|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 34 Number 8
April 2007
LD 170 Public Hearing
On March 5, the Maine Legislature’s Marine Resources Committee held a public hearing to collect testimony on LD 170, An Act to Permit the Landing of Lobsters Harvested by Methods other than Conventional Traps.
It turned out to be one of the most momentous public hearings held in Maine in decades. Roughly 500 people packed the hearing room at the Augusta Civic Center, and for the entire day -– with no breaks for lunch or even a breath of fresh air – the committee listened intently as speaker after speaker came to the microphone. The testimony was passionate, and the parties on both sides were unswayable.
The day was referred to as “sad” by many who felt it pitted one segment of the state’s valuable fishing industry against another. And win or lose, people knew the whole episode had taken its toll on everyone.
CFN sent staff writer
Rosanne Mizzoni and photographer Peter K. Prybot to the hearing to capture what people had to say. While we could never do justice to the hours of heartfelt testimony people provided during that very long and difficult day, here are some excerpts.
—Editor
Maine’s fleet can no longer afford to forgo the additional revenue from the incidental bycatch of lobsters. As the fleet migrates southward, Maine’s working waterfront … is in grave danger of being eclipsed.
This bill will match Maine’s lobster bycatch landing rules with those used in all other states and hang out the sign “Maine’s working waterfront is open for business.” —Rep. Anne Haskell, Portland
Is the state of Maine prepared to stand by, without making this modest change, and watch the permanent migration of this valuable traditional industry to Massachusetts?
As a citizen, I am very distressed to see the lobster industry, whose numbers have also benefited from my advocacy in Portland, deny their fellow fishermen the relief they seek. I have to ask them, how would they feel if the situation were reversed?
It is a Sophie’s choice for the Legislature to have to choose one industry over another. They are both valuable and both should be supported, not one over the other. —Anne Pringle, former member, Portland City Council
At stake are Maine’s long-standing conservation measures that date back 50 years. It is this department’s belief that the use of draggers will increase mortality and unnecessarily damage the resource. We need to find possible remedies instead of pitting the two most important fisheries in this state against each other. —George Lapointe, commissioner, Maine Department of Marine Resources
We own three draggers but my husband, against my wishes, renewed his lobster license, and it has been a saving grace. I’m neither for nor against this because of our unique family situation, (but) the state of Maine has not really supported the groundfish industry at all. It has just been lip service. —Kim Libby, Port Clyde
Make no mistake: The number one reason Maine vessels have departed for Massachusetts is lobster landings. Lobsters can add up to 20% to a groundfish vessel’s trip revenue.
You may hear that the “real” reason Maine vessels land elsewhere is that fuel prices are less expensive in Massachusetts. Maine does charge a sales tax on diesel fuel, which can push our prices up. But the value of fuel tax savings is a fraction of the value of lobster landings.
You may hear that the “real” reason Maine vessels land elsewhere is that they save a day of steaming time. The federal government disagrees. In Amendment 13, steaming time costs for Maine vessels working offshore were calculated to be less than 5%.
Federal regulations in the last couple of years have made the supplemental value of lobsters become more important. In other years, discarding lobster was viewed as a cost of doing business in Maine, but (fishermen) can no longer afford to do that. —Hank Soule, general manager, Portland Fish Exchange
What do we tell these folks who want to be lobster fishermen such as apprentices in parts of the state where lobstering is what they do? I have a lot of trouble with this bill (due to its) preferential treatment for groundfish fishermen compared to apprentices who want to go fishing.
This is a slippery slope. Once you’ve set this precedent other fisheries can be impacted. —Rep. Harold Ian Emery, Cutler, member, Marine Resources Committee
The nature of infrastructure is that it lacks flexibility. (It) can’t be moved to follow industry. It’s OK when economic times are good. However, when industry declines, infrastructure declines quickly.
Once this infrastructure is gone, it’s gone for a very long time. The infrastructure serves both the lobster and groundfish industry. We do need LD 170 to survive.
I truly don’t see why the lobster industry would be in peril. As a citizen of the state of Maine, I would encourage workshops on the true economic issue. It’s an emotional issue — it’s friend against friend. —Sam Davidson, co-owner Marine Trade Center, original Portland Fish Exchange board member
We all have prejudices on this bill, but it boils down to one item and only one item. Why should I vote for this bill and go against the stable lobster fishery for the sake of a fishery that has gone down hill? —Sen. Dana Dow, member, Marine Resources Committee
The Lobster Advisory Council urges the legislature to support Maine lobster conservation and oppose LD 170. The possible short-term economic gain by one fishery doesn’t justify the sacrificing of the long-term sustainability of another.
