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 10
June 2009
GOM lobster stock defies conventional wisdom
ALEXANDRIA, VA Nothing in the American lobster world seems to confound scientists more than the status of the Gulf of Maine resource.
With the single exception of Area 514 off Massachusetts, the new 2009 assessment found that overfishing is not occurring in the Gulf of Maine and the stock is not depleted or overfished.
Fishing effort, particularly inshore, is sky high the highest observed since 1982 both in terms of numbers of traps fished and soak time. The states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts reported that 3.6 million traps are fished in the Gulf of Maine, with 3.2 million reported from Maine alone, where “reported” may better reflect trap tags issued rather than traps in the waters.
Despite this enormous fishing pressure, abundance is at a record high the highest in the 26-year time series. Gulf of Maine landings, which annually averaged 72.6 million pounds between 2000-2007, are at their peak, and the area accounts for 86% of all lobsters landed in the Northeast.
The 2009 stock assessment that generated these findings was conducted by a subcommittee of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) American Lobster Technical Committee.
The subcommittee ran formal scientific models to determine stock status. It also used a “traffic light” approach, like it did in the 2006 assessment, to give lay people a sense of how the stocks were really doing.
The Gulf of Maine stock received “green” and “yellow” lights for most stock indicators, which covered mortality, abundance, and fishery performance.
But the stock received a “red” light a negative indicator for “numbers of traps and average soak time fished,” further reflecting this perplexing scenario of high abundance in the midst of high effort in the Gulf of Maine.
How can this be?
A separate panel of scientists “peer reviewed” the assessment and concluded that the results represented the “best available science.”
But right at the outset, the panel made particular note of this high effort/high abundance “discrepancy” in the Gulf of Maine, calling it the “central conundrum facing managers.”
In its formal advisory report, the review panel asked, “How are the higher exploitation rates that characterize the fishery sustained?” And, “How much risk is assumed by continuing exploitation at these levels?”
“Be vigilant”
During a May 5 meeting of ASMFC’s lobster board, review panel member Tom Miller of Maryland reported the panel’s findings and, in the end, said questions remained about the Gulf of Maine.
“What is it about the biology and ecology of lobsters that makes them so resilient under such high fishing mortality rates in the Gulf of Maine?” he asked. “How do you deal with that uncertainty and evaluate the risk you’re taking on?”
According to Miller, part of the risk lies in “assuming that the status quo conditions” good recruitment and high abundance will continue.
But they might not, and given that concern, Miller said, “We recommend that the management board remain particularly vigilant about recruitment indices.”
In the advisory report, the review panel noted that Gulf of Maine landings were around 20 million pounds annually from 1930 to 1990.
“Those levels were substantially lower than current levels, possibly due to low recruitment and production,” said the panel. “The current levels of fishing effort and harvest will not be sustainable if the stock returns to lower recruitment and production.”
As a result, the panel recommended that managers carefully monitor recruitment patterns “and stand ready to impose substantial restrictions should recruitments decline.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
