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 4
December 2006
ASMFC lobster board trims Amd. 5 to three issues
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC – The majority of lobstermen who turned out in September for public information meetings on Amendment 5 to the interstate lobster plan told the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) that, with the exception of a uniform v-notch definition, they’d rather stick with the current area-by-area management system than shift toward standardized measures across the range of the resource.
As a result, ASMFC’s American Lobster Management Board decided at its Oct. 23 meeting here to eliminate four of the seven issues previously identified for possible consideration in draft Amendment 5.
The topics off the table are:
Changing the lobster management area boundaries;
Adopting more uniform minimum sizes among management areas;
Amending the nontrap sector’s lobster allowance from 100-count per day/500-count per trip to an alternative poundage-based amount; and
Adding an additional objective to the lobster plan to promote coordination of management activities between lobster management areas to improve compliance.
What’s left
The three issues ASMFC will continue to work on are: a uniform v-notch definition; a uniform maximum size among management areas; and restrictions on permits to control effort.
Close to 250 people attended the commission’s 11 meetings, which were held to hear comments on what ASMFC calls a “public information document” (PID), which is similar to a scoping document. An additional three dozen individuals and industry associations submitted written comments.
The meetings were intended to help ASMFC’s lobster board determine which issues should be further developed and analyzed for inclusion in a more formal public hearing document that will be aired later this winter.
Different proposals mattered more in some states than others. In New Jersey, for instance, recreational divers turned out in force to oppose a uniform maximum size on lobsters, while in Maine, which held four separate meetings in Machias, Ellsworth, Rockport, and Portland, lobstermen were most concerned about preserving and possibly expanding the zero-tolerance v-notch definition beyond it’s current range and gaining support for a maximum size coastwide.
Boundaries
Not surprisingly, three of the items ASMFC ended up dropping from draft Amendment 5 generated the most public comment.
The first involved management area boundaries. ASMFC had proposed changing the boundaries to better line up its seven lobster management areas with the three stock assessment areas, which broadly cover the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England, including Long Island Sound. This in turn would allow scientists to obtain better data to produce more accurate stock assessments.
But the proposal didn’t gain much support during the PID meetings, and Area 3 lobstermen, who would have been most affected by a change, vehemently opposed the idea.
“I feel strongly that we should not break up Area 3,” said Rhode Island lobsterman David Spencer. “This is going to throw the system into chaos in my mind. Area 3 is already managing to the most restrictive measures, and I think we have demonstrated that we are doing the best for these three stock areas and the management process.”
On the other hand, Maine Commissioner Pat White was willing to explore the idea.
“At our last meeting, we discussed looking for a way to maintain area management and not destroy the integrity of it but still get better data,” he said.
Nonetheless, Massachusetts Commissioner Bill Adler wanted to take the issue right off the table.
“Rearranging these things is just going to cause more trouble than it’s going to solve,” he said. “I don’t believe this will ultimately be any good. Industry is used to these things.”
Data collection
Connecticut Commissioner Eric Smith proposed an alternative that focused on better data collection rather than changing management area boundaries.
“If we can get catch and effort statistics, that will solve a lot of the concerns,” he said.
The board agreed to pursue improved data collection – especially through mandatory reporting by statistical areas – in Addendum X.
The proposal is a revised version of the data collection and mandatory reporting program that was adopted by the commission earlier this year.
MOLA proposal
The Maine Offshore Lobstermen’s Alliance (MOLA) submitted a proposal to create an Area 1/3 buffer zone, which would have allowed Maine’s historical offshore lobstermen to regain access to a small portion of Area 3.
MOLA proposed having the buffer run from the 25600 loran line, which is the divide between Area 1 and Area 3, to the 25400 line. Under the proposal, Maine vessels would abide by the most restrictive minimum gauge, as well as by the 5" maximum gauge required of Area 1 lobstermen.
However, given its decision to pursue better data collection through Addendum X, the ASMFC board decided against making any changes to area management boundaries for the time being, including those involving Areas 1 and 3.
Lobsters on draggers
The board spent little time debating whether to pursue changes to the nontrap lobster limit, which currently stands at 100 lobsters per day with a cap of 500 lobsters per trip.
Public comment on this topic was all over the board. In Maine, most lobstermen who testified wanted the limit reduced to zero or, if that turned out to be a nonstarter, at least reduced to 100/500 pounds rather than individual lobsters.
Groundfish fishermen opposed changing the limit, as did many lobstermen in states besides Maine. They said in oral and written comments that the current nontrap limit was fair and not harmful to the resource.
The board dropped this whole topic from further development.
Size limits
The board also quickly decided to drop the minimum size issue from draft Amendment 5. Only a few industry members who attended the PID meetings supported a uniform minimum size throughout the range of the resource, and many strongly opposed it.
In contrast, there was much more support for a uniform maximum size, although the acceptable cap varied greatly by management area.
In Maine, many lobstermen advocated for a uniform, coastwide 5" maximum, while in other areas, support was much stronger for something in the 6"-7" range.
Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association (AOLA), said Area 3 lobstermen had already moved ahead on this issue by including a 7" maximum size in their latest effort reduction plan, with a 1/8" reduction two years in a row to reach a final maximum cap of 6-3/4". Given this independent and progressive action, the association did not want to see the issue included in Amendment 5, Spinazzola explained.
“We know a 6-3/4 inch lobster is something you find in Area 3, so we believe our action will result in a significant increase in egg production to the fishery,” she said.
The state of New Jersey fiercely opposed a uniform maximum size if it impacted recreational fishermen.
Jack Fullmer, writing on behalf of the New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs (NJCDC), said the issue evoked “strong feelings” in the recreational dive fishery for lobsters, which contributes very little in the way of landings but generates enormous economic benefits to the state. NJCDC is an organization of 19 sport diving clubs in New Jersey with a few additional ones from neighboring states.
“Allowing a few trophy lobsters for the recreational fishery will have no impact on conservation,” said Fullmer.
Keep it alive
Several board members asked whether the maximum size issue could go forward in draft Amendment 5 for commercial fishermen only, and the answer was “yes.”
According to ASMFC lobster plan coordinator Toni Kerns, the public hearing draft of Amendment 5 could include a range of options, some of which do not pertain to recreational fishermen.
This response alleviated some concerns around the table, but Bill Adler still didn’t support the idea.
“I don’t think this needs to be in an amendment,” he said. “This can be put in by the LCMTs. A little bit different maximum size might work better for an area.”
Maine Commissioner George Lapointe wanted to keep the option alive, at least at this early stage of the Amendment 5 process.
“The biological benefit is something worthy of consideration by all management areas,” he said.
The board voted to continue pursing maximum size alternatives.
V-notch definition
The majority of industry members who commented on the PID supported a uniform v-notch definition. In Maine, almost everyone supported “zero tolerance,” but everywhere else, the overwhelming majority, including AOLA and the Rhode Island Lobstermen’s Association, supported a 1/8" definition.
The board agreed to further develop this issue in Amendment 5.
The other item the board agreed to pursue related to permitting, so the next draft of Amendment 5 will contain more fully developed options regarding permit splitting, the transferring of federal permits between management areas, and other related permit issues.
The board will review the revised version of Amendment 5 at its winter meeting, which begins Jan. 29, 2007. At that time, the board will select which items to include in the official public hearing document.
For more information, call Kerns at (202) 289-6400 or e-mail her at <tkerns@asmfc.org>.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
