Shrimp Fishermen, Shut Out For Now, Weigh in on Future
Management Measures

by Laurie Schreiber

AUGUSTA—Sixteen people attended a June 7 public hearing in Augusta, held by the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC), on Draft Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Northern Shrimp.

The amendment is focused on better management of the fishery, if and when it opens back up.

According to ASMFC information, the fishery has been closed since 2014 due to recruitment failure and a collapsed stock. The stock has remained depleted since then, the ASMFC said.

Proposed options in the draft amendment include state-by-state allocations and accountability measures to better manage effort in the fishery. It also explores the mandatory use of size sorting grate systems to minimize harvest of small (presumably male) shrimp, as well as reporting measures to ensure all harvested shrimp are being reported.

Options for the total allowable catch (TAC) program include:

• Option A: Status Quo—the annual TAC is allocated by gear, with 87% allocated to the trawl fishery and 13% allocated to the trap fishery. The allocation percentages are based on the average historical landings by gear in the northern shrimp fishery during the period following the implementation of new logbook reporting requirements for non-federal permits in 2000. Any state can request a transfer of TAC between gear types. If a transfer occurs, the transfer does not permanently affect the gear allocation of the coastwide TAC, i.e., gear-specific shares remain fixed as specified above.

• Option B: No allocation of the hard TAC, i.e., the TAC would be applied to the entire fishery and not allocated to states, gears or fisheries.

• Option C: Allocate hard TAC by state. The coastwide TAC would be allocated by state according to a choice between four sub-options, which include a range of 80% to 90.9% of the TAC for Maine.

If Option C is selected, the following sub-options must also be considered:

• Sub-option C1: Quotas transfers: Two or more states, under mutual agreement, would be allowed to transfer or combine their northern shrimp quota.

• Sub-option C2: Quota reconciliation: At the end of each fishing season, any quota underages by one or more states will be pooled and proportionately allocated to a state or states with overages to help reconcile any quota overages.

• Sub-option C3: Quota rollover: If New Hampshire or Massachusetts have not fully utilized their state quota for a fishing season, the remaining amount of the quota would be rolled over to the Maine quota.

At the Augusta hearing, participants generally favored Option C2 because it gives Maine the biggest percentage of the TAC.

The majority opinion was that gear-specific allocations is no longer valid, and speakers noted that there aren’t that many draggers anymore. There are currently many more trappers than trawlers in most areas, some said.

“There are a lot of trappers in here,” one man said. “Why should we get so much less percentage? It’s a lot easier for people to get into shrimp trapping. If we have a smaller quota and everyone gets into it, we’re going to get an even smaller quota.”

Conversely, some said, a lot of draggers would get back into the fishery if it opened up again.

“The state of Maine got the quota we got because of the draggers, and we landed 90 percent all the time,” another speaker said. “So it’s hard to say, ‘Let the trappers have 20 percent.’ We’re the guys who got us where we are.”

One speaker noted that the gear allocations were based on the fishery as it occurred years ago, when there were a lot of draggers.

“Now there’s hardly any left,” he said. “What was based on 10 years ago shouldn’t apply now. Guys have passed away or sold out or moved on. There’s a couple left in my area. Two or three who are left shouldn’t’ get 80 percent of the quota.”

But others noted that fishermen would be happy to rig up to go dragging if they were allowed.

Another speaker cautioned against setting trawl fishermen and trap fishermen against each other. In the Friendship to Georgetown area, he said, there are two shrimp fishermen who aren’t also lobstermen.

“So close to 100 percent of the shrimp fishing that takes place there are lobstermen who go trawling or go trapping,” he said. “We work beside each other. If you divide this out to trawlers and traps, with no limited entry, the trap fishery could be closed in two or three days or a week, and the trawl fishery could go on for three weeks. If the trapper is tied up to the dock and can’t go, and the trawlers are fishing, all hell is going to break loose. This might work in Portland, but midcoast Maine is not Portland harbor….If you take the quota for January, February and March and go back through history, those three months—probably 40 percent of the quota were caught by traps. In 2011, the trawlers went over the total allowable catch. The trappers had nothing to do with that. We’re all fishermen: We need to get up and go fishing every day and get along with the guys we’re fishing alongside.”

For state-specific quotas, speakers favored Maine receiving the highest percentage possible.

One the question of quota transfers, speakers favored the rollover to Maine option, but the timing was tricky.

“I think they should give all quota to Maine by Feb. 20 so we have time to catch up,” said one speaker.

ASFMC’s Max Appelman said at a hearing in New Hampshire, those fishermen favored an April date.

“I’m trying to find a compromise,” Appelman said. “You have two states [New Hampshire and Massachusetts] that say, ‘February is too early to cut off our fishery.’ But Maine says, ‘If you make it later we’re not going to be able to fish it.’ ”

But speakers said that waiting until April for a quota rollover would be in effective, because the season would be closed, and processors would have finished up.

