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 9
May 2006
Monkfish fishermen face daunting cuts in 2006
GLOUCESTER, MA - Back in December, monkfish fishermen began hearing disconcerting rumblings that they’d be limited to 12 days-at-sea in the Southern Fishery Management Area.
By April, it was a done deal. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced final total allowable catch (TAC) levels for the 2006 fishing year, which began on May 1, along with reduced trip limits and days-at-sea fishing opportunities.
The target TAC for the Northern Fishery Management Area is 7,737 metric tons (mt), down 41% from the 2005 fishing year TAC. In the south, it’s 3,667 mt, down 62%.
Since the target TAC in the south turned out to be less than 8,000 mt, trip limits in the area were automatically reduced by roughly 25% to 550 pounds tail weight or 1,826 pounds whole weight per monkfish day-at-sea for Category A, C, and G vessels and 450 pounds tail weight or 1,494 pounds whole weight for Category B, D, and H vessels.
The TACs and trip limits were calculated using a formula contained in Framework Adjustment 2 to the monkfish plan that factors together: 1) an annual biomass index target; 2) the three-year running average from the NMFS fall trawl survey; and 3) monkfish landings from the previous fishing year.
The final rule did not make any changes to monkfish regulations in the northern area. Trip limits do not apply in the north for Category C or D monkfish permit holders working under a groundfish day-at-sea.
Days way down
All limited-access monkfish vessels were allocated 39.3 monkfish-only days-at-sea, down slightly from 40 days to account for the monkfish researchset-aside program that was implemented last year.
However, the 2006 rule stipulates that only 12 of those days, plus up to 10 carryover days, can be fished in the southern area – a devastating blow to Mid-Atlantic fishermen, who have taken steps to seek economic relief.
Based on “activity reports for fishing year 2004,” which is the most recent “complete” information available, 151 vessels fished for monkfish exclusively in the southern area and 171 vessels fished for monkfish both in the north and the south.
Therefore, NMFS said the action would likely affect “at least 325 vessels, but would likely have the greatest effect on the 151 vessels that fished for monkfish exclusively in the (south).”
Offshore program
As one means of boosting the benefits from each trip, vessels can elect to participate in the Offshore Fishery Program under a higher possession limit of 1,600 pounds tail weight or 5,312 pounds whole weight. Participating vessels will be classified as Category F and, in exchange for the extra poundage, their days-at-sea will be prorated downward accordingly.
That means anyone with a Category A or C permit who switches to an F permit would be limited to fishing 4.1 days in the southern area, assuming no carryover days. Category B and D permit holders who opt for an F permit would be down to 3.4 days under the 1,600-pound possession limit.
Formula used, more info
On April 20, NMFS put out a permit holder letter listing the primary measures in the 2006 monkfish rule. The letter also lists the various trip limits that apply to vessels depending on whether they’re fishing under a monkfish day, a groundfish day, a scallop day, or no day-at-sea at all.
To download a copy of the letter, go to <www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/nr>.
For more information, call NMFS at (978) 281-9315.
New framework to come
On a different front, the New England Fishery Management Council at its April 4-5 meeting in Mystic, CT approved a large range of alternatives for further development for Framework Adjustment 4 to the monkfish plan.
The monkfish plan development team will analyze the alternatives, and then the council will decide which ones to put in a public hearing document.
The council is hoping to complete the framework and submit it to NMFS by January 2007, which puts the whole effort on an extremely fast track.
Here are a few of the alternatives under development:
• Fixed – not hard – TACs with annual adjustments to days-at-sea and trip limits depending on whether the TAC is exceeded;
• Elimination of the directed fishery during the monkfish rebuilding period and imposition of incidental catch limits for all vessels;
• Modification of the annual TAC formula to cap the level of the adjustments in either direction – up or down – to reduce the large allocation swings that now take place from year to year;
• Mandatory use of vessel monitoring systems either in the Georges Bank Regulated Mesh Area or possibly everywhere; and
• Modification or elimination of the days-at-sea carryover program.
Objectives
The council agreed that any alternatives up for serious consideration would have to support three primary objectives for Framework 4.
First, the council said management measures would have to “have a reasonable expectation of achieving” the monkfish rebuilding targets by 2009, which marks the end of the 10-year rebuilding program.
Second, the alternatives must “to the extent possible, mitigate the socio-economic effects of the measures ... while not compromising their effectiveness.”
And third, the alternatives must include contingency measures for “anticipated changes” in the way scientists will measure stock status once the transition in survey vessels used by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center takes place. In 2007, the center will begin using the Bigelow, which will replace the Albatross.
For more information about Framework 4, contact Phil Haring, the council’s monkfish plan coordinator, at (978) 465-0492. His e-mail address is <pharing@nefmc.org>.
Janice M. Plante
|
|
Tell us what you think.
