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 5
January 2007
NE council rates sector policy 2007 ‘priority’
GLOUCESTER, MA – Groundfish, scallops, and whiting will continue to be top priorities for the New England Fishery Management Council in 2007. But in a decision that came somewhat by surprise, the council bumped herring and standardized bycatch reporting off its priority list in favor of setting up a new committee to establish a uniform sector policy.
The council indicated it could still keep tabs on herring during 2007 without labeling it a “priority,” and many believed the hardest work on standardized bycatch reporting has been completed.
The sector policy will be developed as an “omnibus” amendment that will simultaneously amend all of the council’s fishery management plans (FMPs). Since all of the FMPs will be modified, people in any fishery will be able to use the amendment language as a template to develop sectors of their own.
“I think we need to get this all fleshed out before we go marching down the road,” said Maine council member Dana Rice, who supported making the sector amendment a council priority.
“Sectors and how they’re applied are going to play a huge role in a lot of different fisheries, and it’s the council’s responsibility to make this as clear and concise as possible,” he said.
The council already has two functioning sectors – the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector and the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector. But so far, the groundfish plan is the only New England council FMP containing the skeletal language that allows for the formation of sectors, and stakeholders in several other fisheries, including herring, scallops, and red crab, have indicated a desire to form sectors or harvesting cooperatives as well.
Guidelines needed
Given the trend, Rice wanted the council to think through its policy while the concept was still in its infancy. And he wanted to level the playing field.
“If you’re a very well organized group of people and know how this process works and if you have the right attorneys, then you can do it, but as this goes forward, we’ll have a lot of smaller groups that’ll want to develop sectors, and they will need very specific guidelines,” he said.
The council considered establishing a broad sector policy without an amendment. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) said it cannot approve sectors unless an FMP first authorizes their establishment, which can only happen through an amendment.
That swayed Maine council member Jim Salisbury.
“A policy doesn’t do us any good unless we have a way to put the policy to work,” he said.
Can’t do it all
The council, which voted to set its 2007 priorities during a Nov. 14-16 meeting in Gloucester, first reviewed a draft priorities list developed by its executive committee.
Council Executive Director Paul Howard explained that if someone on the council wanted to elevate an item not on the draft list, he or she needed to suggest which of the proposed priorities would be bumped to make room for an alternative one. According to Howard, the council simply doesn’t have enough staff or resources to work on every possible management action at once.
The original draft list identified the following priorities: groundfish; scallops; whiting; habitat; skates; herring; standardized bycatch reporting; and “other management actions,” which covered Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, research steering, US/Canada groundfish transboundary dealings, and trawl survey work, as well as enforcement, safety, and vessel monitoring system issues.
Items that didn’t make the executive committee’s 2007 cut included: developing an omnibus sector amendment; miscellaneous groundfish issues not directly related to Amendment 16; establishing a red crab harvesting cooperative; developing a new ecosystem FMP; developing a hagfish FMP; and establishing a monkfish days-at-sea leasing program.
Whiting
Several council members voiced immediate support for making the omnibus sector amendment a priority, but figuring out what to bump to make room for it proved to be difficult.
The first suggestion was whiting, which drew fierce opposition from New Hampshire council member David Goethel.
“I don’t want to see whiting dropped,” protested Goethel. “We’ve already done a lot of work on the whiting amendment.”
NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul also opposed removing whiting from the priority list.
“The time to manage is before we have a problem,” she said. “I think we really need to move forward with whiting. We have a control date that goes back to 2003 now.”
Rhode Island council member Phil Ruhle emphasized that whiting is a market-driven fishery and that fishermen – like it or not – would be limited by what the market could handle.
“I’m much more in favor of doing something with sectors,” he said. “Over the course of the next year, we’re going to have a whole handful of them before us.”
Skates, bycatch, herring
Salisbury then tried to remove skates from the priority list in favor of the omnibus sector amendment, but Kurkul quickly derailed that idea.
This winter’s new stock assessment for skates is expected to reveal an overfished or overfishing condition in at least two species within the skate complex.
“I don’t think this is a viable option,” Kurkul said of the idea to bump skates in favor of sectors. “The (proposed) skate framework or amendment is to address an overfishing situation, so you have a statutory obligation to do the skate action.”
Howard then suggested moving herring and the amendment to implement a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) “below the line,” meaning those topics wouldn’t be considered priorities in 2007.
No one seemed to have a problem with bumping SBRM. NMFS has taken the lead on developing this complex amendment, which was prompted by a lawsuit, and the program’s details are now on their way to being finalized. Therefore, the council agreed to simply discuss remaining SBRM issues during its regularly scheduled council meetings in 2007.
Herring proved to be more controversial. This summer, the council adopted three-year specifications to cover the 2007-2009 herring fishing years. However, the council also agreed to conduct an annual review of the fishery to see how things were going under the specifications, which, if approved by NMFS, would reduce the Area 1A total allowable catch from 60,000 metric tons (mt) to 50,000 mt.
According to Howard, the council still could conduct the review, but it wouldn’t take any action to propose changes to the specifications in 2007 if herring was not identified as a council priority.
That didn’t sit well with Goethel or Maine council representative Terry Stockwell.
“I don’t think herring should go below the line,” said Stockwell. “If we have to make a change, it should be based on the latest science we have.”
Goethel added, “I think our prime responsibility is to manage the fisheries. Sectors are a way for people to more effectively move their capital around, but there won’t be any capital if we don’t manage the fishery properly.”
Trade-off
While the idea of taking herring off the priority list appeared to be a big step, Maine council member Jim Odlin considered it to be an acceptable swap to gain priority status for the omnibus sector amendment, especially since the 2007-2009 herring specifications are “conservative” and Amendment 1 is coming online.
“I think the risk to the herring resource is nil,” he said. “We have a new amendment. We’ll have limited entry and we’ll be starting a new management scheme.”
With red crab, herring, and other fishermen waiting in the wings to develop sectors, Odlin said of the omnibus sector amendment, “I think it’s critical to our mission to move forward with this.”
Connecticut council member Sally McGee, a strong supporter of sectors and harvesting cooperatives, said she believed the council had already missed several opportunities to support sectors.
“I think they’re a tool we have lost for both conservation and economic (stability),” she said.
However, McGee voiced concern about the length of time it would take the council to develop a sector amendment.
“My thought is an amendment will take years,” she said. “Maybe we’d be better off with a broad policy and not an amendment that will get so bogged down in the weeds that we screw it all up.”
Howard didn’t believe that would be the case.
“I think we can get it done in a year,” he said.
Kurkul suggested that the council identify the sector amendment as a priority, but then if the herring review indicates a need for action, the council might possibly stop work on the sector amendment and switch gears to herring.
Howard and Kurkul’s comments seemed to sway several council members. The vote to substitute the sector amendment in place of herring and SBRM passed 9-6.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
