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 35 Number 4
December 2007
Monkfish FW 5 to cut carryover days to four
NEWPORT, RI – In a move that both stunned and angered industry members, the New England Fishery Management Council voted during its Nov. 6-7 meeting here to reduce the number of allowable monkfish “carryover” days from 10 to four.
The reduction is part of Framework Adjustment 5 to the federal monkfish plan, which the council signed off on during the meeting.
Monkfish is a jointly managed species, so the Mid-Atlantic council must still approve Framework 5 during its Dec. 11-13 meeting in Secaucus, NJ. Then a final package can be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for review and implementation.
Carryover days are unused days-at-sea that can be “carried over” and fished the following fishing year.
The New England council’s decision to so sharply reduce these days caught industry off guard. The joint monkfish committee and monkfish industry advisers, after extensive deliberations, had voted to support a reduction from 10 days – the number currently allowed – to six, which many considered to be a significant concession with substantial economic consequences.
The New England council, however, expressed concern that six was still too high given that fishermen currently are allocated only 31 monkfish days-at-sea in total, with only 23 being fishable in the southern area. In a 9-to-6 vote, the council dropped the number to four.
Mid-Atlantic concern
Jimmy Ruhle of the Mid-Atlantic council, serving as his council’s liaison to the New England council, was extremely critical of the decision. Ruhle also sits on the monkfish committee that recommended six days.
“There’s a time when enough is enough,” he said. “You just sealed the deal with the Mid-Atlantic not supporting this. To come down from 10 days to six was considerable. Why do you have committees if you’re not going to accept their advice?”
The carryover day reduction turned out to be the most contentious issue in Framework 5, but the framework also proposes to: update biological reference points for monkfish; change the gillnet “three-hour” rule; alter large-mesh incidental catch limits; and eliminate the need for a letter of authorization for vessels fishing in the Northern Fishery Management Area with a vessel monitoring system.
Backstop problems
Before the carryover day issue came to a head, Ruhle urged the New England council to address Framework 4’s backstop provisions in Framework 5.
Under Framework 4, which is now a done deal and was implemented in October, the directed monkfish fishery will be shut down in 2009 if landings in 2007 exceed the target total allowable catch (TAC) by more than 30% in a given management area .
The backstop isn’t expected to be a problem in the Northern Fishery Management Area, but fishermen believe it’s already inevitable that landings in the Southern Fishery Management Area in 2007 will exceed the 30% trigger and automatically kick-in a directed fishery closure.
“The backstop issue is real,” said Ruhle. “I understand it will slow down Framework 5, but we need to consider adjusting the backstop.”
He further argued that the backstop was developed at a time when both councils had serious concerns about the status of the stock. But the new, recently released stock assessment concluded that the resource in the north and south was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring.
“The industry is looking for some stability,” said Ruhle. “This backstop issue is going to create a situation where stability is not achievable.”
New England council Chairman John Pappalardo encouraged the council to stay on track with Framework 5.
“I think it’s important to get the new stock assessment information on the books and deal with the days-at-sea carryover issue and the three-hour rule and the letters of authorization,” he said.
Then in 2008, said Pappalardo, the councils could develop Framework 6 to modify the backstop. In 2009, he said, the councils could begin developing Amendment 4 to deal with annual catch limits and accountability measures, both of which are now required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well as specifications for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fishing years. The specifications could include changes to days-at-sea allocations and trip limits.
Can’t wait that long
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine, who also chairs the monkfish industry advisory panel and is an active participant in the Monkfish Defense Fund, was astonished. She emphasized the extremely positive stock status news from the latest assessment.
“We made sacrifices and we brought this resource back,” she said. “And now you’re saying the first opportunity the industry will have to recoup some of the sacrifices we made will be in 2011? We need this fish. Monkfish is what’s holding the groundfish industry together.”
Scientists carefully couched the new stock assessment results as being fraught with “uncertainty.”
But Raymond argued that every previous assessment also contained considerable uncertainty. Nonetheless, the assessments were deemed to be the “best available science,” and as a result, industry shouldered severe effort reductions.
Now that a new assessment containing the “best available science” concluded that monkfish was in good shape, managers seemed unwilling to respond accordingly, she said.
“If we can never review the cutbacks, that’s a serious problem,” Raymond said. “People need to keep in mind that this is not a fishery in trouble. We should be looking at loosening up restrictions.”
The council, however, expressed reservations about potentially delaying Framework 6, which will contain the much-desired alternatives to the backstop, if other issues were added to the framework.
Monkfish plan coordinator Phil Haring said, “The analysis for a backstop can be fairly succinct, but once you get into TACs and days-at-sea, those calculations and analyses are rather prolonged.”
Concluding that it didn’t want to compromise the backstop alternatives, the council voted to limit Framework 6 to only the backstop issue and not address days-at-sea or trip limit changes until later.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
