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 2006
Herring Committee Deliberations 2007-2009 TAC alternatives propose Area 1A reductions
PORTLAND, ME – Growing concern about the inshore Gulf of Maine component of the herring resource has prompted the New England Fishery Management Council’s herring committee to propose two alternatives to reduce the Area 1A total allowable catch (TAC) to 45,000 metric tons (mt) for the 2007-2009 fishing years.
During its July 6 meeting here, the committee voted to support four different TAC alternatives for further analysis – two with 45,000 mt Area 1A TACs and two with 60,000 mt Area 1A TACs.
The committee will review these alternatives again in September and could modify them at that time before presenting a full set of alternatives to the full New England council during its Sept. 26-28 meeting for a final decision.
The committee first voted to set the allowable biological catch (ABC) for herring at 194,000 mt, equivalent to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) figure endorsed by the joint US/Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC).
The committee next voted to assume that the Canadian fishery – essentially the New Brunswick weir fishery – would harvest 20,000 mt of this total, leaving 174,000 mt for the US.
And then, the committee voted to recommend that 4,000 mt be set aside for border transfers with Canada. It further agreed that zero tonnage be set aside for TALFF – the total allowable level of foreign fishing.
Area-by-area options
Here are the four area-by-area TAC proposals the committee then voted to forward to the herring plan development team (PDT) for additional analysis:
Alternative 1– 60,000 mt for Area 1A, 10,000 mt for Area 1B, 30,000 mt for Area 2, and 50,000 mt for Area 3, resulting in 150,000 mt of herring removals by the US fishery and 20,000 mt by Canada, totaling 170,000 mt between the two countries plus 4,000 mt for border transfers;
Alternative 2 – 45,000 mt for Area 1A, 10,000 mt for Area 1B, 30,000 mt for Area 2, and 60,000 mt for Area 3, resulting in 145,000 mt of removals by the US fishery plus 20,000 mt by Canada, totaling 165,000 mt plus 4,000 mt for border transfers;
Alternative 3 – 60,000 mt for Area 1A, 10,000 mt for Area 1B, 30,000 mt for Area 2, and 70,000 mt for Area 3, resulting in 170,000 mt of removals by the US fishery and 20,000 by Canada, totaling 190,000 mt plus 4,000 mt for border transfers; and
Alternative 4 – 45,000 mt for Area 1A, 10,000 mt for Area 1B, 45,000 mt for Area 2, and 70,000 mt for Area 3, resulting in 170,000 mt of removals by the US fishery and 20,000 mt by Canada, totaling 190,000 mt plus 4,000 mt for border transfers.
Industry reaction
The 45,000 mt alternatives drew immediate opposition from herring industry members, who argued that the most recent NMFS survey data for the inshore Gulf of Maine wasn’t enough to warrant such significant action, especially when the TRAC reported that the overall 2005 biomass of age 2+ fish was roughly 1 million mt strong.
Furthermore, the herring complex produced three “very large year classes” in 1994, 1998, and 2002, according to the TRAC.
Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, said, “I don’t think there’s any real justification to go to 45,000 mt.”
Calomo noted the numerous efforts undertaken by industry to slow down the catch in Area 1A in recent years, including mandatory days out of the fishery.
“If the fish weren’t there, these vessels would not be catching the fish so fast,” he said.
Industry representative Spencer Fuller added, “It’s not based on biology. It’s not based on economics. It’s just a number that’s being pulled out.”
But Rich Ruais, executive director of the East Coast Tuna Association, viewed it differently. He expressed grave concern over the recent NMFS inshore survey data and said, “I think Area 1A would benefit from the reduction to 45,000 mt. I, for one, would like to see that analysis.”
Balancing risk
Mary Beth Tooley, executive director of the East Coast Pelagic Association, didn’t voice opposition to the first 45,000-mt proposal, saying that the council should have a full range of alternatives to consider.
Still, her association will oppose the alternative in the end.
“The science does not support a 25% reduction in that area,” she said.
On the other hand, Tooley strongly objected to the second 45,000 mt proposal, particularly because it called for an increase in the Area 2 TAC to 45,000 mt.
“The Area 2 fishery has been well under 20,000 mt in recent years, so this alternative reduces real fish for harvest in Area 1A and reallocates paper fish to Area 2,” she said.
The council will review a “risk analysis” for herring prior to making final TAC determinations. That analysis in part considers the risk between removals of the Gulf of Maine spawning stock biomass in Areas 1 and 2, assuming that all of the TACs will be utilized.
“The council should first determine what level of risk is reasonable and then balance that risk between Areas 2 and 3 based on historic use and dependency in the fishery,” Tooley said. “This alternative does not do that.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
