>>Fishermen's Voice Monthly Newspaper, Gouldsboro Maine

When the tsunami hit the communities of the Indian Ocean last December, there probably wasn’t an independent fishermen in New England that didn’t say at least two silent prayers. One for the poor people, many of them small-scale fishermen, who saw their lives completely washed away in one huge flexing of mother nature’s muscle. Another thanking God that nothing of that magnitude has happened to us. Or has it?

There are many lobstermen on Long Island Sound that are in the unfortunate position of being able to empathize with the victims of the tsunami. They weren’t hit by as spectacular a disaster, but over the last five-and-a-half years, they’ve also seen the near-complete destruction of their fishery and with it, their livelihoods, their traditions and, in many cases, their dreams.

It scared the hell out of Maine and Massachusetts lobstermen when thousands and thousands of lobsters from the Long Island/

Connecticut fisheries suddenly started dying, in 1999. At the height of the Sound’s lobster die-off, individual fishermen there were hauling up as many as 400 dead lobster a day. It was like a horrible nightmare. But, it was just far enough away so that many could shrug it off as an isolated incident. In Maine, we thought that nothing like that could ever happen in the cleaner, cooler waters of the Gulf.

Three years ago, northeastern lobstermen once again perked up their ears, as a strange shell disease in Rhode Island started rippling it’s way toward us. Everyone associated with the industry, from the fishermen and the Department of Marine Resources (DMR), to the bait dealers, got a wake-up call that maybe the hay-day of the Gulf lobster fishery wasn’t indestructible, maybe there was a chink in it’s armor and that chink was something that could interfere with the lobster’s ability to protect itself.

That same year, the Long Island Sound fishery was declared a federal disaster. Nearly $8 million in federal and state funds were made available for research into the cause of the die-off. Nick Crismale, a 55-year-old fisherman from Guilford, CT., and the President of that state’s Lobstermen’s Association, thinks that most of the scientists who have tapped into that $8 million are barking up the wrong tree.

33 Parts Per Billion: Small Amount, Large Destruction
Crismale, and other fishermen were convinced that the die-off was caused by pesticide run-off. Three lobstermen from New York and Connecticut decided that somebody needed to be held responsible for what had happened to their fishery, so they decided to play by the white-collar rules of engagement — they filed a lawsuit. That case turned into a class action suit against four chemical manufacturers. The pesticides, laced with chemicals called “malathion” and “resmethrin,” had been meant to kill mosquitoes in the wake of the West Nile virus scare. Crismale and others claimed that the pesticides that were sprayed eventually washed into the Sound and just about eradicated the entire lobster population.

“Malathion and resmethrin are extremely deadly to lobsters,” Crismale explained. “It either kills them or greatly compromises their immune system and their reproductive abilities.” Crismale said that the mosquito pesticides are so strong that just a microscopic amount, 33 parts per billion, can kill a bunch of lobsters.

Last December, a federal judge indicated he planned to accept a $3.75 million settlement agreement between Long Island Sound lobstermen and two of three pesticide companies named in the class-action lawsuit (Agrevo Environmental Health Inc. and Clarke Mosquito Control Products Inc.). Crismale called it, “A Band-Aid on an open wound — and more a moral victory than a monetary one.”

“Malathion and resmethrin are chitin inhibitors,” Crismale explained. “Almost all pesticides are chitin inhibitors. That means that the chemical keeps the outer shell of creatures, like mosquitoes, and as it turns out — lobsters, from hardening.”

There was a time when the Long Island Sound lobster fishery was ranked in the top three, along with Maine and Massachusetts, and was worth about $40 million dollars. “Now we’re down to less than a million pounds,” Crismale said. “I don’t even think we’re at 750,000 pounds. There are still 1,100 license holders, but I’d be surprised if there’s even 100 active. It’s really been devastating.” Crismale fished 30 days last July and couldn’t pay his expenses. He doubts that he’ll fish next year.

Crismale also blames the discharge of chemicals from waste-water treatment plants for the disruption of the lobster habitat along New England’s coastline. In fact, one of the theories for the die-off and shell disease is that the ocean’s ability to absorb our waste just might have reached a saturation point, especially along the shore.

Last April, the Lobster Institute organized the first annual Canadian/U.S. lobstermen’s Town Meeting. Lobster Institute director, Dr. Bob Bayer, said the focus was on the status of the lobster resource and its habitat as seen by fishermen throughout the Gulf’s lobster-fishing region. “One of the most prevalent areas highlighted for future research and stewardship was water quality,” Bayer said.

