Urchins: Zone 2 Season Shorter,
Zone 1 Longer
by Laurie Schreiber
Urchin fishermen, mostly divers, voted in support of a 45-day season and a 10-tote daily limit for the 2012-2013 season, at a June 4 DMR hearing in Ellsworth. Laurie Schreiber Photo.
ELLSWORTH – At its July 11 meeting, the Department of Marine Resources’ (DMR) Advisory Council agreed to shorten up the sea urchin harvest season in Zone 2, to 36 days for the 2012-2013 season.
That figure compares with the 45-day season for 2011-2012.
The council also agreed to implement a harvest limit of eight totes per day. This compared with a 10-tote limit that was specified in the rulemaking document.
Zone 2 comprises the eastern half of the state.
The council agreed to add five days in Zone 1, making it a 15-day season. Zone 1 comprises the western half of the state.
At its July 19 meeting, members of the Sea Urchin Zone Council (SUZC) said the advisory council’s decision was difficult.
“It was probably the worst struggle I’ve ever seen at the DMR level,” said Joe Leask.
In 2004, the Zone 1 season was reduced from 94 days to 10 days, and the Zone 2 season was reduced from 94 days to 45 days.
Earlier this year, the DMR said the most recent scientific information for the urchin fishery in Zone 2 indicated that a decrease in fishing mortality was necessary due to a continued drop in biomass.
The DMR and the SUZC developed options that would reduce the Zone 2 harvest.
Option A was a 45-day season that included a 10-tote daily limit and included culling on bottom by divers.
Option B was a 36-day season and included culling on bottom by divers. In each case, harvesters would have a choice of fishing an early or late season.
At the same time, the SUZC recommended that the Zone 1 season be increased from 10 to 15 days. The SUZC said that since Zone 2 fishermen would be faced with effort reductions, additional days in Zone 1 would help buffer the loss to the infrastructure as well as the overall supply to markets. The hearing for Zone 2 was held in Ellsworth on June 4 and, for Zone 1, in Portland on June 6.
At the Ellsworth hearing, DMR resource coordinator Trisha De Graaf said the DMR science staff recommended a 50 percent cut in mortality for Zone 2, as well as culling on bottom and incentives to fish for quality rather than quantity. Option A, with culling on bottom and a tote limit, represented the DMR’s effort to avoid cutting the number of fishing days, she said.
At the June hearing in Ellsworth, the divers in the room said they preferred the 45-day and 10-tote-limit option. They said they already cull on the bottom.
“It seems like every fishery I’m in lately, they’re trying to cut the days,” said Zone 2 diver Jeremy Card. “I don’t want to cut the days. I’m happy with 45. I agree with the 10-tray limit.”
Zone 2 diver Steve Atherton of Franklin agreed.
Atherton said. “Lot of times, we come to these meetings and whatever we say really doesn’t matter. Hopefully you take time to listen to us, because this is what we do. We’ve got a lot of money and time invested.”
Shawn Perry of Columbia pointed out that the weather also “dictates quite a few of the days. They pretty much seem to be limited enough.” Tim Proulx of Holden said the 45 days needed to stay to keep the processing sector going. “If you can’t keep the processors going, we’re not going to get our money,” Proulx said.
I’d rather see nice, steady fishing so I can have an idea of what I can make, versus the Wild West of fishing, which got us to where we are now.” Said Card.
Byron Matthews of Lubec asked if any thought had been given to how draggers could decrease their mortality rate. “There are some data that show that placing an escape vent on the drag could be a possibility for future, but that wasn’t discussed as an option now,” De Graaf responded.
Milton Chute, who drags for urchins, said he’d rather see a 36-day season and no tote limit, rather 45 days and the 10-tote limit.
Chute expressed concern that, with the predominance of divers in the room, draggers would not have a fair say.
“All the guys in Lubec said they would go for 45 and 10, if they could get 1,000 pounds per day,” Matthews said.
At the SUZC’s July 19 meeting, members agreed that “drastic” steps were needed to take care of the current biomass and restore it to better levels.
Steve Leask, the drop from 10 to eight totes was a substantial change, and should have been included as a proposal in the original rule-making document that went to public hearing.
De Graaf said the change in the tote limit was made due to new survey information that came to light. She said the DMR consulted with the state’s attorney general and learned that the change in the tote number, mid-way through the public hearing process, was not “substantive” and was therefore permissible.
Mick Devin said that, had fishermen known that the daily tote limit would be eight instead of 10, they might have commented differently on the proposed rule. “The system was circumvented,” Devin said. “The attorney general is wrong.”
Much of the SUZC’s meeting was devoted to the question of the Whiting Bay and Dennys Bay closure. Whiting and Dennys are bays that are nearly landlocked, inland of Cobscook Bay.
Whiting and Dennys were closed to the harvest of urchins and scallops in September 2009. The closure was originally schedule to end in May 2011, but was extended to May 2012.
The area was closed to scallop fishing because it contained many small scallops that would be more valuable if they were allowed to grow to a greater size prior to harvest. As part of the scallop closure, urchin fishing was also prohibited.
During the discussion about whether, and how, to reopen the area, De Graaf said the two bays now have a substantial amount of urchins. “You guys have sacrificed to get it rebuilt,” she said of urchin fishermen who live around the bays and have been unable to harvest there.
SUZC member Paul Cox raised concerns that, unless the state imposes restrictive measures, there could be a fishing free-for-all that wipes out the gains made during the closure.
“It’s going to be a free for-all without a tote limit,” Cox said.
SUZC members said that an influx of fishermen could destroy the urchin beds in just a few days.
“I believe Paul is correct when he says there’s going to be a run,” said SUZC member Mick Devin.
At the same time, said Cox, fishermen who live around the bays, and who made a sacrifice when they were unable to fish on their own home turf for three years, deserve to have a shot at the resource.
Leask said the two bays are model of success that shows the resource can stabilize and multiply.
“I agree with Paul, there should be a specific plan in place,” said Devin. “By just opening in up for five days, and letting everyone fish as much as they want, is not carrying it through to see if something works….We always talk about, we’re going to try something different….But we never come to a consensus and we never carry through….We’re about to open it up. Let’s have a plan for opening it up so we can actually determine if shutting the place down for three years made a difference.”
Devin asked if a 10-tote limit would be workable.
Cox said he would have to ask fishermen in his area.
“For me, 10 totes would be workable,” said Cox. “But for the people who have sacrificed, I don’t know.”
The area could be considered something of a microcosm of the urchin management plan the industry and state are currently developing, SUZC members said.
“There are some areas that, if we don’t go there, the resource is going to do what it’s always done naturally,” said Leask. “Urchins really only do a couple of things. They eat, they grow and they reproduce. That’s all they want to do.
SUZC member Larry Harris suggested caution.
“To have an open free-for-all, after three years, would be repeating what has happened too many times – rape and pillage, tragedy of the commons, whatever you want to call it. It makes absolutely no sense, and we have the time to do something about it,” Harris said. “You just gave up three years of your life, sacrificed, and the whole idea of the long-term goal is a sustainable fishery. This is the first time there’s been a real test.
In the end, it was decided that those SUZC members who lived in the Cobscook Bay area would bring the discussion to other fishermen in their area, and report back to the SUZC at its next meeting.