LD 170 is a direct attack on lobster conservation by an industry that has mismanaged and overfished its own resource and now wants a piece of the lobster resource. —Bob Baines, chairman, Maine Department of Marine Resources Lobster Advisory Council
Maine’s groundfish management has failed. LD 170 will not work. This is a band-aid approach to a much bigger problem.
Imagine you are a groundfish captain who is nearing the trip end but haven’t reached the trip limit of 500 lobsters. Will you put your net back in the water to target more lobster and then high grade the catch, possibly returning damaged lobsters to the sea?
We are the backbone of the economy in coastal Maine. Don’t undermine our conservation. —Patrice McCarron, executive director, Maine Lobstermen’s Association
We take care of our resource. No other lobster fishery in the world allows dragging for lobster. In Canada, a dragger can lose their license if they are caught with lobster.
We do not discriminate in this state – anyone can get a license to go lobstering. But are (draggers) going to throw an oversized lobster overboard so (they) can go to Portland?
We are not against the Portland Fish Exchange. We will help you with anything in this state, but do not ask for lobsters on draggers. We are not going to roll over and subsidize the groundfish industry. —David Cousens, president, Maine Lobstermen’s Association
Say that the city of Portland could do any more and I’ll say there is no more water in the well. The slow death of the Portland industry is not just a Portland problem; it is a regional problem. —Judy Harris, former maritime and fisheries policy manager, city of Portland
I found out at the Maine Fishermen’s Forum the mind-boggling array of regulations that fishermen and lobstermen have. The people in this room face enormous challenges. I think the goal of this bill is valid but we need to find a way to not further divide. —Rep. Nancy Smith, Monmouth
The fish prices are not any higher in Massachusetts and the fuel is not significantly cheaper in Massachusetts. The steaming time is not a factor for us either. The single biggest reason is the several thousand dollars worth of lobsters.
So I ask you to please see through the smoke and fog and look at the fact that these lobsters are being landed anyway in Massachusetts. The state of Maine loses the lobsters. The state of Maine loses the lobster bait that the fish generate if processed in Maine. The state of Maine loses all the revenue. The state of Maine loses all the jobs. And the state of Maine stands to lose a whole industry.
We (Mainers) are on the verge of having no presence in the offshore fishing grounds. —Jim Odlin, vessel owner, Portland
The effect of this prohibition does not just affect Maine fishermen. It forces all groundfish fishermen to choose between doing business in Maine, or discarding and forgoing legally retained catch.
It is a disincentive for anyone to do business in Maine and a powerful incentive for Maine fishermen to go elsewhere. Maine vessels can no longer afford to forgo substantial revenue just to do business close to home. —Jim Salisbury, board member, Portland Fish Exchange
I personally sent two apprentices through the process and you are going to let others in while these apprentices will have to wait maybe three to four years? These young guys are the next generation in the lobster fishery.
Landing lobster by nontrap methods is opening a Pandora’s box that you will not be able to close. —Ed Hutchins, lobsterman, Cape Porpoise
Lobsters have become a target, not a bycatch. —Jim Merryman, Maine Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
I see this as just like when municipal officials in Millinocket or Lincoln come to the Legislature because of paper company closures. Imagine if four paper companies left and moved to Massachusetts. We have to look beyond emotions and consider economics.
LD 170 is designed to be the lowest possible impact on the lobster fishery. If LD 170 doesn’t go through, what will the Legislature and governor do to save this fishing industry?
We need fish caught by Maine fishing boats, landed in Maine ports and to be processed in Maine and to support shoreside operations. — Edward Suslovic, member, Portland City Council
During 2006, Nova Seafood bought 1,115,000 pounds of fish less from the Portland Fish Exchange than in 2005. That is a decrease of 44% in one year. In dollar terms, this decrease translates to a revenue loss of more than $2.5 million dollars to Nova and the corresponding losses in wages, transportation, packaging, taxes, etc.
The state cannot allow this to happen. You might ask the question: Why didn’t Nova buy the missing 1.15 million pounds of fish? The answer is that the fish was not available on the floor of the Portland Fish Exchange. —Angelo Ciocca, president, Nova Seafood
Vessel Services is being pushed to the brink of destruction by groundfish boats going to Massachusetts. Vessel Services is a well-managed, conservative company, but departure of the groundfish boats pushed Vessel Services’ gear company into financial ruin.
