ADVISORY PANELS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the ASMFC for short, has done a good job so far at listening to and hearing what its Advisory Panels have recommended to its Fishery Management Boards.  Just as the Technical Committees submit recommendations, so too do the Advisory Panels.  It is true that the Board's are not bound by any of these recommendations but the Commission has done a much better job at trying to include and approve as many of the recommendations in their Plans then have other agencies in the fish management business.

Under the ASMFC management process, each fishery Board has an Advisory Panel that meets to review a proposed fishery plan and to make recommendations to the Board.  Lobster is somewhat unique in that it has two layers of Advisory Panels, the Panel itself, made up of fishermen from all involved states, plus area Lobster Conservation Management Teams (LCMTs) that include only fishermen from that specific Area.  Until recently, the Advisors didn't have all that much influence in the decisions made by the Boards.  This real influence started to flow when lobster became a major management issue for the Commission.  The status of the Advisors was elevated due at least in part because of the lobster industry's insistence that it be allowed to play a bigger role in determining how lobster is going to be managed.  This, as we know, has sparked other fishing industries to do the same.

As recently as the August ASMFC meeting week, one of the scheduled meetings held involved discussions on how to make the Advisory Panel system better.  It was noted that not only should the Commission encourage fishermen to become advisors, attend meetings, and also be kept informed but that the various Boards should be reminded that they need to listen to what the "real" experts in that fishery recommend.  The Boards should try to work towards designing fishery Plans that not only accomplish the goals but also ones that will really work out in the "great Atlantic pond".  Having a "paper plan" that only works in theory doesn't mean it will get the job done.  This is where the Advisors play a vital role.  There was also a point made that an Advisory Panel or an LCMT recommendation shouldn't play second fiddle to a Technical Committee recommendation.  The Technical Committee advice comes from technical experts who work hard with limited data and computer models to give advice from their side of the table.  Advisory Panels are experts who give their advice from the other side of the table and use real world experience in practicality, economic and social aspects as well as everyday knowledge of the fishery.  Fishery managers must then use both sources to make decisions.

At the August Lobster Board meeting, there was an attempt to override this process.  The Board was asked to include in its developing Addendum, a provision that would have played with the lobster minimum sizes in Areas where Advisors had not recommended changes.

It is not the gauge size issue here; it is the concept of what the Commission would be doing.  It could have been any provision and not just minimum sizes.  Were this addition to have been included, it would be sending conflicting signals.  On one hand the ASMFC is encouraging participation by fishermen and promising to listen to them.  On the other hand comes this attempt made at this latest Lobster Board meeting to "slip" in a provision that goes counter to a previously submitted recommendation that had accomplished the task needed and was even approved by this same Board.  All this was because some Board members didn't like what had already been approved.  There was no attempt made to, at least, consult with the LCMTs from the lobster Areas that would have been affected.  This could have been a case of the Commission shooting itself in the foot.

The Lobster Board Chairman, to his credit, in ruling the proposal "out of order" prevented, at least for now, an invasion into Areas not part of this latest Addendum and preserved the Commission's policy to let Area management, the Advisory Panel System and the LCMT process work.  In doing so he also preserved the credibility that the Commission has gained within the fishing industry.

We would encourage the Commission to resist the temptation to override its own initiative, which has been to improve participation by fishermen in the management process.

Never aim your gun at your own foot!

Bill Adler
Executive Director

9/03