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 11
July 2008
Scoping done; work on scallop Amd. 15 begins
PORTLAND, ME – Scallopers have mixed opinions about whether or not capacity needs to be reduced in the regular limited-access fishery, but most people who turned out in April for scoping meetings on scallop Amendment 15 knew where they stood on the issue.
“It was a major focus of the scoping topics,” said Sarah Pautzke, a staffer for the New England Fishery Management Council now working on scallops.
During the council’s June 3-5 meeting here, Pautzke provided a broad overview of public comments collected during the scoping process.
“We consistently heard that we should not adopt an individual fishing quota (IFQ) or individual transferable quota (ITQ) system, but many were in favor of permit stacking,” she said. “The most consistent comment we heard was that two permits should be permitted to stack onto one boat.”
The council held scoping meetings in Newport News, VA, Cape May, NJ, Portland, and Fairhaven, MA to seek input on seven different topics being considered for further development in Amendment 15.
Three of the topics drew most of the comments: “rationalizing” or reducing capacity in the limited-access fleet; addressing essential fish habitat (EFH) closures; and modifying specific measures related to the new general category limited-access IFQ program adopted under Amendment 11.
Besides the pre-identified scoping topics, industry people and others who commented offered feedback on several other subjects.
Scallop committee Chairman Dave Simpson of Connecticut said two suggestions warranted further consideration by the committee. One involved improving the industry-funded observer set-aside program and the other related to increasing the daily possession limit for general category boats.
“Going from 400 pounds to 600 pounds is something the general category folks have an interest in revisiting,” said Simpson. “The committee will talk about that.”
The scallop committee was scheduled to meet July 8 in Warwick, RI to review the scoping comments in detail and begin developing Amendment 15 alternatives.
The following is a partial roundup of what people said during the scoping process.
GC trip limit
General category fisherman Bob Maxwell of West Creek, NJ strongly urged the council to increase the general category daily limit to 600 pounds.
In two different letters, he noted the dramatic increase in all fishing related expenses, including overhead for cartons, ice, pack-out, trucking, oil, and especially fuel.
“Currently, all profits are going towards the fuel and (fishermen) are not making necessary upgrades on the boats, which will in turn cause the general category fishery to be a very dangerous fishery,” Maxwell said.
He further explained that by going from 400 pounds per day to 600 pounds, “every two days of fishing will reduce one day out at sea, which will be a savings of an average 200 gallons of fuel.”
“This will reduce the days a vessel will fish and reduce expenses, increase profits, and increase overall economic efficiency in the fishery,” Maxwell said.
Permit stacking
With the notable exception of the Environmental Defense Fund, very few people supported ITQs or IFQs for the regular limited-access scallop fishery.
However, the fleet was divided on the subject of permit stacking and the broader issue of whether capacity reduction measures were needed at all.
Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) members had a whole range of views – both pro and con – so the group opted to take no formal position.
But the FSF’s three-man legal team – David Frulla, Shaun Gehan, and Drew Minkiewicz – emphasized in written comments, “If the council does choose to act in this area,” it shouldn’t do anything to undermine the control mechanisms currently in place for the limited-access fishery, which hinge on allocations of open-area days-at-sea and access-area trips.
Twenty-six-year veteran scalloper Louis Sirois of the Courageous and Defiant, who has been running two boats for the past six years, supported permit stacking.
“I know it would be beneficial for me and my crew to be able to fish on one boat,” he said. “This would create a tremendous savings for us, mainly on the fuel and ice. It would also eventually free up some much needed docking space.”
Reduction coalition
Jeff Pike, representing the Scallop Capacity Reduction Coalition, a group of scallopers holding roughly 100 limited-access permits, strongly urged the council to allow both stacking and days-at-sea leasing in Amendment 15.
“We believe that permit stacking and days-at-sea leasing are the most promising tools for capacity reduction,” wrote Pike, adding that the coalition did not support “combining” two permits into one because “it would create a jumbo permit or another class of limited-access permits.”
