THE HERRING BAIT BATTLE


The fight over the Sea Herring Plan is heating up as the public hearings begin this month.  The federal fishery Council is then expected to take action on their plan in November and the states ASMFC may also act when they meet, also in November.  There are two plans making their way through the process.  One is the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Amendment 2 and the other is the federal New England Council’s Amendment 1.  Now we know this is difficult but try to stay focused.  The ASMFC’s plan is relatively simple and deals with state waters issues on herring and it does contain some of the proposals that are in the federal plan.  It is not all that contentious at least at this point but in the herring world, one never knows. The federal plan, on the other hand, is where the battle lines are forming.  One major issue in the federal version is the criteria for the limited entry proposals and who may or may not be able to fish in the Gulf of Maine’s Area 1.  There are other issues such as possibly changing the Area boundaries, but we will focus for now on some general thoughts instead of dissecting each of the items in the federal plan.

 By the way, to give you an idea of how many pages of paper are being used in these two plans, the ASMFC document is 108 pages and the Council’s version is about 600 pages with a “short form” of only 86 pages.  Everything you ever wanted or not wanted to know about herring.  Okay, now to the generalities.

 The herring fishery is not overfished.  There are 1.2 ± million metric tons of these little fish out there.  The biggest market for these fish is the lobster bait market.  This bait market is also the most valuable to the herring fishing industry.  It’s worth more as lobster bait then it is for the other markets, which are sardines, processed for food export, and the tuna and recreational bait markets.  The lobster industry’s input therefore is important in this battle because without enough herring, being able to bait traps becomes difficult and with less herring available, more pressure is then put on other lobster bait sources. 

The Federal Plan has seven alternatives dealing with limited access.  One alternative would stop all mid-water trawlers from being able to fish in the Area 1 Gulf of Maine from June 1 to September 30.  Massachusetts’s herring boats are all mid-water trawlers.  Whether we like or dislike mid-water trawlers, these are the boats that supply our bait.  Sometimes Area 1 is where the herring are and this alternative, number 7, would prohibit them from fishing in that Area during an important time for having an adequate bait supply.  They could still fish in Areas 2 or 3 but the fish might not be catchable there at that time or if too many haddock get mixed up in the catch out there, which is possible, the feds will shut them down; then where can they go?  The longer trips to offshore, Area 3, to search for the herring also means higher vessel costs and of course higher bait prices.

 Currently, Maine is supporting Alternative 7 due to concerns over a perceived fear of localized depletion of the resource in Area 1 and because their Perse Seine fleet has been negatively impacted because of mid-water trawlers.  The tuna industry supports Alternative 7 because it is believed that mid-water trawlers disperse the herring in Area 1 and the tuna don’t hang around in the Area.  The recreational fishermen support Alternative 7 because they believe the mid-water trawlers are taking the forage base in Area 1 that is needed to keep the striped bass and other sport fish happy, some groundfish groups support Alternative 7 because of forage supply concerns for their groundfish and the environmental sector is in favor of any alternative that can cut commercial fishing down anywhere.  This Alternative 7 is also the “preferred” alternative in the Council plan.  All these factors make it difficult to fight against this proposal but we feel that we must do so for the sake of our lobster fishing industry.  It has been feared by our  state’s DMF Deputy Director and Council Member Dave Pierce, that the votes on the federal Council may not be there to reject this alternative.

 The bottom line is that the odds are stacked against the Massachusetts herring fleet and with that, the bait source we rely on.  In spite of these odds we would urge the federal Council to choose another alternative or to reconsider their intention not to mix and match ideas.  Perhaps it might even be prudent to propose a compromise Alternative “8” even if it means they must go through another hearing process before they get it right.  A decision to support Alternative 7 for as we see it, reasons that border on selfishness and paranoia and no proven biological justification will only serve to enrage the lobster industry in this state and could lead to legal and congressional ramifications against such a decision all of which need not take place.

 We encourage a careful reconsideration by the Council on the herring proposals because of the importance of lobster bait to a very important New England industry.

 Think this one over when you stuff that bait bag – next time out.

             Bill Adler
Executive Director                     

10/05