Whales are not necessarily bottom feeders around rocky habitat, said Carter. “I wonder if it’s even an issue,” Carter said. “We jump through the hoops, we’re at 98 percent compliance with the breakaways, and before that even gets a chance to work, this all gets thrown at us.” “For us, the cost to change things around is a real serious burden,” said Harpswell lobsterman John Baer. “As it is, we’re losing jobs overseas. Sooner or later, the federal government has got to start looking out for its own working people.” Fishermen have already modified their gear a number of times over the past decade, most recently with weak, or breakaway, links on the buoy lines, designed to allow the release of buoys from the line in a way that, when they release, the buoyline connected to the gear on the bottom will not have a knot on its end. Burt Leach, who has fished in Penobscot Bay for 20 years, said Maine has to have some kind of access to float rope, which can be attached with weights or spliced with sinking line to bring the profile down. “Floating rope — we’ve got to have it,” Leach said. Data Starved According to the DEIS, between 1997 and 2001, NMFS identified roughly 10 whales that were either seriously injured or killed after becoming entangled in various types of fishing gear along the eastern seaboard. In 2002, seven whales were entangled by fishing gear. But many fishermen spoke specifically to the absence of whales Down East and said they’d never seen one in jeopardy. “My father is 86 years old,” said Farrell Beal, of Beals, of his father, Charles, “and he never saw a whale entangled in trap gear. I’ve fished for 40 years, and I haven’t either. In the area where we fish, it’s not a problem.” Several times, NMFS officials were asked where entanglements took place and what kind of gear was found on the stricken whales. “We don’t know. We’re data starved,” said one of Borggaard’s colleagues. “You’re telling me we’re going to lose our livelihood over something you don’t even know if we’re the cause of?” said Jonesport fisherman Clifford Johnson. Jack Merrill, of Cranberry Isles, said he’s never seen a right whale in 35 years of fishing state waters. Merrill also pointed out the dangers to fishermen of fishing with sinking line, which snags on the rocks and gets a boat hung up. The repercussions would travel well beyond the lobster industry, said Jason Joyce, of Swans Island. “If you put us out of business, what happens to the boatbuilder, what happens to the engine builder, the machine shop, the supermarket?” he said. Fishermen were skeptical of NMFS’s assertion that the status quo alternative would receive the same consideration as the other alternatives. Given what was generally viewed as the reality that there would be changes, Alternative 5 was viewed as the least onerous package, since it allowed for the use of floating line, and, instead, expanded the seasonal area management (SAM) program. In SAM waters, Alternative 5’s rules would require the upper two-thirds of buoy lines to be made of sinking and/or neutrally buoyant line. The provision would modify existing requirements by allowing the bottom third of the buoy line to be made of floating line.
In a letter to NMFS, Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Commissioner George Lapointe asked that gear entanglements not be “treated as ‘low-hanging fruit,’” that would suffer from management measures out of proportion with the industry’s impact relative to other sources of whale mortality, such as ship strikes and water pollution. “Abrasion and hang-downs with increased operational costs and gear loss are a major issue that must be addressed,” wrote Lapointe. “Additionally, we need to make sure that data exists showing that whales feed in areas of rocky/tidal habitats.” The state, Lapointe said, supports Alternative 5 because it allows the use of floating groundline. However, he said, the state supports further research on whether lowering the profile of groundline to depths other than on ocean bottom reduces the potential for entanglement. “Risk reduction and operational realities must be balanced to protect both the large whales and the fishing industry,” he said. Alternative 5 would also expand the SAM program into the Jeffreys Ledge area, and perhaps into the Mount Desert Rock area, which would present another suite of problems for the industry. Lapointe asked NMFS to consider the rate at which new gear requirements are to be implemented; gear modifications involve not only change-overs but adaptation of fishing practices, he said. “It is also important to get feedback on how the gear modifications are working in regard to whale protection and fishing practices,” he said. The state, he said, also supports the expansion of exemption lines proposed in the rule. The lines originally provided by the DMR, he said, were based on sightings data. “The low number of sightings of strategic stock whales within this area over the past 30-plus areas, coupled with the known feeding patterns of right whales, supports this proposal,” he said. “Adoption of these exemption lines will result in a greatly-increased acceptance of the plan by the industry, by allowing fixed-gear fishermen to utilize traditional gear in areas that pose little risk to whales and through modified gear in areas that pose risk to whales.” Lapointe called for the elimination of the dynamic area management (DAM) program as soon as possible, deemed unworkable for fishermen and offering little protection for whales. Lapointe listed a number of areas for research: how large whales use the water column for foraging and diving; how to effectively reduce the risk associated with the profile of vertical lines; prey distribution of Atlantic large whales; whale foraging areas; and effective gear marking. Substantial Changes Sought Alternatives 2 through 6 each increase the buoy-line marker requirement, from one midway between the surface and bottom to one every 10 fathoms (60 feet). They each expand inshore areas that are exempt from any requirements. They also exempt those fishing in depths of 280 fathoms or more from the groundline requirement in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. The groundline requirement requires fishermen, by 2008, to use sinking or “neutrally buoyant” rope on trawls to link the traps on bottom. Traditionally, lobstermen use polyurethane rope for groundline because it floats up off the sea floor where it would catch on rocky bottom. Fishermen agreed with Lapointe that, before any more changes are made, more research needs to be done on two tacks: to better understand the foraging and migration behavior of large whales, and to identify whether and which of the existing rules is effective or not. Many called on NMFS to push for federal funding for research. Fishermen said the proposed three-mile exemption line needs to be moved further offshore. Currently, exempted areas include just bays: in Zone A, for example, exempted areas are Little River, Little Machias, Cross Island, Machias, Englishman, Chandler, Eastern, Western, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Pigeon Hill, Dyer, and Gouldsboro. The proposed exemption line along southern Maine, which hugs the coast, was called “ridiculous” by Frank Strout, of Portland “In York,” Strout said, “it (the line) is right on the beach.” Furthermore, lobstermen voiced frustration over an imbalance of regulations, especially in Canadian waters, where the government is much more forgiving of its fishermen. Jim Henderson, a lobsterman from Saco, said Canadian fishermen typically use 3/4-inch lines while he and other Maine lobstermen use 3/8-inch lines. Thinner lines, he said, are more likely to break away from their traps. Proposed requirements to mark buoy lines every 10 fathoms earned considerable criticism. Some fishermen said NMFS should set up a buyback program for floating line. Environmentalists also expressed frustration over the proposals, saying none do enough to ensure the protection of whales. John Phillips, of the Ocean Conservancy attended the Portland hearing; his organization supports Alternative Two, an option that would include area management. “We can save the whales without endangering the nation’s most successful fishery,” said Merrill. After the late-April meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team in Baltimore, Md., the proposal goes to final rule-making by the end of summer, then to public hearing again. The final rule is expected to be published by the end of 2005, with implementation by this time next year. Comments will be accepted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement until May 16. Comments may be submitted through: Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resource, national Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930; whaledeis.comments@noaa.gov; or fax 978-281-9394. Randy Seaver and Nancy Beal contributed to this article. |