But “allowing two permits to be assigned to one vessel, where each permit retains its individual identity, would be the simplest and most straightforward manner to create more fishing opportunities on one vessel,” he said.
Leasing advantages
A days-at-sea leasing program would provide additional flexibility to the fleet, according to Pike.
“Stacking may not make sense for an owner of three vessels, but leasing would allow that owner to lease days to two vessels and retire the third,” he said. And if a vessel broke down in the middle of a fishing year, leasing would allow that operator to have an outlet for his days-at-sea while replacing or repairing the vessel.
The coalition estimated that between stacking and leasing, the scallop fishery could reduce the fleet size by as many as 75-100 vessels and improve the economics for the remaining vessels. Bottom dredge time also would be reduced, which, according to Pike, would be a significant benefit to habitat.
“In the process of reducing capacity, the oldest and less safe vessels will likely be filtered out of the fishery,” he said.
Opposition
New Bedford vessel owner Harriet Didriksen adamantly opposed the whole idea of capacity reduction.
“I do not agree that the limited-access scallop fishery needs to be rationalized,” she said, arguing that days-at-sea and/or permit leasing or transfer programs “will increase the capacity now in the fleet.”
“Plainly said, all fishing will be moved from old vessels to bigger and better vessels with more horsepower and more efficient platforms,” Didriksen said.
Eddie Welch of the fishing vessel Westport agreed.
“To say this will reduce capacity is ludicrous. Not one fleet owner has ever, nor ever will, transfer a permit to a smaller platform,” he said.
EFH closures, GOM
Several commenters argued that a significant amount of product was “locked up” in EFH closures unnecessarily, especially in Closed Area I, and they supported having the council match-up groundfish and scallop EFH closures in Amendment 15.
Frank McLaughlin of Chesapeake Bay Packing LLC said, “We strongly support immediately improving access to the sea scallop resource currently located in EFH designated areas. Making the scallop EFH areas in Closed Area I and Closed Area II consistent with the EFH areas in groundfish Amendment 13 would improve access and yield in the fishery without compromising groundfish EFH.”
Kevin Stokesbury, chairman of the Department of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST), said SMAST’s scientific analysis of the situation supported making the scallop EFH closures consistent with those in Amendment 13 to the groundfish plan.
During SMAST’s 2007 video survey, the team observed “six million pounds of exploitable scallops in the northern open portion of Closed Area I and 28 million pounds in the southern closed portion of Area I.”
Therefore, Stokesbury said, “The scallops in the southern portion of Closed Area I could be harvested with little impact to the sea floor and provide a substantial benefit to the fishery.”
On a different note, James Fletcher of the United National Fishermen’s Association told the council it could greatly increase scallop production by addressing the starfish predation problem and the impact of man-made chemicals in the ocean environment on scallop reproduction and growth. He further argued for allowing a roe-on scallop fishery in closed areas.
The Maine Department of Marine Resources Scallop Advisory Council submitted formal comments during the Amendment 15 scoping process, including many related to the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Management Area.
Advisory council Chairman Dave Sinclair said advisers “appreciate the fact” that the area was created so “fishermen with a historic dependence on the NGOM resource could maintain access to it.”
However, he continued, there were a number of problems with the program.
“While the NGOM total allowable catch (TAC) was developed based exclusively on the federal portion of the resource, both state and federal waters landings will be counted against it,” Sinclair said. “Since roughly half of all landings in the NGOM are harvested in state waters, Maine scallop fishermen with a NGOM permit will be limited to half their historic landings. Fishermen should not be forced to choose between future access to federal waters and current access to state waters.”
Sinclair further noted that if the NGOM TAC is reached prior to the Dec. 1 beginning of Maine’s state waters scallop season, “the 571 Maine fishermen who qualify for a NGOM permit will be excluded from the state fishery.”
In conclusion, he said, “The state scallop fishery provides important income at a time when other options are not readily available. The Scallop Advisory Council hopes the NGOM TAC development process will be corrected so this inequitable situation does not extend beyond fishing year 2009.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
