Complicated Confusion

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has placed itself in the unenviable position of being at odds with the rest of the lobster management world by failing to adopt basically two provisions that are included in the Management Plans for the entire coast.   Soon it could also be at odds with the federal agency as well if NMFS adopts the same plan for all federal waters and all federally licensed lobster fishermen.  These two provisions are a definition of what is a v-notched lobster in Area 1 and for the Outer Cape area the approved historical participation trap reduction plan.  In order to address the problem, the state is attempting to adjust these plans and then submit its proposal as a substitute at least for its state waters.

Much of this effort by the state was originally an attempt to simplify what it considered to be a very complicated set of measures.  It would have preferred a one size fits all package for all three of its state waters Areas.  But would one size have fit all?

Each of those areas, as we know, all were given different starting points and the same end goal and fishermen from those areas agonized over what to do to meet their mandate.  The end result was that they did their job and no, it wasn’t a neat one size fits all package.  One might question whether the state is now making it more complicated then it needs to be.

By moving in this direction, the state now risks being out of compliance with an ASMFC Plan and soon a federal lobster plan as well.  It is potentially creating additional measures to add to what is already in place.  It will be viewed by industry as a betrayal of the process by which fishermen design a management plan.  It also rebels against an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission effort to improve and encourage more participation by the fishing industry in the advisory process.  Such action could alienate the Massachusetts lobster industry and discourage them from working cooperatively with the state.  This, in turn, leads to less compliance, which everyone agrees is needed to make any plan work.

Are all these downsides over two provisions in two of the Areas worth all this controversy?  Did we really make anything simpler or did we create statewide acrimony.

It should be remembered that the fishermen don’t really like these plans either given all the foggy numbers, squishy goals, what they consider inadequate sampling, a questionable science process, and the complicated management system used by the government agencies.  But even through all of this, the lobster industry has been willing to play the game, work with the numbers, to do the job they were asked to do and have also been willing to try and make it work.  This last point is a very important contribution to the program.  It would be very unfair to dismiss any of these parts of the plan as unworkable or stupid.

Actually there are three issues in all of this and they are all related.  First is the compliance issues from Addendum III.  These are the two measures we have mentioned already.  The second is the proposal to cap effort using some type of trap control and doing this statewide.  The third is what to do in Area 1 with the Addendum’s “Massachusetts Amendment” that deals with the level of v-notching.  Remember this part of that Addendum?  This needs to be discussed with the state agency because it states that if 50% of all observed eggers in Area 1 are not v-d by the end of this year, the state may add measures to that Area.

We are encouraged that the Division is now planning to discuss all these issues with industry.  This is a step in the right direction for all of us to get through the complicated confusion that has been very troubling to everyone in “lobsterland” over the past six months.

We would urge the Division to consider adopting the two missing provisions from Addendum III at least in some form.  This would take the ASMFC compliance part out of the confusion.  Working then with the lobster fishermen, we could explore how to make the plans work effectively.  Additionally, the states effort cap idea could also be discussed and if it could be made acceptable to industry, it could then be moved through the appropriate process.

Remember when fishing was simple?

Bill Adler

Executive Director

10/02