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 5
January 2008
Area 3 lobstermen propose ITT program changes
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Anticipating the day when its own individual transferable trap (ITT) program will be implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Area 3 Lobster Conservation and Management Team (LCMT) is continuing to seek ways to make its program as effective and efficient as possible.
During the Oct. 29 meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) American Lobster Management Board, LCMT 3 Chairman David Spencer said the team was recommending two modifications to the Area 3 program:
• A reduction in the trap cap from 2,200 traps to 2,000 traps; and
• A streamlining of the “conservation tax” associated with trap transfers.
The two recommendations will be included in Addendum XII to ASMFC’s interstate lobster plan. The board is expected to approve a draft addendum document for public hearing purposes during its February meeting.
Area 3 lobstermen are in the toughest spot of all fishermen working under the Lobster Conservation and Management Area program originally developed by ASMFC.
ASMFC, an organization of Atlantic seaboard states, has lead responsibility for managing lobsters. That’s because the vast majority of lobster landings come from state waters. NMFS, however, has jurisdiction over federal waters.
The issue with Area 3 is that it lies exclusively in federal waters, which means lobstermen first have to work with ASMFC to develop the actual management measures, but then have to wait for NMFS to implement the measures before they become effective.
Arguing that numerous unresolved trap transferability issues still need to be addressed regionwide, NMFS has yet to implement the Area 3 ITT program, which was developed – and approved by ASMFC – back in 2003 and 2004. ASMFC and NMFS are now working cooperatively to address the outstanding ITT issues.
Conservation tax
A conservation tax is a certain percentage of traps that are permanently retired from the fishery as part of a trap transfer transaction.
The Area 3 ITT program currently is set up to operate under a two-tiered conservation tax – 10% for a permit holder acquiring up to 1,800 traps and 50% for trap transfers between 1,800 to 2,200.
“We felt this was fairly complicated, more so than it needed to be,” said Spencer.
Instead, the LCMT is recommending a 20% conservation tax for all partial trap transfers “in order to mitigate confusion,” said Spencer.
The tax for a complete transfer of a permit and all associated traps will remain at 10% once the ITT program takes effect.
Trap cap
The Area 3 LCMT also recommended a reduction in each permit holder’s overall trap cap from 2,200 traps to 2,000.
Area 3 lobstermen are about to undergo another round of trap reductions under Addendum XI. By the end of the reduction schedule, no Area 3 permit holder will be allocated more than 1,945 traps.
Lobstermen who attended an Oct. 16 LCMT 3 meeting supported reducing the 2,200 trap cap to 2,000 as the highest number of traps that could be accumulated through trap transfers because it was closer to what will become the highest allowed trap allocation.
In a memo summarizing this meeting, Dan McKiernan, deputy director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, said those in the room were “concerned that once transferability is begun, permit holders may seek to maximize their trap allocations through transfers and the end result – after many years of transfers – will be fewer fishermen involved in the fishery, (with most of those remaining) fishing up to the limit of 2,200 traps.”
McKiernan added, “The basis for the proposed 2,000-trap cap is to cap trap fishing levels – on a per vessel basis – at a level similar to (what was) seen in the offshore waters in the 1990s when the interstate lobster management plan was established.”
Differing views
The LCMT discussed a recommendation by one member to lower the trap cap to 1,600 traps but opted against it, not wanting to force permit holders with higher trap levels to liquidate traps in the future.
The LCMT also discussed the position of one member who wanted a higher trap cap, but those present at the Oct. 16 LCMT meeting concluded that a higher cap would lead to “negative changes” in the fishery.
The member advocating for the higher cap, Roy Campanale, presented his case to the ASMFC lobster board on Oct. 29.
As an owner, along with his family, of four offshore lobster boats that originally fished some of the highest numbers of traps in Area 3, Campanale said, “Our company has already reduced more traps than any other business in the industry.”
Arguing that he always supported the 2,600-trap cap initially proposed for Area 3 when the effort control program first came into play, Campanale said, “All we want is to be able to participate in the ITT plan and rebuild our businesses to the original 2,600 traps. We’ve had four years of losses. The cap now is too low for us to sustain our businesses. Leave it to the industry how to run our own businesses.”
In response to questions from several board members, Campanale said, “I’m just looking for something that’s fair and equitable. Maybe we could increase traps (by) a certain percentage on a yearly basis.”
David Spencer said the LCMT 3 members have been well aware of – and sympathetic to - Campanale’s position from the start. However, after discussing the issue, the LCMT concluded that a lower 2,000-trap cap would be better overall for the industry.
Following the meeting, Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, also acknowledged the sensitivity of the trap cap issue.
But in the end, she said, “The LCMT discussed that it was really more of a social issue and a vision of what they wanted the fishery to look like. They felt that the lower the cap, the more participants you can have in the fishery.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
