Over the past decade lobster fishermen have spent many hours and perhaps days, weeks and months debating what management measures could be used to avoid any serious downslide in the lobster fishery.  Placing aside for a minute the argument as to whether anything is needed at all, fishermen working with biologists and managers have discussed all types of ideas and as we now know, we have maximum sizes, minimum size increases, v-notch programs, trap limits, trap reduction programs as well as all types of license limitations.  All of these ideas have been explained, studied, debated, assessed, run up and down the hearing flagpole and then fed to the management rulemaking machine.

 As one looks back over all the ideas that hit the table, we can recall that some of them were mild and some of them were wild.  There was, however, one idea that just never seemed to make it and one might wonder if maybe, just maybe, it deserves another shot.

 This idea is the one to conserve and improve the lobster stocks by returning female culls caught while fishing.  Now before you brush this one off the table again, think about it.  Look at the size rules, the various schemes to cap and cut traps, the tags, the v-notching, the vent increases and the other ideas, which are not all bad but they also all have their own downsides.

 As a possible replacement for going with one of the above or as an additional measure if or when one is needed, what about this cull lobster idea?  Some of the positive sides to this, it could be argued, could include:

 -          Culls are generally considered to be a drag on the market and the lobster boat price

 -          Instead of further reducing the catch of two clawed higher priced, more marketable lobsters, reduce the catch of the less valuable less  marketable female culls.

 -          In this case a cull would be defined as a one-claw or no-claw female lobster.  There would, therefore, still be “culls” entering the market for processors or for the meat market but there would be less of them.

 -          The contribution to the stock, biologically, is quantifiable since there are cull rates in the statistics and the biologists doing their mathematical calculations and extrapolations could assign some level of credit to the management program.  It might, in fact, be easier to calculate then some other measures currently in use.

 -          Fishermen and their sternmen would tend to be more careful when removing lobsters from the traps because a two-clawed female “keeper” could become a throwback if the fisherman wins the tug of war with an obstinate trap-gripping female crustacean.

 -          Although some biologists have argued that female culls don’t produce eggs all that well, other biologists refute that argument.  Based on this division, therefore, there is a very good chance that these lobsters, if returned to the sea, will produce eggs, grow larger, regenerate their appendages, and either enter the egger pool or eventually become a valuable keeper lobster.  The idea does mean the “removal rate” from the ocean will decrease and that has been what the biologists have said needs to happen.  This is also what they complain isn’t happening now.

 -          This measure, like some other ones, would cut across the entire range of fishermen in the area.  The big, the small, commercial and recreational, would all be equal in this regard.

 -          Enforcement would be at the dock or aboard the boat and it would be pretty easy to see.  There could be some type of procedure developed to address the measure at the dealer level.  It wouldn’t be any more complicated to enforce then many of the rules employed in the lobster management program now.

 This idea must have had some merit, otherwise the biggest lobster producing country, Canada, would not have entertained this approach for its lobster fishery.  Recently, in some Canadian areas, this measure has been selected and approved by the managers.  It beat out some other more popular selections such as maximum sizes, minimum size increases, and further trap reductions.  Could this idea perhaps be worth further discussion here in our own lobster management areas?  Might this be something an Area could consider as a back-up provision or where needed now, an additional measure instead of going back for more of the  same old standards?

 We are not advocating that this offering necessarily be embraced.  We are only saying that it might be worth serious consideration by the Lobster Conservation Management Teams and the management and science communities.

 Cull this one out from the pack for another measure.

 Bill Adler, Executive Director