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 34 Number 11
July 2007
Lobster council backs alternative bait ban
AUGUSTA, ME – During its May 24 meeting, the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Lobster Advisory Council voted to recommend that the DMR ban the use of alternative bait.
Following up on its decision in April to ask the DMR to begin rule-making to require manufacturers of alternative or, as it’s sometimes called, artificial bait to list ingredients on their packages, the council engaged in a vigorous discussion about content labeling requirements.
Some members thought mandatory testing should be required and others thought DMR needed to implement a labeling requirement and then test the product.
Questions arose as to who would conduct the testing to determine ingredients and who would pay for it. Many thought the alternative bait manufacturer should pay for testing by a private lab, the state, or, perhaps, by the University of Maine before allowing it to be used as lobster bait.
DMR lobster biologist Carl Wilson asked the group exactly what it wanted the testing to look for – heavy metals, pesticides, binders, and/or something else.
Maine state law stipulates that “the (DMR) commissioner may adopt rules to regulate the use of alternative bait in marine fisheries … ‘alternative bait’ means any bait that does not naturally originate from the ocean.”
Several council members felt that it was the unknown in terms of ingredients that was the problem. They said that even if alternative bait is derived from a natural fish product, everyone wanted to know what manufacturers were using for a binder.
“We had this discussion in 2004 with cow hide and there was a unanimous vote to ban artificial bait and we are back here again,” said council and lobster Zone A member John Drouin.
Motion to ban
A motion was made to recommend to DMR to start rule-making to ban alternative bait. The motion passed 9-1-1 with one against and one abstaining.
Sarah Cotnoir, DMR resource coordinator and council liaison, said the department would need to discuss whether such a ban would pass rule-making requirements.
She added that, if the rule-making did go forward, the process would include a public hearing.
“We need to have more discussions internally and with the lobster industry on alternative bait,” said DMR Deputy Commissioner David Etnier in an early-June follow-up interview.
DMR is not discounting the council’s vote to ban, he stressed. But, Etnier said there was enough of a difference of opinion within the industry to warrant getting a broader sense of what the lobster industry wants before going forward.
Drug testing
The issue of mandatory random drug testing of commercial fishermen, which has been briefly touched on at various council meetings in the past mostly due to safety concerns connected to drug users being on the water, is heating up again.
“This is the beginning of a conversation the council will have about (drug testing) over a series of meetings,” council Chairman Bob Baines told the council and audience present at the May 24 meeting.
As part of the council’s research on mandatory drug testing, Marine Patrol Col. Joe Fessenden invited Port State Control Inspector Lt. Michael Ott of the Coast Guard’s Northern New England Sector to speak to the council.
“This is a complex issue,” said Ott. “The Coast Guard requires testing for individuals who obtain Z-cards (merchant mariner documents) and others who work in commercial shipping.”
He also explained that individuals who are self-employed and hold a Coast Guard license – such as a 100-ton captain’s license – are drug tested upon license renewal.
Drug testing requirements fall under federal shipping regulations and not under operating requirements, added Ott. He explained that many maritime industry employers join or form a consortium/third party administrator to act as a service agent to conduct the tests and cut down on testing costs. The federal shipping law specifically allows consortiums to handle testing and submit the necessary paperwork to the Coast Guard.
A co-op or association could take on a similar role as a consortium, added Ott.
Brainstorm session
The council brainstormed various ways self-employed fishermen, including sternmen, could be made to comply with random drug testing. Some council members felt it was a captain’s responsibility to allow or not allow a sternman under the influence aboard.
Elliott Thomas, council and Zone F member, asked if sternmen also would be required to be in a drug-testing pool.
Jon Carter, council and Zone B member, responded, “It should be on the captain of the vessel. I’m not going to have a sternman who is screwed up working for me.”
If the captain wants to take a sternman who is drunk or stoned or whatever, that’s one thing, said Drouin. “But what if that person is running the boat?”
Mike Dassatt of the Down East Lobstermen’s Association pointed out that the trucking industry uses self-employed truckers and the federal Department of Transportation requires them to submit to random drug testing.
“A consortium could notify lobstermen,” he said. “It’s not that complicated.”
Added Dana Rice, eastern dealer member of the council, “Every day there are people operating under the influence on every harbor on the coast of Maine. We should look at enforcing the current laws on the books.”
Continue talking
Chairman Baines asked the council members, “Do we want to continue this discussion?”
Said Carter, an advocate for drug testing, “I want to professionalize our business. Why shouldn’t we hold ourselves to a higher standard?”
The council voted to “continue the conversation” and to form a subcommittee with DMR staff and a Coast Guard representative. The subcommittee will meet and get back to the full council at a later date.
Other business
At the council’s February meeting, lobsterman Sonny Sprague of Swan’s Island presented the council with a recommendation for a larger, 7-1/2"x7-1/2" biodegradable escape panel or opening to allow big lobsters to get out of the trap if the gear is lost.
Following up on his promise to look into the proposal, DMR’s Wilson said the proposed size needs further investigation.
Such a large opening would work, Wilson said, but he questioned whether it would work on the door.
“Would lobsters climb up to it?” he asked.
Sprague replied that he thought 4"x4" would be fine.
“Put it in the side” of the trap, he said. “We’ve got to do everything possible to keep our big lobsters alive.”
Members of the council said they spoke with their respective zones about the change and many supported the idea of a larger opening, but were on the fence about the size and if it would diminish the integrity of the trap.
“I’m not opposed, but I would like to know the best place to put it,” said Thomas.
The council voted to table Sprague’s idea and to continue the discussion with lobstermen.
Erin Summers, DMR large whale conservation program scientist, updated the council on the continued gear research work and introduced Cullen Wilson, the new gear specialist for the department’s Large Whale Conservation Program.
According to Summers, she and other researchers expect to be tagging right whales aboard the research vessel Stellwagen from mid-June through July 10 to determine where they feed in the water column as well as swimming and diving behavior.
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