Bill Adler, from Marshfield, Massachusetts, has been fishing since 1963. He’s currently the president of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association. He’ll tell you stories of chemical discharge from waste-water plants that would clean the growth off lobster traps. “The traps came out of the water cleaner than when they went in,” Adler said. “Divers said it looked like a moonscape under there. The lobsters left. Now that they’ve stopped pumping that stuff, things are growing again and the lobsters are coming back.”

Adler said that this last season wasn’t that bad in Massachusetts. He talks about an upturn in the stock surveys and a decrease in the shell-disease problems, but, in the same breath, he points to the fact that almost 50 percent of the traps in Massachusetts stayed out of the water last season. “Guys just couldn’t make a living, so they pulled out,” Adler said.

At this point, Adler is worried more about over-regulation than anything else. “They’re going to drive us all out,” he said. “Through attrition, we’ve pulled half the traps and we think that’s enough. We’re working now to find a way to keep those traps out of the water to allow the stock to turn around. We’ve got till July to find a way to stop what we see as a regulatory runaway train that’s barreling down the track.”

Results from the DMR’s lobster sampling over the last two years turned up a minuscule number of lobsters with diseased shells and not even one limp lobster.

Shell Disease, Over-Regulation, Topics of Concern
The Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association will be holding their annual fishery weekend, with seminars and a trade show, in Falmouth, MA., February 3rd, 4th and 5th. Shell disease will be a topic, but protecting the fishery from over-regulation will be the primary focus.

Jim Knott, of Gloucester, MA., has been fishing for lobster since 1942. Knott is known internationally as the father of the wire lobster trap. He’s suspicious of the role that pesticides have played in the shell-disease problems and thinks that there could be a correlation in the decrease of shell disease and the recent decrease in the use of pesticides within the coastal communities.

It’s Knott’s take that political pressure is having an effect and that the future for the lobster fisheries will only be bright. According to Knott, one of the first steps the lobster fishery will have to take is understanding that the role of fishermen has changed to something much closer to farming.

“It’s entirely different from the other fisheries,” Knott said, “We put about four times as much bait into the water as we take out in lobsters. The truth is, we’re the ones who’ve been developing the fishery over the years. We need to rethink the ways it’s operated.”

Carl Wilson, from Maine’s Department of Marine Resources (DMR), will tell you that everything in Maine is just fine. Results from the DMR’s lobster sampling over the last two years turned up a minuscule number of lobsters with diseased shells and not even one limp lobster.

“We’re talking a couple of dozen lobsters out of 100,000 that we measured each year,” Wilson said.
Maine’s lobster catch is worth over $211,000,000. It provides the income for some 7,400 commercial lobster harvesters, (3,600 of whom hold Class II or III licenses, allowing them to employ another 3,600 unlicensed “stern men”). Those fishermen own a combined total of 3.2 million traps (that’s $256 million dollars worth of gear). They have boats, support local infrastructure and provide a sizable trickle-down economy. With all that at stake, the threat of some sort of future problem is keeping Wilson and others within the lobster industry on their toes and the issue of lobster health on the front burner.

At the upcoming Maine Fishermen’s Forum (March 3 - 5), Patrice Farrey, director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and member of the Fishermen’s Forum Board of Directors, will host back-to-back seminars dealing with lobster health on Saturday. At 9 a.m., she’ll bring together a panel of experts to discuss “Disease in Lobsters.” At 10:30 a.m., the focus turns to environmental stressors on lobsters, and, at 1:00 p.m., she’ll host a seminar titled “Effects of Pesticides on Lobsters.”

Maine will also send a delegation, headed by Wilson, to a Lobster shell-disease workshop at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, March 12th and 13th. The two-day workshop will discuss, among other things, the current state of research as well as better ways to develop other potential grant opportunities.

In Connecticut, Crismale shrugs off much of the scientific approach. He’s heard all the hypotheses, from water temperature to bacteria. “Everybody is looking for something scientific, instead of looking for something basic,” Crismale said. “These chemicals are wiping out this resource and the governments don’t want to be held responsible.”

Since the Sound settlement, the EPA has stepped up to the plate. Recently, the regulatory agency levied a fine in the amount of $725,000 against one of the companies involved with the lawsuit, for misuse of the chemicals.

Crismale shakes his head in disgust. “Where was the EPA when this chemical was first being considered for release?” he asks. “Where were the environmental checks and balances that would have looked at the possible outcomes of the distribution of these chemicals and proactively protected our fishery?” Crismale’s prayer now is that no other fishermen ever be in his situation — see the weeds growing up through the traps, an industry on its knees, see the bank repossessing a friend’s boat, or be left asking ‘where were the regulatory agencies when we needed them?’