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 33 Number 12
August 2005
Fishermen call for end to GOM rolling closures
PORTLAND, ME – Small boat fishermen from New Hampshire, Gloucester, and Cape Cod sent a resounding message to the New England Fishery Management Council this spring and early summer by collectively pleading for an end to inshore rolling closures, especially in blocks 124, 125, 132, and 133 in the Gulf of Maine.
Calling them obsolete and unnecessary, dozens of fishermen said the rolling closures were causing people to take unnecessary risks by forcing them farther offshore because fishing grounds in their own backyards are closed for prolonged periods of time.
“You’ve got a bunch of aging inshore boats, and you’ve got a bunch of young fellows with families. They’re pushing the envelope to the limit,” said Bill Crossen of Gloucester, who fishes the inshore dragger Odessa.
“You can solve the safety problem by eliminating the rolling closures,” he said. “Give us a little flexibility here in a way of being fair to both the fish and the fishermen.”
Crossen made this statement before the New England Fishery Management Council at its late June meeting in Portland, where he and several other Gloucester fishermen showed up to reinforce their desire to have the council consider safety issues in all its regulations.
Gloucester fisherman Paul Vitale added, “These rolling closures, we’ve been dealing with them for many years. When opening day comes, we congregate there. In the immediate area where we work, there are a hundred boats. It’s not good for the fish.”
Vitale emphasized that things were different these days – very different from when rolling closures were first implemented in 1996.
“We now have 52 days to fish,” he said. “No one is going to use their 52 days just in those months. We can spread it out. The rolling closures are working backwards. If we (got rid of them), it would eliminate a derby fishery,” he said.
Safety meetings
The issue came to a head following the Dec. 20 sinking of the New Bedford scalloper Northern Edge and the loss of five crewmen, which prompted the industry and members of Congress to seriously question whether the council was adequately addressing safety issues in its management decisions.
The controversy prompted council Chairman Frank Blount of Rhode Island and Executive Director Paul Howard to go on the road in March and April to ask fishermen directly about fishing vessel safety and how regulations impact the fleet’s ability to operate safely.
Traveling with Capt. Mark Landry of the US Coast Guard and council staffers, the road team got an earful.
While numerous issues were raised, dealing with everything from the US/Canada area to safety training to trip limits, the outcry over the rolling closures by far dominated several of the meetings, including the one in Portsmouth, NH.
In a written summary of the sessions, the council said, “The Gulf of Maine rolling closures were identified as the largest impediment to safe vessel operations in the port of Gloucester.”
In Hyannis, MA, fishermen said small vessels couldn’t fish for several months out of the year because of the closures and that many of the boats were too small to fish outside of them.
These vessel owners felt further disadvantaged because they believed they couldn’t fish during a time when establishing history in the fishery was critical.
Ed Barrett, president of the Massachusetts Bay Groundfisherman’s Association, told the council in a follow-up letter, “Amendment 13 baselines were calculated during years which our members had up to seven months of rolling closures.
“Our community lost a considerable amount of days-at-sea because of the closures. We feel this loss alone should be enough of a mortality control,” Barrett said.
Where are they?
The statistical blocks that are currently off limits include:
Blocks 121-123, closed March and April;
Blocks 124 and 125, closed April and May and again October and November;
Blocks 129-131, closed April and May;
Blocks 132 and 133, closed April, May, and June;
Blocks 136-138, closed May and June;
Blocks 139 and 140, closed May and June;
Blocks 141-147 and block 152, closed in June; and
Cashes Ledge closure area, closed year round.
Seeking change
At the June council meeting, fishermen reiterated both the safety and resource points made during the safety meetings, and they urged the council to take action.
“You’ve got to do something about the rolling closures or someone is going to get hurt,” said Paul Theriault, who fishes a 44' day boat.
Gloucester fisherman Joe Orlando said, “ When people are desperate, they do stupid things. We don’t want to go down that road anymore. It’s not good for us and it’s not good for the fish.”
Orlando said he appreciated the council’s willingness to at least talk about the problem.
“I really thank the council for keeping this alive,” he said.
At press time, the groundfish plan development team was preparing a report to document the history of rolling closures. The report will be presented to the council’s groundfish committee at its next meeting, and the committee will then need to decide how to follow up on the issue.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
