They Blinked

The Atlantic States’ Lobster Board meeting held last month in Washington proved to be a bittersweet experience as the status of the American Lobster Management Plan was taken through its latest hurdles.  The much debated Addendum III was passed during that meeting but it was the undertone throughout the session that was disconcerting.  All too many of the Commissioners spent much of their time commenting on faults in the system that had been used to arrive at the lobster plans they had before them.  These area plans that made up the Addendum were drawn up and submitted to the Lobster Board by the fishermen; the Lobster Conservation Management Teams.  All of these plans had passed the technical Committee’s funny math test and had reached that 10% goal.  The plans had been approved by this same Board to go out to public hearing with the exception of the Area 2 effort control package, which was not due yet and wasn’t in this Addendum.  Now it seemed that this Board was faced with final approval or they’d be out of compliance with themselves because of their own time schedule.  But that wasn’t the problem.  The problem seemed to be that they were feeling pushed down the ways towards a launch by the fishermen.  There were repeated affirmations that these LCMTs were only advisors and their plans were only recommendations and not necessarily a final done deal.

The Board blinked.  Up to now the process has been working and this Commission has been establishing a level of credibility with industry for its willingness to support bottoms up fishery management.  To its credit, it did pass the plan.  It also begs the questions as to whether the process will be changed and if so, how much.  One New York Commissioner reminded the Board, and rightly so, that they had all entered on this path knowing very well that the outcome could be confusing for the States.  The overall consternation being felt was over the proposals that were all different.  It wasn’t a neat package of one-size fits all and it certainly wasn’t what some state managers would have liked to see.  There were differing gauge sizes, historical participation trap reduction elements, differing definitions and other proposals among the various areas.  Yes, there are some enforcement issues but none that can’t be resolved except perhaps actually enforcing those individual trap limits but that’s another issue and we won’t go there today.

Back on the issue of one size fits all, it seems to have been forgotten that the lobster biologists themselves have contributed to the confusion because they are the ones who have established that there are three lobster stocks that make up “lobsterland” in the North Atlantic; the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and Southern New England.  According to the stock assessments all three biological areas have been judged to be at different levels of “overfished” but at the same time it has also been determined that all areas must reach that 10% goal.  Yes, there are 7 designated lobster management areas in 3 biological stock areas. This, therefore, leads to some areas needing to do more than other areas and this then has led to somewhat different plans for different areas.  Each fishermen’s team had to contend with these differing biological levels and yet the same goal and so, in came the different plans.

Fishermen were told in some cases that trap reduction elements needed to be developed which resulted, in turn, to plans that could restrict some areas to outsiders.  On one hand managers pushed for these types of plans then complained about enforceability and confusion.  Yes, there will be some confusion but other fishery species plans along the coast have also developed into a myriad of confusing regulations to suit managers, scientists and users.  Striped Bass rules along the coast are a prime example but we won’t go there either right now.

In spite of the concern and hesitations many state managers are feeling about how the lobster plans have been developed, who developed them and how to cope with the approved Addendum, we would encourage these state managers to stay the course and work with, rather then against the fishermen.  We would urge them to work with the LCMT process as well in order to achieve the goals of this fishery Management Plan. 

In the words of the American Lobster Socio-Economic Subcommittee, a committee authorized by the Lobster Board itself, “this unique setting and the manner in which governance structures have evolved provide a good foundation for continuing conservation.  It is important that the ASMFC remains aware of this foundation, avoids inadvertently impairing it, and if possible, works to improve it as opportunities permit”.

So let it be written – so let it be done. 

Bill Adler
Executive Director

03/02