“There will be situations of unused quota,” said Appelman. “Should it go unused or should it be used? The difficulty is to find a compromise on what date should be used.”

One man said that trappers Downeast might still have something going on in April.

In the end, most speakers came out in favor of Sub-option C3, and said that Feb. 20 should be the cut-off date. However, if states can’t compromise on a cut-off date, they said they preferred Option C2 as a backup, in which only Downeast trappers would have fishing opportunities in late March/April.

The following TAC accountability measures are being considered to improve quota monitoring and management of the fishery.

• Option A: Status quo: No payback of overharvest of quota.

• Option B: 100% payback

Sub-option B1: When the quota is exceeded in a fishing season, 100% of the overage amount would be deducted in the next fishing season.

Sub-option B2: When the quota is exceeded in a fishing season, 100% of the overage amount would be deducted in the next fishing season, and if the annual TAC is not exceeded, any specific overages will be forgiven.

• Option C: 100% payback only if quota is exceeded by at least 3%

Sub-option C1: When the quota allocated is exceeded by 3% in a fishing season, 100% of the overage amount would be deducted in the next fishing season. If the quota is exceeded by less than 3%, a payback of the overage amount is not required.

Sub-option C2: When the quota allocated is exceeded by 3% in a fishing season, 100% of the overage amount will be deducted in the next fishing season. If the quota allocated to a is exceeded by less than 3%, a payback of the overage amount is not required. If the annual TAC is not exceeded, any specific overages will be forgiven

“You have a hard quota: There’s got to be a penalty for going over it,” said Appelman.

But, said one man, “Why is this even an issue? Why is it our fault? We stop when you say, but it’s our fault when we go over.”

“Because it happens,” said Appelman.

“But it’s not on our end,” the speaker replied.

“It could be on our end, or your end, if you’re out there and you go way over quota,” responded Appelman.

“If we go over 20 metric tons, and you take that off next year’s quota, do you think that will do anything?” one speaker said.

“Yes, I think there are biological repercussions,” said Appelman. “Quotas are based on biology. If you take 20 tons more than what’s allowed, you’ve got to let that population bounce back.”

In the end, the majority favored Option C2, with participants saying there needs to be accountability, but there should also be some wiggle room. A few participants were in favor of Option A, saying that fishermen aren’t to blame for going over the quota.

Options for the fishing season include the following:

• Option A: Status Quo: During the annual specifications meeting, the ASFMC’s shrimp section may establish a fishing season or seasons to occur at any time during the year based on the best available science and stakeholder input. The section may close the fishery at any time at a public meeting or conference call.

• Option B: Maximum fishing season: The section may establish a fishing season as Dec. 1 through May 31, or Jan. 1 through April 30, or combination thereof. This will be the maximum season length if a fishing season is approved, i.e., the section may establish a fishing season shorter than, but not longer than that specified.

• Option C: Minimum core season with flexibility to start earlier and extend later: The section may establish a core fishing season according to any one of the follow options, or combination thereof—Jan. 1-March 15, Jan. 1-Feb. 28, or Jan. 15-Feb. 15. This would be the minimum season length if a fishing season is approved, i.e., the section may establish a fishing season longer than, but not shorter than that specified.

• Option D. State-specific core season: The section may establish state-specific core fishing seasons. The options for Maine are Jan. 1-March 15 or Jan. 30-Feb. 28. This would be the minimum season length if a fishing season is approved, i.e., the section may establish a fishing season longer than, but not shorter than that specified.

“I think you should let us have a season no matter what the quota is,” said one speaker.

“We just want a guaranteed fishing season,” said another.

“This doesn’t get you that,” responded Appelman.

In the end, most favored Option B, agreeing that there is some biological benefit to prohibiting shrimping earlier than December or later than May.

For catch and landings monitoring programs, the amendment offers the following options:

• Option A: Status Quo; weekly reporting by all dealers

• Option B: Weekly reporting of all sale at first point of contact, including not only dealers but harvester direct sales to the consumer.

Speakers favored Option B, saying it was important that all catch is reported in a timely manner to effectively monitor the quota.

Fishery-dependent monitoring options include:

• Option A: Status Quo; port sampling of commercial landings is encouraged, but not required, to collect size and sex-stage composition data from subsamples

• Option B: Port sampling of commercial landings is required

Speakers favored Option B, saying the more information the better.

According to ASFMC information, Draft Amendment 3 does not consider limited entry as means of controlling effort in the fishery. However, the amendment maintains the control date of June 7, 2011, established during the development of Amendment 2. The section established the control date in the event that development of a limited entry program is developed.