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 33 Number 4
December 2005
NE council OKs herring limited-access; 4-month midwater trawl ban in 1A
HYANNIS, MA – The Northeast region’s Atlantic herring fleet will undergo profound change as it begins responding to a brand new limited-access program expected to be implemented in early 2007.
Although the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must still approve the program, the course essentially was set when the New England Fishery Management Council met here in mid-November and, over a very tense two-day period, approved more than two dozen actions for Amendment 1 to the federal herring plan.
First, the council voted to adopt the most restrictive Area 1A purse seine/fixed-gear-only season that went out to public hearing in October – the one calling for a four-month prohibition on midwater trawling in the inshore Gulf of Maine from June through September.
The closure was the most popular component of Alternative 7 and the chief reason tuna fishermen, whale watch operators, environmentalists, and many others backed this alternative above the six others.
However, the seasonal midwater trawl ban was the sole component of Alternative 7 that remained intact.
The council significantly altered the limited-access program’s qualification criteria in a way that industry participants said cut out some fishermen with long-standing histories in the fishery and added several recent entrants.
Within the core herring fleet, this move had both strong supporters and vehement opponents, and the change is expected to have particularly large – and negative – repercussions for Mid-Atlantic vessels that target mackerel but sometimes work on herring too.
In another hard discussion that divided the full-time herring fleet, the council approved a process through which industry members can set up sectors. It also settled on how to deal with “wing” boats in pair trawl teams that don’t have documented landings of their own.
Finally, in a sudden and rather stunning move, the council capped haddock bycatch in the herring fishery at 0.2 percent of the overall haddock total allowable catch (TAC), down from the one percent proposal sent to public hearing.
Compromise proposed
The council walked into this Nov. 15-17 meeting knowing it would consider a compromise proposal developed by its herring committee on Nov. 10.
The compromise preserved the Alternative 7 four-month purse seine/fixed-gear-only season, but it significantly loosened up the qualification criteria for limited-access permits in Area 1 and actually kept Areas 2 and 3 as open-access until landings reached a trigger point.
Maine council member Jim Salisbury pointed out that people who commented during the public hearings had “very adamant positions, but they were mostly focused on one issue.”
For many it was the four-month midwater trawl prohibition in Area 1A. For others it was the limited-access criteria.
“We (on the committee) thought we could satisfy more people in the fishery with a mix of measures rather than have a ‘winner take all’ strategy,” Salisbury said.
Herring committee Chairman David Pierce of Massachusetts made a motion to adopt the compromise proposal very near the start of the herring discussion.
He opened by saying, “I should highlight from the get-go that these recommendations were the result of quite a bit of deliberation as we struggled to deal with the public hearing comments. The public was clearly very passionate in response to the council’s preferred alternative (which was Alternative 7).”
Quick switch
The compromise didn’t last long, however, as Connecticut council member Sally McGee quickly moved to replace it with Alternative 7.
The shift back to Alternative 7 came as a terrible blow to directed herring fishermen. Alternative 7 used 1988-1999 as the qualifying years for Area 1 and, instead of waiting for a landings trigger, it called for immediate limited access in Areas 2 and 3 based on the qualifying years 1988-2003.
Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, said, “I just can’t image with the whole economics of this fishery that you will not consider another option that was brought forward by the herring committee.
“We have hard TACs,” said Calomo. “If we have so much concern about Area 1A, then reduce the TAC. Don’t reduce the people.”
Attorney David Frulla of the Washington, DC-based firm Collier Shannon Scott represented the New Bedford vessels Doña Martita and Nordic Explorer.
“Alternative 7 doesn’t honor recency in the fishery. The control date from 1999 is stale. And now you’re talking about limited access in Areas 2 and 3,” he said.
However, New Hampshire council member David Goethel wouldn’t budge.
“I’m against anything that will institutionalize overcapacity,” he said. “We manage to the net economic interest of the nation, not the net economic interest of the herring industry. A lot of other people have interests here. This is a forage species with a lot of different uses and some of them are not extractive.”
But Maine council member Jim Odlin couldn’t support Alternative 7.
“I don’t think we need to move this fast,” he said, referring in particular to Areas 2 and 3. “We have no scientific evidence that we have a resource problem. This resource is stable and growing.”
Purse seine only
Jeff Kaelin of Maine, representing the vessel Providian and the Ocean Spray Partnership, was one of several herring industry representatives to express opposition to the seasonal midwater trawl ban in Area 1A.
“A seine-only proposal in the Gulf of Maine won’t do one iota of good. The 60,000 metric tons (mt) will still be taken,” he said, referring to the hard total allowable catch (TAC) for Area 1A.
Since, for economic reasons, most midwater trawl boats would need to continue fishing in Area 1A if the fish were located there and not in abundance offshore, Kaelin said, “You’ll just force families … to invest $500,000 in purse seine gear to fish in the summer.”
Glenn Robbins, who has fished with multiple gear types from his boat the Western Sea, was a supporter of the seasonal midwater trawl ban.
