|
by Laurie Schreiber
“It will have a big impact on the state of Maine’s lobster fishery,” Department of Marine Resources Commissioner George Lapointe said of the amendment. A dozen or so fishermen showed up for the Ellsworth hearing, which was one of many from Maine through New Jersey. Reggie Knowles of Winter Harbor, attributed the small number of participants to, what he said was, mistrust among fishermen toward the ASMFC. Many fishermen think the ASMFC will just do what they want, regardless of the industry’s input, Knowles said. Lapointe disagreed. “It would do people well to engage,” he said. There were six issues discussed at the meeting: (1) Changes to the boundaries for the Lobster Conservation Management Areas ; (2) Uniform application of a V-notch definition; (3) Maximum size restrictions across all LCMAs; (4) More uniformity of minimum sizes across LCMAs; (5) Restrictions on permits to control effort and; (6) Amending the non-trap sector daily allowances. On Issue 1, fishermen agreed with the public information document, which states that, the boundaries of the three stock areas and the seven management areas are “seriously mismatched.” Some management areas fall in up to three stock units, and a kaleidoscope of management regulations takes place in each of the stock units. The difficulty lies in providing management advice for areas that span multiple stock units, due to differences in stock trends, biological parameters and competing management measures. Options under consideration include adjusting management areas to fit within the three stock assessment areas; or splitting Area 3, which comprises the entire offshore portion, into three sub-areas that would line up with their adjacent inshore areas. Area 1 Lobster Conservation Management Team (LCMT) chairman Jon Carter said the team recommends designating all of the Gulf of Maine north of 42, inshore and offshore, as Area 1. Stanley “Cappy” Sargent, representing the Maine Offshore Lobstermen’s Association (MOLA), agreed. Fishermen would either have to go by Maine laws or stay out of the larger Area 1, said Sargent. It would protect a huge stock of lobsters now harvested by other states, he said. Lapointe said dividing Area 3 into three sub-areas doesn’t make sense. He noted that, when the ASMFC wrote Amendment 3, they said the one-size–fits-all concept wouldn’t work. Now, it seems, multiple areas have created confusion. “They have four groups of people with four areas with ideas that are converging but are still different,” Lapointe said of Massachusetts, which must manage for Areas 1-3 and (Outer Cape Cod)OCC. On Issue 2, fishermen agreed that there needs to be uniform V-notch definition for possession that is consistent across all areas. There are currently two different classifications of V-notch — zero tolerance and 1/4-inch notch. Maine and New Hampshire, which fish exclusively in Area 1, have zero tolerance, which protects females through at least one molt and possibly two. The other states and federal jurisdictions in Areas 2-6 and Outer Cape Cod have 1/4-inch, which provides protection for females before it molts, but not after. The inconsistency means a female released in Area 1 under zero tolerance can be harvested in adjacent Area 3 or OCC, minimizing the conservation benefit of zero tolerance. Options include implementing a coast wide standard of 1/4 inch; 1/8 inch; 1/16 inch; or zero tolerance. Fishermen agreed zero tolerance should be adopted coast wide, but said if that didn’t fly, at least the smallest measure should be adopted. “It amazes me that other states have a problem with zero tolerance,” said Jack Merrill of Islesford. “It’s going to pay us back in the long run, so I’d like to see it everywhere.” Lapointe said Maine would keep pushing for zero tolerance. Failing that, he said, the state will push for making the notch as small as possible. Carter and Sargent said LCMT 1 and MOLA preferred zero tolerance or, if that doesn’t go through, 1/16 inch.
Options include establishing coast wide minimum of 3 3/8 inch for all inshore areas; increasing the minimum to 3 3/8 inch only in the Statistical Area 514 (southern GOM) portion of Area 1, which is in poor shape, unlike the favorable conditions throughout the rest of Area 1; or increasing the minimum to 3 3/8 inch in 514 and inshore Southern New England (Area 6), which is also in poor condition. “I’d be extremely cautious about going up to 3 3/8 inch,” said Merrill, adding that Maine could lose out on the European market, much of which uses smaller lobsters. Canada is allowed to harvest smaller lobsters. Sargent said he preferred having all the areas on the same level. However, he said, MOLA recommends the status quo. Knowles agreed: “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” Carter said there would be no biological benefit for Maine to increase the measure, and said LCMT 1 also recommended the status quo. Dwight Carver said Massachusetts would get a biological benefit with a 3 3/8 inch measure because they have a huge number of eggers on the small end, far more than Maine does. Lapointe said the state favors increasing the measure for Statistical Area 514 and SNE. There was more agreement on the uniform maximum size issue. Currently, Areas 1, 4 and 5 are the only areas with maximum gauge sizes, of 5 inches, 5 1/4 inches and 5 1/2 inches respectively. The conservation benefits of the measures are not fully realized because the lobsters are subject to harvest in adjacent areas that don’t have a maximum size. Maximum sizes permanently protect the portion of the population that is sexually mature from harvest, providing additional egg production. Options include setting a coast wide possession standard for a maximum, ranging from 5-7 inches. It was agreed that any maximum adopted by other areas would be a step forward. In any case, fishermen said, larger lobsters are not as marketable these days. Issue 5 considers whether to place restrictions on permits to control effort. Increases in fishermen and vessels, especially in Area 1, have been noted, as inshore and federally permitted fishermen move in from other areas as a result of stock declines elsewhere. Options include placing a moratorium on the splitting of state and federal permits between two entities; prohibiting anyone who fishes traps from landing lobsters unless he is fishing an authorized trap allocation; prohibit the transfer of federal permits from one area to another (for example, a person with an Area 3 federal permit could not transfer the permit to Area 1); or prohibiting individuals from changing between trap and non-trap fisheries. LCMT 1 was unanimous in their vote for a moratorium on federal permits, said Carter. Sargent said MOLA agreed. “Shut the door,” Sargent said. Issue 6 proposes to amend the non-trap allowance from 100 lobsters per day up to a maximum of 500 lobsters per trip, to a pound-based measure. Since the allowance was enacted in 1997, non-trap landings have risen while trap landings have declined in some areas. High-grading has become a problem. Options include enacting a pound limit of from 100 to 1,000 pounds per day and 500 to 5,000 pounds per trip; or, if uniform measures are not adopted through the amendment, requiring non-trap fishermen to list all areas they fish and hold them to the most restrictive rule. Fishermen agreed they’d like to see non-trap fishing eliminated altogether. “They’ve abused it,” Sargent said. “That’s what we want — zero landings,” agreed Merrill. LCMT 1 also favors no dragging, said Carter, but if there is dragging, non-trap fishermen should be limited to 100/500 pounds, and should also be required to list their areas. The ASMFC’s Lobster Board is reviewing public comment and draft Amendment 5 will be prepared for public review, expected by February 2007. Approval of final Amendment 5 is expected by November 2007 For the PID, call (202) 289-6400 or visit www.asmfc.org under Breaking News. For more information, contact Toni Kerns, Senior Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator for Management, 1444 ‘Eye’ Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005; tkerns@asmfc.org; (202) 289-6400. |
