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
Industry split over US at-sea processing in 2007-2009
PORTLAND, ME – Industry members remain deeply divided about whether the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should allow US at-sea processing (USAP) in the Atlantic herring fishery.
During its July 6 meeting here, the New England Fishery Management Council’s herring committee voted after a lengthy debate to recommend a 20,000 metric ton (mt) cap on USAP – with the activity strictly limited to Areas 2 and 3 – as part of its proposed 2007-2009 herring specification package.
The package will be reviewed by the full council in late September and, following a final vote, will be submitted to NMFS in the form of a recommendation. NMFS has the final say over what is implemented.
Back in 2004 when the council developed its recommendations for 2005 specifications, it voted to set USAP at zero. NMFS overrode that decision when it published final 2005 specifications, arguing that zero USAP would “favor one segment of the US processing sector over another without any justifiable reasons based on conservation objectives.”
The 2005 specifications were carried over into 2006, again with a 20,000 mt USAP cap. A US processor is expected to begin utilizing the 2006 USAP this summer.
Now that the herring committee and council are considering specifications for the next three fishing years, the issue has been reopened for debate with all the same arguments – pro and con – of previous years.
Opposition
Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, was probably the fiercest opponent at the July 6 meeting.
“This is a real hard one for me to swallow,” he said. “It seems like we’ve done a 360. We got rid of the JVPs, the IWPs, the foreign fishing, and the Atlantic Star to bring jobs ashore, to bring the fish ashore, to bring bait to the lobstermen and the tuna men, to bring food to the aquariums, to process a number-one fish to be accepted in Europe and other countries.
“And yet here we go again,” he said. “We’re doing exactly, exactly what we fought against years ago – a 24/7 fishery on the grounds with no rest for the fish.”
Calomo urged the committee to consider the large investments people have made in state-of-the-art shoreside processing plants in Gloucester, New Bedford, and other ports at the urging of government agencies interested in promoting an underutilized resource and stimulating local economies.
“Now we want to eliminate people who have made investments in shoreside facilities so we can start processing fish 24/7 on the ocean? I’m wondering what this is all about,” he said. “There’s something that doesn’t all add up here.”
Dave Ellenton, who has a considerable investment in the Cape Seafoods Inc. facility in Gloucester, also expressed concern about new at-sea processors.
“My primary concern is multiple vessels,” he said. “We can probably all live with one vessel, and we’ll see how it works. But as soon as that vessel is starting to show some success, I’m sure there’ll be others knocking at the door, and it won’t matter what we think the cap should be. That’s a serious concern to me.”
Support
Fisherman and Mid-Atlantic council member Jimmy Ruhle of North Carolina supported a 20,000 mt USAP specification. He noted that vessels haven’t come close to harvesting the total allowable catch (TAC) in Areas 2 and 3, and USAP might be a way for fishermen to harvest more of the healthier components of the stock complex, especially in Area 3, which typically produces high-quality herring.
“If we’re going to maximize this fishery, this is going to give us the opportunity to see if a floating processing plant is going to make the difference, simple as that,” said Ruhle.
He further added, “If we’re going to do better in Area 3, we need to do something different than we’re doing right now.”
Herring committee member Jim Salisbury of Maine wanted more information about the existing processing capacity and what reportedly is new shoreside processing capacity in New Bedford and elsewhere.
“Before we go in and try to limit one sector of processing over another, I’d like to hear more about what this new processing capacity is,” he said, acknowledging industry members in the room who insisted that existing processors had the full capability of handling the entire TAC for all areas.
“We ought to know whether it’s realistic that we’re going to catch the TAC,” Salisbury said.
The USAP specification likely will be discussed again at the herring committee’s next meeting in early-to-mid-September prior to the full council’s Sept. 26-28 meeting in Peabody, MA.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
