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 36 Number 9
May 2009
Herring boats may need 100% observers in CA I
MYSTIC, CT – Herring midwater trawlers may be subjected to additional restrictions while fishing in groundfish Closed Area I if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) accepts recent recommendations made by the New England Fishery Management Council.
During its April 7-9 meeting here, the council voted to ask NMFS to require 100% observer coverage onboard herring midwater trawlers fishing in Closed Area I and to prohibit those vessels from “slipping” codends – or releasing fish from the net – before the fish are pumped onboard for observers to sample.
The recommendations followed a report from NMFS indicating that haddock bycatch in the area had exceeded a defined 1% threshold level over the course of 40 observed tows during a four-and-a-half year period – twice at the “trip level” and eight times at the “tow level.” For the entire timeframe, haddock bycatch totaled 57,560 pounds out of roughly 10.33 million pounds of herring and mackerel harvested.
Council members struggled throughout their deliberations over how far they should go in recommending action to NMFS.
In the end, they zeroed in on data collection and asked NMFS to add the 100% observer coverage and no-slippage requirements to the letter of authorization (LOA) that all midwater trawlers must have to fish in groundfish closed areas.
At press time in mid April, NMFS had not announced its final decision, but during the meeting, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attorney Gene Martin, who advises both NMFS and the council, said, “Remember, the agency is not bound to exactly what the council recommends here. It’s only required to consult with the council.”
Furthermore, Martin said NMFS needed to determine whether it could make these changes by modifying the LOA or whether it first had to prepare a proposed rule for public comment.
Last October
The council initially requested the bycatch analysis last fall after reports surfaced that haddock bycatch was occurring in Closed Area I during the month of October.
The council voted during its November meeting to ask NMFS to “review recent herring midwater trawling observer data” from the area to determine if the council’s 1% bycatch standard had been exceeded.
Regulations specify that if groundfish bycatch in closed areas exceeds 1% of the total weight of herring and mackerel harvested, then the NMFS regional administrator “may place restrictions and conditions in the letter of authorization for any or all individual fishing operations or, after consulting with the council, suspend or prohibit any or all midwater trawling activities in the closed areas.”
The council told NMFS in November that “access should be prohibited” if the 1% threshold was exceeded.
But after reviewing the report on the analyzed observer data, NMFS Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul told the council in April that she couldn’t reach a definitive conclusion based on the November motion.
So, she said, “I am seeking the council’s guidance on the information.”
Bycatch analysis
For its analysis, NMFS examined audited observer data from May 2004 through October 2008. Altogether, observers were present for 40 tows in Closed Area I on 16 separate herring trips during that four-and-a-half-year period.
The analysis revealed that haddock bycatch greater than 1% of the combined catch of herring and mackerel did, in fact, occur in Closed Area I.
Specific findings of the analysis included the following:
l A total of 57,560 pounds of haddock bycatch was observed on herring trips into Closed Area I during the four-and-a-half-year period;
l The total haddock bycatch made up roughly 0.56% of the 10.33 million pounds of the herring and mackerel catch on those observed trips;
l Approximately 84% of the observed haddock bycatch occurred during the month of October;
l Of the 16 trips observed in Closed Area I, the two that exceeded the 1% threshold on the trip level did so in October by 2.11% and 2.85%; and
l Of the eight tows that exceeded the 1% limit, seven tows were observed during October and one was in August.
The report also noted that “there were no observer reports of the 1% threshold being reached, at either the trip or haul level, in any other groundfish closed area during this time period.”
Accountability
Following the report, Massachusetts council member David Pierce opened the debate.
“I’ve struggled with this,” he said, explaining that he and members of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries staff had engaged in a considerable number of phone calls, e-mails, and personal discussions with fishermen over the issue.
After taking into account “all of those comments” and recognizing that the council was actively working on Amendment 4 to the federal herring plan specifically to enhance monitoring of the fishery, Pierce said he was prepared to recommend action.