If Vessel Services closes, there will be no place for boats to obtain ice and fuel in a commercially reasonable way. —Ed Bradley, maritime attorney representing Vessel Services Inc., Portland
There is no science out there anywhere that will say dragging for lobsters is OK. If it hurts lobsters, it will hurt the lobster industry. —Diane Cowan, The Lobster Conservancy
LD 170 threatens lobster stewardship. —Robin Alden, executive director, Penobscot East Resource Center
Despite the disparaging rhetoric of others, groundfish fishermen have not ruined their industry. Groundfish fishermen, like lobstermen, are genuinely committed to sustainable management practices for all marine resources.
LD 170 is the single most important action that the state can take to preserve what is left of the groundfish industry in the state of Maine.
LD 170 does not authorize the take of lobsters by nontrap fishing gear — the federal lobster management plan already does that. LD 170 simply permits the landing of lobsters in the state of Maine that are now being landed in Massachusetts.
Despite the highly emotional testimony you will hear to the contrary, LD 170 does not pose a conservation threat to the lobster resource. It will not harm the lobster industry and will greatly benefit the groundfish industry at no revenue cost to the state. —Maggie Raymond, Associated Fisheries of Maine
We haven’t landed a trip in Portland in over a year. We don’t catch a lot of lobsters, but sometimes it’s $5,000 in a week and that pays a fuel bill. Massachusetts dealers have no problem buying my lobsters.
The (Maine) infrastructure is going to be gone — it’s almost gone now. —Mike Love, Portland fisherman working out of Gloucester
If our lobster industry gets devastated, we don’t have a lot of other opportunities like they do in Portland. —Sheila Dassatt, executive director, Downeast Lobstermen’s Association
It’s painful to speak against other fishermen but we feel we must. We feel LD 170 is a step backwards in our conservation efforts. The people on (lobster license) waiting lists have to continue to wait while others are let in. —Elliott Thomas, member, Maine Department of Marine Resources Lobster Advisory Council
I am currently in the process of buying a federal lobster permit and we may go in to Gloucester to unload. I’d rather come in to Maine. —Lendall Alexander, groundfish fisherman, Harpswell
By voluntarily sacrificing an estimated $1 million in lobster bycatch revenue over the last at least 15 years, my family believes we have done our part to preserve the groundfish industry in Maine.
My family was encouraged and actually believed that our state government recognized the importance of the groundfish industry to the state’s economy. When the governor failed to act on a single recommendation that would be useful to the groundfish industry, my family lost that hope and re-located the Olympia to Boston.
My family has asked me to be here today to request that you now do your part to help preserve the groundfish industry in Maine. —Adam Raymond, Maine fisherman working out of Boston
The amount of revenue we are generating in Massachusetts cannot be overlooked. The state of Massachusetts is a huge supporter of their industry. We need you to support us. —Allyson Jordan, vessel owner, Portland
We offer a premium product. We simply can’t present the market with a dragger-caught lobster. The foundation of our brand is our integrity.
Major retailers want Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification. We are one-year into the two-year process. We stand to lose our MSC certification if we relax our conservation standards. —Kristen Millar, executive director, Maine Lobster Promotion Council
This is not targeting the dragging industry as something that’s evil. Let’s work together on helping groundfish fishermen without jeopardizing the lobster resource. —Pat White, York lobsterman, member, Maine Lobstermen’s Association board of directors
Portland’s once thriving commercial fish pier today has the eerie feel of a ghost town movie set.
A change in Maine’s law would not have a negative impact on lobster stocks because Maine fishermen are already landing lobster bycatch in Massachusetts. Instead, Maine would benefit from both lobsters and fish landed in Maine.
It is time for the state of Maine to respond in a meaningful way to the current condition of Maine’s groundfish industry. Once the historic and economic value of this industry is lost, we will never get it back. —Yvette Alexander, Maine Fishermen’s Wives Association
This has come to a point of survival. Even if it has (to have) a sunset provision, there is nothing else that can be done in the short term. —Marshall Alexander, fisherman, Portland
Lobsters will be targeted basically 30-40 miles off the coast, and I hate to see anything happen on our Continental Shelf where the seed lobsters are. I’m opposed to LD 170 but anything and everything should be done to give relief to these groundfish fishermen. —Dana Rice, lobster dealer, Birch Harbor
I wanted to speak to give you perspective from a young fisherman. My father will be long gone before we see any repercussions of this. I want to teach my boy as my father did.
What is going to prevent a groundfish boat coming in from Area 3 in the dark of night? There isn’t enough marine patrol to handle all the issues. I left Maine to go to school, and I’ve come back. Something like this would end a way of life. —Tucker Jordan, lobsterman, Cape Elizabeth
|
Updated Monthly
Tell us what you think.