“I know if there’s only purse seining in Area 1A, the tunafish will come around again,” he said.
The council voted 10-7 to adopt Alternative 7 instead of the compromise proposal.
The vote stunned Pierce, who said he wasn’t sure what to do next.
“The far better alternative has been rejected by the council,” he said. “I believe the alternative brought forward by the herring committee made sense. It would have been much more appropriate for Areas 2 and 3.”
Within minutes, however, the council began considering different qualification criteria for Area 1.
NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul had earlier expressed concern about going back to 1988, which she said was well before mandatory reporting, making it hard to verify landings from that earlier time period.
Attorney Gene Martin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of General Counsel also expressed reservations and told the council it would need to develop additional justification for the 1988-1999 dates.
“Some boats that haven’t fished for 17 years will qualify and others who have recently landed millions of pounds won’t,” he said.
Two council members proposed changing the Area 1 years to 1993-2003.
“That’s consistent with Alternative 2, which did go out to public hearing,” said Kurkul.
Calomo, who supported the extension to 2003, said, “This starts bringing things a little fairer to the people who have been fishing in Area 1A and 1B. To include them in the fishery is sustainable.”
Repercussions
Kaelin strongly opposed cutting 1988-1992 from the qualifying years.
“There are a handful of boats that participated in this fishery prior to 1993,” he said. “There should be nothing magical about the mandatory reporting period. You are now disqualifying people who have had history in this fishery.”
After listening to persuasive arguments on both sides, the council cast its vote to alter the qualifying years for Area 1 to 1993-2003, and afterward, it did the same for Areas 2 and 3.
Furthermore, it slightly refined the qualification dates for the limited-access incidental catch permit so that, once Amendment 1 is implemented, the qualification criteria for all three limited-access permit categories will be the same – Jan. 1, 1993 through Dec. 31, 2003.
The decision was devastating for Jeff Reichle of Lund’s Fisheries, who also represented the Garden State Seafood Association in New Jersey. He said the council’s actions would have enormous repercussions for the mackerel fleet, which historically has taken considerable quantities of herring at certain times of the year.
“Because of what you did with the dates, a lot of these Mid-Atlantic boats won’t qualify for anything less than the smallest permit,” he said.
“To arbitrarily change these dates from 1988 to 1993 and ignore these boats that may have had landings in 1991 is a travesty. What happened here today happened without enough thought for the mackerel fishery,” Reichle said.
Well aware of the difficulties this imposed on the mackerel fleet, Rhode Island council member Phil Ruhle urged the council to support a 25 mt herring possession limit for the limited-access incidental catch permit, which may end up being the permit that many mackerel boats receive.
“It’s really a bycatch issue for boats in the Mid-Atlantic in the mackerel fishery,” Ruhle said.
The initial possession limit proposed in Alternative 7 was 15 mt. The council readily supported the increase to 25 mt.
“Current” permit
Based on a recommendation from its herring committee, the council also voted to define “current” permit as one acquired as of Nov. 10, 2005. A current permit will be necessary to qualify for a limited-access permit in all three herring management areas if Amendment 1 is approved by NMFS.
Jim Odlin couldn’t support the move.
“There was no Nov. 10 date in the document,” he said. “Most people thought ‘current’ meant upon implementation. It’s clearly unfair and I believe there wasn’t proper notification. People could have historical landings and qualify but they may not have gotten a permit in 2005.”
Gene Martin, however, believed the Nov. 10, 2005 date had legal standing.
“I think this is enough within the original parameters of the public hearing document,” he said.
David Ellenton of Cape Seafoods and Western Sea Fishing Co. in Gloucester said he didn’t remember talking about the issue at herring advisory committee meetings, but, he added, “I can tell you that all of us were going forward with the understanding that ‘current’ meant the day upon implementation.”
According to council member John Nelson of New Hampshire, one of the reasons the herring committee supported Nov. 10, 2005 was because it feared the “upon implementation” approach “opened the door for all the people who had been asleep for five years” and had not tracked the council’s evolving course toward limited access.
Wing boats
The council also addressed how it would deal with “wing” boats in pair trawl teams in cases where the wing boat didn’t do the actual fishing but instead served as the support vessel.
Calomo said, “You just don’t want to leave out a vessel that has participated in the fishery. In the port of Gloucester, a lot of times one vessel will be the carrier.”
To address this problem, the council voted that pair trawl teams “may” – but don’t have to – divide their catch history so that both boats qualify. Landings must involve “third party verification” and may include “supplemental information” through vessel trip reports and dealer reports.
Jan/Feb action
All together, the council’s modifications to the qualification criteria and current permit language deviated enough from the fixed alternatives in the public hearing document that the council will need to review a fresh analysis of the final Amendment 1 package when it next meets Jan. 31-Feb. 2 in Portland, ME.
Assuming it signs off on the amendment, the council staff expects to submit a final document to NMFS late in March.
Given the timing, Pat Kurkul said NMFS wouldn’t be able to review, approve, and then implement all the Amendment 1 elements until sometime in early 2007 “at best.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