He offered a motion to allow midwater trawlers to continue fishing in Closed Area I under intense scrutiny with 100% observer coverage – with the cost of observers divided equally between NMFS and the vessels – and to prohibit slipped tows.
He further proposed that access to Closed Area I be taken away for any boat exceeding the 1% threshold on two trips in the future.
Pierce said, “I think this is a balancing of the concerns. It gets to the issue of observer coverage and it gets to the individual accountability issue. It is better than recommending prohibiting all access to all vessels in all areas.”
Gather data first
Some council members, however, were troubled by the penalty aspect of the motion and instead supported focusing the recommendation on data collection.
Council member Jim Odlin of Maine made a “substitute” motion, which, after a few modifications, ended up asking NMFS for 100% observer coverage and a prohibition on slippage.
Odlin said, “This is intended to be a stopgap until we get to Amendment 4.”
The substitute motion did not require industry to contribute to observer costs and it did not prohibit access if the 1% threshold was triggered twice.
Rhode Island council member Frank Blount, chairman of the council’s herring committee, emphasized that the purpose of Amendment 4 was to do just what the motion was requesting – collect better data in the fishery. He noted that “high observer coverage in closed areas” already was in place.
“The council set the amendment as a priority,” he said. “We’re currently working on the amendment to get the data we need.”
Industry split
Audience members came at the issue from both sides.
Jeff Kaelin, representing Lund’s Fisheries Inc. in Cape May, NJ, expressed bewilderment over the amount of time and energy being spent on the issue given the information at hand.
“I’m a little incredulous that we’ve come to this,” he said. “How can taking 57,000 pounds of haddock over a four-and-a-half year period have a biological implication? We’ve caught less than 10% of our haddock bycatch cap this year.”
Referring to the numbers in the analysis showing a bycatch level of 0.56% out of roughly 10.33 million pounds of herring and mackerel caught, Kaelin said, “Why do people refuse to believe the data that comes from the agency?”
Cape Cod hook fisherman Eric Hesse took a different approach. He urged herring fishermen to conduct and fund a well-defined, carefully monitored experimental fishery in the area, which is what hook fishermen did several years ago to gain access to Closed Area I.
“It’s a great way to showcase your fishery and show what a clean fishery you have,” he said. “That’s the bar the hook fishery had to pass.”
Hesse acknowledged that herring fishermen might find it inconvenient to conduct an experimental fishery since, at present, they are allowed access to closed areas.
“But there’re questions here,” he said.
Port Clyde, ME fisherman Gary Libby added that, from his perspective, 57,560 pounds of haddock bycatch was not inconsequential and amounted to “more fish than I’ll catch all year.”
“To the little guys, it’s a big deal to see these numbers on paper,” Libby said.
Many votes
Following a lengthy discussion, the council first voted on Odlin’s substitute motion, which requested 100% observer coverage in Closed Area I and a prohibition on slipped codends.
That motion failed 6-to-9 with one abstention. Maine council member Mary Beth Tooley, spokesman for the Small Pelagic Group, which represents herring vessels, recused herself from all votes on the subject.
Next, the council went back to Pierce’s motion, which essentially asked for the same two items in the substitute motion plus called for vessels to be denied access to Closed Area I if they exceeded the 1% threshold during two trips. But by then, the council was in a stalemate and did not vote on the motion.
Instead, following a break, the council agreed to reconsider Odlin’s substitute motion, which, once back on the table, passed 9-to-4 with one abstention and Tooley not voting. The final vote on the substitute motion carried 12-to-1 with one abstention, Tooley’s recusal, and two members absent.
Pierce expressed extreme disappointment over what had happened.
“This is a job half done,” he said. “It provides no consequences. It’s a data gathering exercise. It is not the way we need to go.”
Maine council member Terry Stockwell, however, was more satisfied with the outcome.
“It does highlight the data needs,” he said. “I’m looking forward to getting this data so we can segue into Amendment 4.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
