Effort Reduction: A Look At The Present
And Into The Future
by Laurie Schreiber

A recent run of the numbers shows that, even if a zone goes to a 1:5 ratio, it would be decades before there is a reduction of effort.

ELLSWORTH - Fishermen are concerned that people already involved in the apprentice program and on waiting lists should get a fair shake if some move is made to reduce fishing effort in the lobster industry.

There is also a strong sense that both the young and the seasoned should have a right to make an honest living if lobster fishing is the profession they’ve chosen to live by.

At the Zone B Lobster Council meeting late January in Ellsworth, Department of Marine Resources (DMR) commissioner George Lapointe was on hand to hear comments about whether and how effort should be reduced.

Lapointe and the DMR’s Terry Stockwell are visiting with each zone council and industry associations over these past couple of months to pursue the discussion, which will be taken to the Maine Fishermen’s Forum for further parley.

“Usually, we’re trying to put the fires out,” said council chairman Jon Carter. “I think this is great to be talking about this before we have to put out the fires.”

As he has in recent months, Lapointe stressed that the discussion is long-term and is occurring now in order to take time, when the fishery is in good shape, to come up with strategies to deal with potential issues before they occur.

“I don’t know what the right answer is, nor does anyone else,” Lapointe said. “But I want people to think about it.” He also stressed that he is looking for concurrence from the industry on any future changes.

“The answer to the question – ‘Is the sky falling?’ — is ‘no,’” Lapointe said.

Scientists predict abundance will stay at a pretty good level, he said, and Maine’s fishery is not facing a Long Island Sound situation, where abundance dropped 90 percent in a couple of years and the industry was slammed.

However, he said, and the council agreed, there is some expectation landings could drop significantly at some point. And all agreed that there are simply too many traps in the water.

“The question is, what will happen to the fishery, and the fishermen, when landings go down?” LaPointe asked.

Council members said Zone B trapping has exceeded the number that might be expected from last year’s entry of three new fishermen from the apprentice program.

“The build-up is coming from people I don’t even know,” said Carter. “I’ve been lobstering for 34 years, and I’m seeing guys I don’t even know who the hell they are. And I think everyone here is seeing the same crunch.”

The discussion is generated by a number of factors, among them increased trap numbers, the upcoming Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s stock assessment, and the 2005 sunset of a statute that limits new entrants to 300 traps their first year and 100 additional traps per year up to the maximum 800. If some new measure isn’t put in place, the sunset will allow new entrants to have 800 traps straight off. The DMR has submitted legislation asking for an extension of the law. The DMR has also set a goal of cutting effort by 30 percent from 1997 levels.

“If we reduce the number of traps by half a million, it’s got to come from somebody,” said Lapointe. “We need to be bluntly honest with ourselves about how we do that.”

Council member Tom Lawson was adamant that, because full-time commercial fishermen already had trap numbers drastically cut, other segments should be examined. Lawson used to fish 1,500 traps, which was reduced by stages to 800.

“I’ve taken my hit,” he said. “I think full-time fishermen paid their dues last time.”

Lapointe agreed past actions should be examined for what worked and what didn’t; previous reduction schedules which cut full-timers to 800 but allowed newcomers to build up their numbers, coming in with 300 tags and building up 100 tags per year, turned out to be nothing more than a rally that shifted trap ownership, he said. And the magic number represents nothing more than an incentive for people to build up as fast as they can, he said; if there ever is a further reduction, people are going to want to reduce from 800, not from some lesser number.

“We have to recognize that we’ve made our own situation more difficult by some of the changes we’ve made,” Lapointe said. He disagreed with Lawson’s take, however.

“We’re going to impact everyone in the end — the recreational fishermen, the apprentices, the students, and the full-timers, as well,” said Lapointe. “We need to look at all the sources of increased effort.”

Entry ratios were supposed to be a way to control effort, but the various schemes in place along the coast don’t seem to have any effect. The entry situation is in flux. Zone A is the last zone without a limited entry ratio, but the zone shut down entry last fall to discuss the question. Zone B has a 1:3 ratio. Zone C has a system which controls entry through apprenticeship. Zones D and E have 1:5, Zone F has 1:3 with 1:5under consideration, and Zone G is at 1:2. But a recent run of the numbers shows that, even if a zone goes to a 1:5 ratio, it would be decades before there is a reduction of effort. And, despite attempts to control fishing effort, trap tags have shot up. It is not entirely clear what sort of ratio would achieve the necessary effort reductions nor, indeed, how much of a reduction is needed. One of the problems in trying to determine — and therefore cut — effort, the council agreed, is that students are not counted toward the ratio.

There appeared to be a consensus that students are at least somewhat responsible for increased trap numbers. Students may automatically get into their zone if they’ve completed the apprenticeship program before age 18. They are not counted toward the entry ratios the zones have in place.

Some fishermen said quite a few traps are coming from students. The circumstance poses a conundrum, because no one opposes the student program,an avenue that sustains a traditional element of the fishery - kids who grow up fishing and can go on to get their licenses without any problem. Counting students and increasing entry ratios emerged as potential actions. The latter posed for people already on waiting lists, though — a number of them having completed the apprentice program.

George Sawyer said his sternman, who has gone through the apprentice program, is No. 5 on the Zone B waiting list and has been waiting five years to get his commercial fishing license. He said it wouldn’t be fair to force him to wait any longer than Zone B’s current 1:3 ratio requires.

Changing a zone’s ratio involves closing the zone to new entrants in order to survey zone members on the question. The zone could be closed for up to a year for the survey and rule-making process to take place. Any new entry ratio would apply to all, even those who had previously been on the waiting list.

But Lapointe suggested a legislative change could be made to grandfather people already on a waiting list, so they can enter a zone on the former ratio. He also said that, if the zone does not want to close, they can send out a questionnaire rather than go through the formal survey process.

State Senator Dennis Damon said he would look into drafting an emergency bill for the provision.

Among the other ideas that came up were a tiered license system to distinguish between full-time lobster fishermen and “limited” commercial fishermen, allocating a certain number of traps to each; an examination of landings in relation to abundance; a look at the impact of recreational lobster fishermen, who number about 3,000 and are allotted five traps each; state buyback of tags with state control over their resale; a different entry ratio for students; and a look at the influx of out-of-state trappers holding federal permits.

“Whatever changes are made are going to be done with the concurrence of the industry,” and an understanding of the implications of any proposal, said Lapointe. “Behind all these changes are real people.”