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 33 Number 7
March 2006
MA fishermen blast groundfish endorsement
PLYMOUTH, MA - More than 150 Massachusetts fishermen who came out to public hearings in Plymouth and Gloucester in early February voiced nearly unanimous opposition to a plan by the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) to severely restrict the groundfish fishery in state waters.
Through emergency action, DMF had already announced the creation of a state groundfish permit endorsement (GE).
Fishermen had been put on notice that the GE was available only to vessels without federal permits and was required as of March 1 by anyone wishing to catch more than 75 pounds of groundfish in state waters and sell them.
The hearings were actually held after the GE was put in place because the DMF director has full authority to regulate permits. However, the public input ultimately did have a big impact on DMF’s GE strategy.
During the hearings, DMF further clarified the GE qualifying criteria and explained that even fishermen who were willing to give up their federal permits would not be eligible for a GE.
This news was a terrible blow for many inshore fishermen who had just learned that their federal days-at-sea would be slashed under Framework 42 to the federal groundfish plan.
“The federal rules now are going to give me 20 days and you’re going to take away my right to fish in state waters?” said Scituate fisherman Kevin Shea.
His incredulous question was echoed by many speakers.
Protect the fish
Throughout the hearings, DMF Director Paul Diodati repeatedly tried to explain that it was urgent that he take serious action to protect codfish.
DMF is now convinced that Massachusetts Bay hosts the last significant concentration of breeding cod in the entire Gulf of Maine since these fish no longer appear in significant numbers in Ipswich Bay or along the coast of Maine.
Diodati said that federal efforts to protect cod through the days-at-sea and limited-access groundfish programs were being undermined by federally permitted fishermen who target cod in Massachusetts waters under their state permit after running out of days-at-sea.
“This is about conservation. These are the same fish even if you’re fishing state waters,” the DMF director said. “Offering protection to these fish across the board is important. Otherwise the federal program doesn’t work.”
But fishermen – both full- and part-timers – seriously questioned the GE approach the state was taking.
Criteria blasted
Among the GE qualification criteria was a requirement that fishermen be able to prove that they had a state-issued commercial permit as of Nov. 4, 2004 and had landed at least 1,000 pounds of groundfish in any year during the period 1992-2004 or 500 pounds in any two consecutive years during that period.
This poundage “filter,” as Diodati called it, made no one happy.
Full-time commercial fishermen called for the filter to be significantly higher – at least 5,000 pounds in a single year – in order to screen out the multitude of part-timers, most of whom aren’t required to file any kind of catch report.
“You don’t know what they’re catching,” said one fisherman in Gloucester. “Six-thousand permit holders can catch an awful lot of groundfish.”
The part-timers were equally opposed because many of them wouldn’t qualify even under DMF’s liberal criteria.
In Plymouth, one man, who did not qualify for a GE, said he had been a casual part-timer for 60 years and had planned on fishing for groundfish to supplement his retirement income.
“I want some consideration,” he said. “I deserve a fair shot.”
Who’s rewarded?
A number of full-time fishermen also claimed that while they were restricted by increasing numbers of closures and days-at-sea reductions, hundreds of others were doing serious for-money fishing under rod-and-reel permits and under the guise of charter boat fishing.
Said one full-time fisherman from Provincetown, “A lot of people with the $35 (rod and reel) license were able to fish in the closed area. The guy jigging out of the 16' Boston Whaler will be rewarded while legitimate fisherman won’t make the GE qualification criteria and end up with only eight days-at-sea for the whole year.
“A lot of these men with federal permits have fished for flounders in state waters under the CAP (coastal access permit) for years,” he continued, and now won’t qualify for a GE. “This will affect a lot of people in Provincetown.”
Phil Michaud of Provincetown agreed. “Dozens of part-timers are landing hundreds of pounds of fish while we’re tied up. This will just take the resource from one user group and give it to another.”
Diodati responded that he had to look at the situation in terms of the fish.
“It’s one stock. I have to make the rules to keep that effort down in state waters. Otherwise everyone is going to flock to state waters because it looks good today,” he said.
MA sector?
In addition to polar opposite proposals to either increase the poundage qualifying criteria or eliminate it altogether, fishermen at both hearings made suggestions for alternative actions DMF could take to achieve its goal of protecting cod.
Some supported a hard quota for state waters. In Gloucester, several fishermen went further to support individual transferable quotas as a way to allow fishermen with a history in the state waters fishery to continue fishing without creating a “race to fish.”
Other fishermen called for DMF to reduce the state waters cod trip limit from 800 pounds to something less.
When Diodati pointed out that the federal total allowable catch (TAC) limit for Gulf of Maine cod had been exceeded by two million pounds as of the end of January during a fishing year that didn’t even end until April 30, he meant it as a reason for reducing cod fishing in state waters. However, his statement wound up making an entirely different point, according to King and others.
When factoring in the rolling closures, marine mammal closures, months of “wall-to-wall dogfish,” and the state waters cod closure this winter, many fishermen said they hadn’t had a chance to fish on cod except for a few weeks all year.
They suggested that Massachusetts seek a sector allocation from the New England Fishery Management Council in order to insure that Massachusetts fishermen get a crack at the fish.
Diodati said he was, in fact, giving the idea some thought.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
