Fishermen and the SAC, which advises the Department of Marine Resources (DMR), discussed every bay and inlet along the Maine coast during the April 30 meeting. Their goal was to figure out which areas to close to fishing and which to leave open in an effort to strike a balance that would benefit the resource and keep fishermen fishing. The general sentiment was to target known and still-productive spawning areas for closures, rather than go for a smaller number of large closed areas. Not on the table for discussion, but a matter on the minds of many, were the twin questions of why scallops haven’t come back to places where fishing has stopped over the past few years, and why so many scallops are coming up sickly. DMR Commissioner George Lapointe provided guidance for the development of area closures. In a memo to SAC, Lapointe said a closure area must meet the following requirements: It must contain some density of scallops, and the density estimate may be based on survey data and/or current industry knowledge. Closure boundaries must be enforceable – headland to headland, islands, buoys, etc. Closure areas must be geographically dispersed, with the distribution of closures as equitable and regular as possible. The closures must be large enough to be enforceable and stand a reasonable chance of biological success. The array of closures should represent a diversity of scallop habitat, with a mix of offshore and inshore areas, some containing gyres, some with patterns that will broadcast spawn. Lapointe provided some additional specific guidance. In Casco Bay, the closures proposed at public hearings were either extremely small or consisted of areas with sick, unmarketable scallops. An alternative closure was needed. Either all of the Damariscotta River or all of the Sheepscot River must be closed. In Cobscook Bay, considered a unique environment, a large area of productive bottom should be closed on a shorter, 1- to 2-year rotational basis to allow the resident scallop population to grow to a larger size before harvest. Larger size will increase the stock’s reproductive success. Lapointe said the DMR will open the 2009-2010 fishery only after significant conservation closures are established. SAC member Andy Mays, of Southwest Harbor, said it’s hard to find a scallop in deep water in his area. Scallop recovery is occurring in the mouth of rivers, he said. The mouth of Somes Sound has also seen some improvement. Blue Hill Bay, he said, traditionally has a lot of recruitment. Scallops seem to be able to spawn effectively in well-protected bodies of water, Mays said. The area around Swans Island is a mystery, he said. “I would never have envisioned the day that you wouldn’t see scallops there,” he said. “It’s been really discouraging.” No one has been scalloping around Swans Island for the past few years, he said, yet the scallop beds haven’t improved. Several small harbors around Blue Hill Bay were selected as good spawning areas. “If that spot is feeding the whole bay and it’s left alone, the whole bay will come back,” said one SAC member. Scallop quality is an issue, Mays and others said. In some areas, scallops are coming up gray or off-white, and the meat is falling apart. One man suggested that water quality might be the problem. “Why do we have sick scallops?” he said. “I agree on closures; I’m 100 percent for this. But maybe we should also be looking at, What is killing the scallops?” Dana Morse, with the University of Maine Extension Service, said that, while inconclusive, there are some theories regarding the product’s poor quality, when it occurs. The stress of fighting predators or water pollution could result in the meat’s grayish color. Shell-blistering could occur when a scallop is warding off shell-boring worms. Scallop density continues to remain low from east Blue Hill Bay to Quoddy Head, although there was a slight improvement seen in this year’s survey, DMR biologist Kevin Kelly told the SAC. “It’s not dramatic,” Kelly said. “There wasn’t much positive.” Fishermen agreed that if traditional spawning areas are left alone, the population will explode. It could be that closures will have to be in place for three to five years before good results are seen, they said. Six previous hearings were held to get fishermen’s input for possible closed areas. The April 30 follow-up meeting was designed to put all the information together and refine it. In the Machias to Jonesport area, the many suggestions put forward previously came together as a large wholesale closure. SAC and fishermen worked together at the follow-up to instead pinpoint specific spots to close. They agreed, however, that predicting which areas would be best to close was a tricky business, particularly in the light of information which shows that some traditional beds haven’t been fished at all in recent years but still have low scallop density. Morse said that’s why closures need to encompass a range of densities and habitat types, in order to see what the effects are. “In the absence of the strong data set we’d like to have, we look for trends,” Morse said. SAC chairman Dana Temple encouraged folks to identify areas for closure that are strong spawning areas with viable scallop populations, rather than areas of low density. Low-density areas should be closed also, with an eye toward bringing back the beds in the long term, Temple said. But for now, he said, fishermen should think of the best bang for the buck for the short term, by immediately conserving those areas with viable spawning populations. DMR and SAC were planning to work with the Sea Urchin Zone Council as well, to see if urchin fishermen would agree to the same closures. Scallopers said that urchin fishing in scallop closed areas defeats the purpose of the closure. SAC meets again in early June to deliver its final recommendations to the DMR. The DMR will then develop the proposed rule, subject to public hearings over the summer. The DMR Advisory Council will vote on the closures in September. |
