000 mt would be harvested by July or August at best, he said, leaving the lobster industry without its primary bait source during peak lobstering months in the fall.
“This drastic measure you’re talking about is going to backfire on us all. This is a socio-economic point and I’m not overstating my case,” Rice said.
Like other council members, Rice supported a cautious approach for Area 1A, but he believed the council had already taken this step by including a June-September ban on midwater trawl gear in Area 1A as part of Amendment 1 to the herring plan, which was published as a proposed rule on Sept. 27.
“If Amendment 1 with the trawler ban goes through, I think the problem in Area 1A may be taken care of right there,” said Rice.
PDT speaks
Before any motions were made, council herring plan coordinator Lori Steele gave a background presentation on the herring situation.
Steele, who also chairs the council’s herring plan development team (PDT), was joined by PDT member Steve Correia of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, who provided an overview of the PDT’s “risk assessment” for herring.
The latest stock assessment for herring conducted in May by the joint US/Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) concluded that the Atlantic herring complex as a whole was at a high level of abundance and fishing mortality on the total resource was at extremely low levels. The biomass of age 2+ herring in 2005 was estimated to be roughly 1 million mt strong, and three very large year classes produced in 1994, 1998, and 2002 were fueling the population.
However, following the TRAC meeting, US scientists took a closer look at the inshore Gulf of Maine component of the stock and found that the NMFS spring and fall survey indices inshore had declined two years in a row.
Steele said the declining indices were difficult to interpret since the NMFS cruises weren’t designed specifically to survey herring.
Nonetheless, she said, “There are certainly a couple of red flags here that the PDT thinks should be monitored closely.”
Correia pointed out that the risk assessment contained additional notes of caution.
For one, the PDT projected that, even at the current extremely low fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.11, the spawning stock biomass will decline by 6% in 2006 and 10% in 2007 from its 2005 level.
Plus, due to the strong retrospective pattern in the assessment, the PDT determined that the model could be overestimating spawning stock biomass by 14.5% per year.
When asked about the alternatives before the council, Correia said the committee’s alternative, which contained a specification of 60,000 mt for Area 1A, was the riskiest while the 45,000 mt alternative was the least risky.
Several council members later said they were swayed by the risk assessment information.
Seeking compromise
Like Smith, New Hampshire council member John Nelson expressed concern about endorsing a 25% quota reduction for Area 1A.
“I would be much more inclined to look at a 10% reduction,” he said. “It would be a more gradual and rational reduction. I feel comfortable with seeking some sort of compromise.”
Nelson proposed going with 50,000 mt for Area 1A and reducing the Area 3 TAC from 60,000 mt to 55,000 mt.
Given the number of council members who opposed 60,000 mt, it became obvious the committee’s original recommendation wouldn’t garner enough votes to pass, so the debate quickly shifted over to 45,000 mt vs. 50,000 mt.
Glenn Robbins, a 40-year veteran Maine fisherman, said, “I usually go on the side of caution but this is too cautionary. If it goes to 45,000 mt, this fishery will close early, very early. You’re going to ruin the industry.”
Dave Ellenton of Cape Seafoods Inc. and Western Sea Fishing Company in Gloucester spoke against 45,000 mt.
“To reduce this Area 1A TAC by 25% is a major disaster for us,” he said. “There are going to be huge shortfalls in markets we have developed since the FMP was put in place – and not just for lobster bait.
“The industry has talked,” he said, “and we are willing to discuss a lesser reduction. Although that will create some hardship, we are willing to look at that.”
More pros and cons
Tuna harpooner Steve Weiner urged the council to adopt the more restrictive TAC.
Aside from the directed herring industry, Weiner said, “I really believe I speak for a high percentage of fishermen in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. People are so disheartened it’s hard to get them to come to a meeting. We’re afraid that this stock has already crashed. We’re afraid this is too little, too late.”
Speaking directly to people’s concern about a diminished bait supply with a 45,000 mt TAC, Weiner said, “You’ll have lobster bait if you drive these big boats out of 1A.”
However, referring to the proposed Amendment 1 restrictions on midwater trawl boats, he said, “Don’t rely on that four-month closure to protect 1A. It hasn’t passed yet.”
Jeff Pike, representing the Bumble Bee/Stinson Seafood sardine plant in Prospect Harbor, ME, emphasized the herring industry’s “long history of caring about the fishery.” He pointed to industry’s successful effort years ago to gain money from Congress for research, and he highlighted industry’s support for the development of a herring plan.
Pike said the data on the table simply didn’t support such a drastic TAC reduction.
“If the council goes down this road, I hope you understand you’re not doing this for biology. You’re doing it for other considerations. Looking at the science, looking at the health of the resource, we think this is not appropriate,” he said.
Attorney Roger Fleming of the Conservation Law Foundation, however, said, “The science as it exists now best points to Alternative 2 (45,000 mt). This presents the best chance of preventing overfishing on the inshore component of the resource.”
Lobster bait
The issue of lobster bait – and whether lobstermen would have enough bait with a herring TAC reduction in Area 1A – came up repeatedly in people’s comments.
“I think the lobster fishery is our largest and most important fishery in New England and we should consider that,” said industry representative Mary Beth Tooley.
As to what the TAC cut will do to herring fishermen, she said, “It will have a significant impact on the industry that is just not warranted by the information presented by the PDT.”
Vessel owner Mike Blanchard of Gloucester argued that herring fishermen could hold off on fishing in Area 1A until lobstermen most needed the bait.
“If the herring boat fishermen are that concerned about the supply of herring to lobstermen, then they can control the flow of herring coming in. They can wait to fish in the fall,” he said.
After listening to these and other audience comments, council members in both the 60,000 mt and 45,000 mt camps leaned toward the middle and voted for 50,000 mt.
David Goethel of New Hampshire had one of the last words.
Referring to the collapse of herring on Georges Bank in the 1970s, he said, “If we wipe out these fish inshore, you won’t be looking at no lobster bait for a few months. It’ll be 20 years to get it back. Twenty years.”
Nonetheless, Goethel concluded, “I reluctantly support this compromise position. I’m afraid it’s not enough, but it’s a step in the right direction.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
