Council Split on Herring
by Fishermen’s Voice Staff

Goethel suggested that those in the meeting audience who had spoken to keep monitoring in Amendment 4 come up with a monitoring plan. The law, he said, requires specific details that take time to produce on a budget of limited time and funding. Fishermen's Voice photo

At its June meeting the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) met for two days in Portland, Maine, in an effort to move forward on federally required Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and Accountability Measures (AM) for the Atlantic herring fishery. The council must submit ACL/AM provisions to the National Marine Fisheries Service no later than April/May 2010 to meet the federal Jan. 1, 2011 implementation date deadline.

The council is also under pressure to develop a monitoring plan that uses observer coverage in some form in the herring industry. Demand for greater observer coverage has been growing for years from a range of interested groups within and outside the industry.

In an effort to move forward on these critical herring regulations given the federal deadline, the NEFMC voted to split Amendment 4 over the objections of some on the council, and many members of the public in attendance. The decision was driven by time constraints and the desire, in the words of council member Dana Rice, “to do the job right”. He said time was needed to produce a monitoring plan that would address the need in the herring fleet. Observer coverage has been actively sought for a decade.

Frustrations over the inability or failure of management to address monitoring in a constructive way in Amendment 4 were again vented at the June 23 meeting. Opponents of observer coverage, largely from the mid-water trawler fleet, contended it is not needed because they had so little bycatch.

Proponents range from those who see groundfish (haddock) bycatch among herring for lobster bait, to those who say they have seen quantities of bycatch dumped at sea by the mid-water boats, to those who believe river herring are disappearing as bycatch.

While little has been done to develop effective onboard observer coverage plans in the last several years, more council members now agree bycatch needs to be dealt with. Paying for observers however, continues to be the major sticking point.

Added to the original call for observer coverage, to reduce the bycatch of groundfish such as cod and haddock, is the move to reduce river herring bycatch.

Glen Robbins, FV Western Sea. Maine fisherman Glen Robbins spoke of herring seining in the Gulf of Maine and the different state policies on landing herring. He has seen a dramatic drop in river herring and said, “I do think there is something wrong.” Fishermen's Voice photo

River herring stocks are very dramatically down in the states south of Maine, and down significantly in Gulf of Maine rivers. Several people from varied industry sectors spoke of the need to do something immediately to protect the river herring.

Glen Robbins, a Maine fisherman who seines herring, testified that over the last few years he has noted changes to the river herring stocks. He said, “I believe there is something wrong.” He also spoke of the different New England state policies regarding the landing of herring, pointing out that Massachusetts appeared to be less vigilant regarding contents of any given catch.

The most vocal opponents to splitting the Amendment, and delaying action on monitoring, were some of the environmental groups and recreational fishermen. Moving observer coverage to a later date would put it into what would be Amendment 5.

Observer coverage is expensive and who will pay for it often ends conversations about it. A range of public commentors opposed to splitting the amendment called for a monitoring system of some kind. Warren Doty of Martha’s Vineyard said the Vineyard's river herring have dropped off dramatically since 2000. "We need to find out what happened,” he said, urging the council not to wait until it is too late.

Gib Brogan from Oceana said, “A robust monitoring system needs to be in place. We need to tie together, ACLs, AMs and monitoring.”

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commisson (ASMFC) Executive Director Paul Howard, in an attempt to propose a funding option for monitoring, asked if the the 2010 specifications could be rolled over. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Adminis-trator Patricia Kurkel shot back, “Show me the mechanism for rolling over the specs in the regulations. There is no mechanism.” That ended the discussion and illustrated both the tension over funding and NMFS’s big stick policy.

Toward the end of the session before the vote, council member Dave Goethel said, “The vulture has come home to roost.” He was responding to so many calling for observers and for not splitting. Some were the same groups who have lobbied legislators for ACLs and AMs, Goethel said there is only so much staff and money and the law wants specifics that take time. He said, “I suggest that everyone in the audience come up with a monitoring plan that works.”

The council after discussions about the timeline, work load on NEFMC staff and the federal deadline, voted to split Amendment 4. That moved monitoring, which includes river herring bycatch, to later in the year when work on Amendment 5 begins.