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 36 Number 12
August 2009
NE council eases rolling closures for sectors
PORTLAND, ME – Countless fishermen have been on the fence about whether to join sectors, but the New England Fishery Management Council made one pivotal Amendment 16 decision that, for many, may turn out to be the deciding factor.
The council voted to completely eliminate two of the five rolling closures and significantly reduce the size and duration of the rest. The easement will apply only to sector members. Fishermen who choose to stay in the common pool will remain bound by the current closures.
Fishermen called the decision “huge” and said people would be far more likely to join sectors just to be exempt from rolling closures.
“This is very important,” said Gloucester fisherman Dave Marciano while the council was still weighing the matter. “For a lot of guys like me who are on the edge, the way you resolve this issue will make a difference.”
The council took two days to cast a final vote on this. It began the discussion on June 24 and agreed that sector fishermen would be universally exempt from four other groundfish restrictions:
Trip limits on allocated stocks;
The Georges Bank Seasonal Closure in May;
Groundfish days-at-sea restrictions; and
Under specific conditions, the 6-1/2" mesh size restriction on Georges Bank. Fishermen will be allowed to fish with 6" codends on Georges Bank while using a haddock separator trawl or the Ruhle “eliminator” trawl.
But the council could not come to terms over whether to make rolling closures a universal exemption as well. Universal exemptions are automatic. Sectors do not have to request these exemptions in their operations plans.
After a long debate, council members tabled the motion to think things through overnight.
Hard TACs enough
Many fishermen who already plan to join sectors are doing so in order to be rid of days-at-sea and trip limits. Instead, sectors will be bound by hard total allowable catch (TAC) limits on almost all fish stocks, and the only limits they will have to abide by will be those they impose on themselves to stay within their TACs.
Given the hard TACs, sector fishermen said they also should be exempt from rolling closures and argued that many of the closed blocks were put in place long ago to reduce effort, not to protect spawning fish.
“Under a hard TAC, there’s no reason boats can’t have access to these areas,” said Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine.
“We need to do everything we can to make these sectors as attractive as possible. The issue of the rolling closures is particularly important to the small boats,” she said.
Marciano added, “Either you believe in sectors and hard TACs or you don’t. If you’re not willing to budge on this, then sectors are all ‘stick’ and no ‘carrot.’”
Bigger than needed
Peter Shelley of the Conservation Law Foundation also voiced support for reconsidering the existing array of rolling closures.
“We would encourage the council to have a discussion about this,” he said. “I’m not sure all the blocks need to be opened up, but the closures now are probably broader than they need to be to protect spawning fish.”
AFM President Terry Alexander and Northeast Seafood Coalition representative Vito Giacalone also urged the council to lift at least some of the rolling closures. Like Raymond, both said the move was essential to boost sector membership.
As the council began proposing alternatives, lifting some blocks while retaining others, Aaron Dority of the Penobscot East Resource Center expressed support for the direction the council was taking.
However, he urged the council not to completely eliminate closures for fish that truly still need protection.
“This appears to be an improvement over the existing rolling closures,” said Dority. “But I think we need to continue to refine those spawning areas. There should be some protection for the few fish that are left Downeast.”
The verdict
When all was said and done, the council voted to exempt sector fishermen – but not common pool fishermen – from rolling closures except for the following blocks during the following months:
April – Blocks 124 and 125;
April and May – Blocks 132 and 133;
May – Block 138;
May and June – Blocks 139 and 140; and
June – Blocks 145, 146, 147, and 152.
This means Rolling Closure I in March and Rolling Closure V in October and November will be completely eliminated for sector fishermen, and the size of the springtime closures will be significantly scaled back.
The council further voted to have its groundfish plan development team “review and analyze the existing rolling closures and determine which areas should remain closed to protect cod spawning aggregations.”
The council said that, based on the results of the analysis, it would make necessary adjustments to “adequately protect concentrations of spawning cod” in future council actions.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
