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 6
February 2007
ASMFC asks: Should lobster regs be uniform?
CRYSTAL CITY, VA – In the coming weeks, lobstermen in the Northeast will be asked whether they want to see more standardized lobster regulations throughout the range of the resource.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is looking for feedback on seven issues:
• Changing the boundaries for lobster management areas;
• Developing a uniform v-notch definition for possession of lobsters across all Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMAs);
• Adopting a uniform minimum size across LCMAs;
• Adopting a uniform maximum size across LCMAs;
• Applying restrictions to the splitting of state and federal permits;
• Amending the nontrap sector’s daily allowance of 100 lobsters per day up to 500 pounds per trip to some other alternative; and
• Adding a new objective to the FMP.
At its Aug. 14 meeting here, ASMFC’s American Lobster Management Board voted to send draft Amendment 5 out for its first round of review. The draft will be released as a “public information document” (PID), which is the board’s first step in responding to management issues raised by the most recent lobster stock assessment.
Draft Amendment 5 is completely separate from the addendums that ASMFC will develop to further reduce effort in Southern New England. Those initiatives will be covered by CFN next month.
Is uniformity good?
In contrast to effort reduction, draft Amendment 5 is intended to streamline regulations from one LCMA to another as much as possible to “promote compliance, clarity, and consistency” whenever “practicable.”
Many board members supported this intent, especially for states that have to deal with different measures for multiple LCMAs. Massachusetts, for example, must implement and enforce a host of regulations for four different LCMAs.
But Harry Mears of the National Marine Fisheries Service strongly opposed the shift toward uniformity.
“It would reverse the whole trend of lobster management,” he said. “I think it’s the wrong thing to do. It’s against the reason we did this (area-by-area management) in the first place, which was to identify and respond to differences in the industry.”
According to Mears, a move toward standardization wouldn’t solve any of ASMFC’s problems with lobster management.
“To me it would be a major step backwards,” he said. “We’ve made a lot of progress with the seven LCMTs.”
LCMTs are Lobster Conservation Management Teams, which develop area-specific management measures as recommendations for the lobster board.
Area boundaries
Of the seven issues in the PID, the one to generate the most discussion at the Aug. 14 was the first – changing the LCMA boundaries.
According to stock assessment scientists, the seven LCMAs are “seriously mismatched” with the three stock assessment areas – Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England.
The PID states, “The lobster technical committee has found it impossible to continue to provide robust management advice for management areas that span multiple stock units due to differences in stock trends, biological parameters, and competing management measures in adjacent areas. One way to address these concerns is to unify the spatial scale of management areas and stock areas.”
The initial draft of the PID contained three options: 1) status quo; 2) dropping the seven LCMAs to create three new ones that match the stock assessment boundaries; and 3) splitting LCMA 3 into three sub-areas to create distinct inshore and offshore components.
Several ASMFC commissioners quickly protested the second option, and the board voted to drop it from the document.
Technical committee Chairman Penny Howell of Connecticut stressed, “Our intent was never to undermine the seven management areas. We just wanted you to line them up so that the boundaries match the stock areas. Then it would be a lot easier for us to do the assessments.”
Maine Commissioner George Lapointe was sensitive to the scientists’ needs.
“We don’t want to mash seven areas into three, but holding true to area management and changing the boundaries is a reasonable way to go. All of the LCMAs could be adjusted to fit into one of the three assessment units.”
Area 3, new option
Massachusetts representative Dan McKiernan asked that an additional option be included in the document – one that would allow the public to comment on alternative area boundaries, even if the specific proposals weren’t spelled out in the PID.
By the end of the discussion, it appeared the document would include status quo, the option to subdivide Area 3, and an option for other ideas.
Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, was strongly against including the Area 3 subdivision option.
“In talking with the technical committee, it seems that splitting Area 3 into three sub-areas accomplishes nothing,” she said. “It does not do away with any of the technical committee’s concerns at all.”
Nontrap boats
Vito Calomo, sitting at the table as the proxy for Massachusetts state Rep. Tony Verga, attempted to remove several items from the document because he thought they unfairly targeted nontrap vessels. He especially tried to have any reconsideration of the current 100/500 lobster limit dropped from the PID.
“We created a travesty a number of years ago (for nontrap boats),” said Calomo, adding that he had no interest in opening up those old wounds again.
“It’s been eating my heart out since I read this,” he said of the PID. “This brings it all right back in front.”
Spinazzola agreed that the 100/500 issue should be dropped.
“We don’t want to see the restrictions for the mobile gear fleet change,” she said.
According to Spinazzola, offshore lobstermen didn’t see the need to further cut back on mobile gear fishermen, who are now working under extremely stringent groundfish measures. Furthermore, she referred to the groundfish industry-initiated buyout proposal, which could further reduce effort.
However, when the time came for the board to vote to drop the nontrap issue, the motion failed 4-to-4 with one abstention.
New York Commissioner Pat Augustine didn’t have any problem leaving all of the issues in the document for the time being.
“This strikes me as strictly a draft document for review and discussion,” he said. “We should put everything on the table we possibly can.”
The public hearing schedule for draft Amendment 5 wasn’t finalized at press time. For more information or to find out hearing dates, contact ASMFC lobster plan coordinator Toni Kerns at (202) 289-6400. Her e-mail address is <tkerns@asmfc.org>. Or, visit the ASMFC web site at <www.asmfc.org>.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
