FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE

 

It was troubling to sit through the latest Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s meeting week this past December and experience what amounted to yet another assault on commercial fishing.  It may not have been intended but as it turned out many of the species management boards took actions or were at least discussing actions that would or could hit the commercial fishermen again.  The Lobster Management Board was no exception. 

 Going down the list, the Herring “section” as it’s called, is deliberating whether to impact that fishery by lowing the overall total allowable catch even though the biomass is high and it is not overfished. 

 The Summer Flounder Board bowing to recreational fishery pressure did not adopt an overage payback for that sector similar to what the commercial fishermen must do when they overshoot their quota.  Where this comes into play is that when the overall biomass is then assessed following an overage, the next season’s total take, commercial included, gets lowered. 

 Recreational fishermen, during the Menhaden Board’s meeting, were trying to conserve menhaden for a larger forage base for sport fish.  Naturally the call was to cut commercial landings, which are already limited even though it’s understood that fishing pressure on this particular species has no affect on stock size.  For menhaden, environmental factors control that biomass. 

 Then there was the horseshoe crab.  Audubon was there with video cameras rolling, as usual, to rant and rave how although biomass information is not well known, more crabs need to be saved so Red Knott birds will have enough horseshoe crab eggs to eat on their migratory journeys.  They are hunted in South America and the current Horseshoe Crab Plan, yes there is one; already restricts horseshoe crab fishermen to quotas.  Now, Audubon wants it lowered even further.  There is also political pressure coming here from Governors, legislators and conservation groups.  Again, the commercial harvesters who gather them for conch pot bait or for biomedical purposes are targeted.

 The Dogfish Board, again being politically pressured, virtually voted to kill what was left of any dogfish fishery by going with the federal 600/300 lb. trip limits.  This dashed any hope of a small state fishery here in Massachusetts and guaranteed a discard mortality rate coastwide that will far exceed any catch quotas.  This decision was nothing but pure waste of a resource.  The commercial sector took it on the chin again.

 Then came lobster.  The most disheartening part here was a gauge increase for Area 2.  That area has already suffered through four increases in two years.  The impact there on fishermen is more severe than other Areas that have increases because this area has, in general, a smaller lobster that is also sexually mature at smaller sizes.  Four more increases in that Area is tantamount to a fisherman’s nightmare worse then what managers were trying to fix.  As was pointed out by one Commissioner at the meeting, during the public hearings and the LCMT meetings, if there was one proposal that had universal opposition it was the proposal for more gauge increases in Area 2.  So what did the Board approve ?…..more gauge increases!  The Board also violated a trust of sorts even though technically it can do so.  It approved measures more restrictive then what it had proposed in the public hearing document.

 The trust part is that the public was told in the public hearing draft addendum that this is what we propose to do.  Normally, an agency can adopt that or something less restrictive.  Several changes made during the meeting in the Area 2 and 3 proposals were more restrictive.  The Board did agree, following a debate on the issue, to go back for more comment on some of the Area 3 proposals but not all and furthermore did not decide to do the same for an Area 2 poundage change in an accepted trap plan.  If the Commission can do this, which apparently it can, might it not also be able to, for example, close a fishery even though it’s not in any plan?

 This Commissioner, for one, was disheartened by the lack of consideration and support for the commercial sector in all of this.  There was very little, if any, thought given to the socio-economic results of some of these actions.

 The marine resources are important and certainly making sure that they are restored or maintained at healthy levels does need to be a primary responsibility of any management body.  It is, however, also the responsibility of that body to consider the human factor as well and at least in these instances, the commercial factor certainly seemed to be the one that was not adequately considered.

 Reporting from the lonely side of the table….

 Bill Adler, Executive Director