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 9
May 2008
NE council delays groundfish sectors to 2010
PROVIDENCE, RI – With obvious reluctance, the New England Fishery Management Council voted during its April 15-17 meeting here to delay the implementation of new groundfish sectors until May 1, 2010.
The decision came as a tremendous blow to many industry members who had been working feverishly to develop sector operations plans and organize membership rosters for a May 1, 2009 startup, which is when Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan is due to come on line.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had begun warning the council last fall that it could not review, approve, and implement 19 different sectors, including 17 brand new ones, by 2009.
Still, the council remained committed to the date, arguing that fishermen needed some way to cope with anticipated Amendment 16 effort reductions.
By mid-April, however, even some steadfast sector supporters seemed resigned to the fact that sectors just weren’t going to happen in 2009.
And then, early on the evening of April 16 and at the tail end of hours of groundfish discussions, New Hampshire council member David Goethel made a motion to delay sector implementation until May 1, 2010 and to ask NMFS to extend the deadline by when fishermen have to make final decisions on whether or not to be in a sector.
“This doesn’t back us off from continuing to work on sectors one bit,” said Goethel. “It’s just a bow to reality – nothing more, nothing less.”
He said the reality was that NMFS was requiring fishermen to make final decisions about sector membership by June 1 but couldn’t provide individual fishermen with their landings history until at least August.
Furthermore, fishermen wouldn’t know the extent of Amendment 16’s effort reductions, biological reference points, or targets until late summer or early fall. Some people’s decisions about whether to join a sector were hinging on how they thought they’d fare under Amendment 16.
Goethel thought a delay in sector implementation would give people more breathing room.
“We’ll know a lot of things we don’t know now so people will have the information they need to make their decisions,” he said.
Differing views
Connecticut council member Sally McGee immediately protested.
“I think this is wrong,” she said. “We’re saying, ‘Sorry, you have to suffer another year under days-at-sea.’”
Even though the timetable was “awful” and industry had to make decisions with very little information, McGee implored the council to continue pushing for 2009 for those who were still interested in pursuing sectors despite these enormous hurdles.
“We have to leave sectors on the table,” she said.
But NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul urged the council to support the motion.
“It’s time to start being honest with people,” she said. “This is just not an option for 2009. We have been saying that all along and the council needs to say it too.”
Maine council member Terry Stockwell expressed frustration over being forced into a difficult position.
“I have been and remain a strong supporter of sectors, but I’ll support the motion because I’m more and more concerned about our ability to pull this off,” he said.
Groundfish committee Chairman Rip Cunningham of Massachusetts also supported the motion.
“I believe a lot of the industry understands that sectors will not be implemented until May 1, 2010, but we continue to hold their feet to the fire as though we were going to implement them in 2009,” he said. “I think the reality is the service has told us it’s not going to be until 2010, so let’s change the schedule.”
Industry reacts
Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition supported the motion but stressed, “We are not in any way wavering in our support of sectors. We believe in the sector tool as the only realistic alternative to days-at-sea.”
However, given the June 1 sign-up deadline and the fact that people don’t have their own landings history and don’t know what will come out of Amendment 16, Giacalone said, “It’s difficult to get people to sign on the dotted line” and commit to a sector in the face of so much uncertainty.
“If anything, we think this delay would allow sectors to be done properly,” he said.
Maine fisherman Mike Love, who has questioned the sector approach for months now, strongly supported the council’s decision and urged the council to address core components of Amendment 16.
“I’d really like to see everyone focus on all the other issues that have been left behind,” he said. “I can’t see that sectors are going to be a great way to go, but if you want to do it, do it in 2010 and do it right.”
Huge disappointment
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine and a supporter of the Sustainable Harvest Sector expressed bitter frustration over the council’s decision to delay sector implementation for another year.
“If this opportunity goes off the table today, what will be done in Amendment 16 to mitigate the economic impacts?” she asked. “This was, in our opinion, not the greatest way to go. We submitted a proposal for ITQs (individual transferable quotas). This (sectors) was our fall-back.”
But with a one-year sector delay and no other options available, fishermen will be forced to fish under the council’s Amendment 16 rules, which could be devastating.
“What exactly is there for us to do?” Raymond asked. “What is the mechanism to mitigate the economic impacts of Amendment 16 if this goes away?”
Sally McGee again tried to sway the council.
“We solicited ideas for alternatives to days-at-sea,” she said, noting that the council had eliminated or put off all of the other industry-suggested options besides sectors, including area management.
“Now we’re going to cut the last idea that came from the public for alternatives to days-at-sea and we’re leaving them with nothing.
“This is incredibly disappointing,” she said.
The motion to delay sector implementation passed in an 11-to-6 vote.
The delay applies only to the 19 sector proposals submitted for consideration under Amendment 16. Any additional sector proposals that come forward will have to be addressed in a future framework adjustment to the groundfish plan, said the council.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
