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 8
April 2008
Monkfish carryover days likely to drop to four
GLOUCESTER, MA – Unless something monumental changes, industry members will not be able to “carry over” more than four unused monkfish days-at-sea into the next fishing year. Until now, fishermen have been allowed to carry over up to 10 days.
The reduction and several other monkfish-related measures are part of Framework Adjustment 5 to the federal Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a proposed rule for the framework on March 4 and accepted public comment through March 25. The goal is to have a final action implemented by the start of the 2008 fishing year, which begins on May 1.
The measures in the proposed rule mirror those developed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, which jointly manage monkfish.
In addition to the carryover provision, the framework proposes to: update biological reference points for monkfish; change the gillnet “three-hour” rule; alter large-mesh incidental catch limits; and eliminate the need for a letter of authorization for vessels fishing in the Northern Fishery Management Area with a vessel monitoring system (see CFN December 2007 for details).
The joint New England/Mid-Atlantic monkfish committee and industry advisers supported reducing carryover days from 10 to six, which was considered to be a major concession.
However, contrary to this advice, the two councils concluded that six days was still too high. At meetings in November and December respectively, members from both councils voted for four carryover days, rationalizing that four was more in line with what fishermen recently have been allocated for monkfish days-at-sea – 31 days with only 23 being fishable in the Southern Fishery Management Area.
In their formal comments on the Framework 5 proposed rule, Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) and the Monkfish Defense Fund argued that a reduction in carryover days was no longer justified given the positive results from last July’s new stock assessment.
Monkfish Defense Fund President Marc Agger said, “We can’t help but wonder if anyone in management is paying attention to the science.”
Reference points
Last summer, a special “data poor working group” affiliated with the Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop process carried out a peer-reviewed monkfish stock assessment. This group incorporated far more information into the assessment than usual, including data from the 2001 and 2004 cooperative surveys with industry.
The results showed the resource in both the Northern and Southern Fishery Management Areas was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring, though scientists emphasized there was a high level of “uncertainty” in the assessment.
At the same time, scientists developed new biological reference points for both stocks, which are included in the Framework 5 proposed rule.
The proposed new reference points are:
Biomass threshold (the lowest you can go without being overfished) – 65,200 metric tons (mt) in the north and 96,400 mt in the south; and
Biomass target (a safer, more desirable number) – 92,000 mt in the north and 122,500 in the south.
Total monkfish biomass estimates for 2006 were 118,700 mt in the north and 135,500 mt in the south, both safely above the proposed biomass targets.
Industry dismayed
Given this extremely positive news, fishermen were dismayed by not only the more restrictive carryover-day measure contained in the proposed rule, but by the councils’ lack of action to ease other limits on the fishery.
According to Agger, industry members felt vindicated when the assessment results were finalized.
“We were all ecstatic that our participation in the monkfish research program led to a new assessment that determined the stocks weren’t overfished,” he said.
And while no one expected the results would be used “instantly,” Agger said people hoped for some degree of relief.
But relief, at least in terms of increased days-at-sea allocations or larger trip limits, is not part of Framework 5.
Both councils are committed to developing Framework 6. However, that action is intended only to fend off the “backstop” provision in Framework 4, which requires a shutdown of the fishery in 2009 if landings in 2007 exceed the total allowable catch (TAC) by more than 30%.
The councils are not expected to begin work on a true relief-providing amendment until 2009 – and it may not be implemented until 2011.
“To have to deal with several more years of status quo is a disappointment to everyone in the fishery,” said Agger.
Maggie Raymond of AFM also expressed frustration over the situation.
“The industry would like to see the process work both ways,” she said. “When stock indices are down, managers take quick action to impose more restrictions. But when they’re up, as they are according to the latest assessment, there’s a ‘wait and see’ response.”
“Obligated” to act
In their formal comments to NMFS on Framework 5, AFM and the Monkfish Defense Fund supported the revised biological reference points and noted that the stock was “rebuilt ahead of schedule.”
“Our members are among the many whose sacrifices have contributed to this positive outcome,” wrote the two groups. “Due to the health of the resource … we believe the councils and NMFS have an obligation to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the existing restrictions, even if the purpose is simply to mitigate the potential for discards, which are inherent in trip limits controls.”
Three-hour rule
Framework 5 also proposes to alter the so-called “three-hour rule” so that all monkfish gillnet trips less than 15 hours in length would be counted as 15 hours. Currently, trips between three hours and 15 hours in length are counted as 15 hours, but trips of less than three hours are counted as actual fishing time.
According to NMFS, this accommodation originally was made to “allow vessels that run into bad weather or experience mechanical difficulties at the beginning of a trip to return to port and only be charged actual time at sea for trips less than three hours in duration.”
However, NMFS said it became clear that as days-at-sea were reduced in recent years, some vessels began to exploit this three-hour window and used it to actually catch and land monkfish without being charged 15 hours.
To illustrate the point, NMFS said a vessel with 23 monkfish days in the south normally could fish approximately 36 typical 15-hour trips. However, a vessel exploiting the three-hour allowance could squeeze in up to 184 trips.
Close the loophole
Both the New England and Mid-Atlantic councils supported closing this loophole and voted to count all trips of less than 15 hours as 15 hours, period.
Most industry members also supported this move, as did the councils’ industry advisers.
Raymond, who chairs the monkfish advisory panel, called it “troublesome” that some individuals exploited the three-hour day-gillnet window in order to increase landings.
“When fishing people take advantage of a measure designed to reduce risks and increase safety at sea, they do everyone a great disservice,” she said. “It makes it a lot harder for us to persuade managers to provide safety flexibility in the future.”
According to Raymond, industry advisers were so concerned about the loophole that last November they supported having NMFS take emergency action to eliminate the three-hour window. Several worried that the excess landings might cause the TAC for monkfish to be exceeded, triggering the backstop and shutting down the fishery in 2009.
The New England and Mid-Atlantic councils did not pursue a request for emergency action but supported making the change part of Framework 5. NMFS said it appeared that only a few vessels currently were exploiting the window.
In their formal Framework 5 comments, AFM and the Monkfish Defense Fund said, “Exploitation of the three-hour time window by certain vessels in order to maximize landings is completely contrary to the safety intent of this provision and obviously has the potential to undermine the biological objectives of the FMP.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
