NMFS IS ENTANGLED IN ITS OWN D.A.M.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is again consulting with itself on what to do to reduce jeopardy to whales.  In particular, this time some of its discussions involve trying to make the now infamous Dynamic Area Management or the dam D.A.M. as it is know, something that is workable.  Up to now it has been agreed by everyone, even the green wing-nut that, as currently structured, the DAM "Chinese fire drill" is not working.  We told them that it wouldn't work because it was undoable but, hey, what do we know, right?  They could have saved a lot of paper, time and energy if they had instead listened to the voice of reality.  But, they didn't.

The Service's latest interim final, almost final and final rule is now centering on establishing an option for modified gear that they can use instead of only the two options currently in place in the DAM rule program.  Currently their options are the removal of all lobster gear within two days.  Not!  The other is a voluntary removal of gear.  That option has been better but they are being blasted by the green groups as using an option that does nothing.  The new idea is to have a third option, which allows fishermen to stay in the area of a D.A.M. if they modify the gear.

The addition to the current rule is slated to come out soon.  The word "soon", in NMFS vernacular is relative; next month, this fall.

Unfortunately what is expected is that the Service will announce that modified gear will be the provisions now in their almost successful Seasonal Area Management (SAM) program.  To refresh your memory, that rule is the one buoy line per trawl and no floating groundlines.  The additional SAM provision of having no floating line on a buoy line will likely be dropped as a requirement since it has been shown to pose no risk to whales.  The problem here has been that fishermen can't, in two days, remove all their floating groundlines.  Remember that a DAM could be anywhere north of the 41°   line and at anytime three or more whales are found playing together.  The S.A.M., at least, is a definite place and time in the May and June time period.  The major problem with the S.A.M. and the reason it has backfired was the one buoy line part.  In that case, therefore, one could say, it almost worked.

In the case of the D.A.M., however, this idea won't work as a reasonable alternative.  Lobster Fishermen would need more time than two days to convert over to sinking groundlines.  Actually, they need years to do that and also probably some financial assistance as well.

Using the argument that now fishermen can stay in whatever the DAM area happens to be as long as they modify their gear is not offering much of an alternative.

If the original two options for a D.A.M. have been considered as not working to save whales and this added alternative is also not workable either, is the D.A.M. idea with this addition saving whales?  Having fishermen remove gear because it's either mandatory or voluntary or because they can't modify it simply moves all that gear to the perimeter of the designated area.  It then potentially poses another risk to whales because it creates a wall of gear.  Whales that are in a designated area will move and try to leave the area.  They then face a higher concentration of gear.  All this is assuming that all the gear could be moved which, of course, it can't be.  If a D.A.M., therefore, simply moves the risk around, is it working?

We would encourage the Service to continue the use of its "voluntary" option for now and perhaps require that no more gear be placed in the area for the 15-day D.A.M. time period.  We would also urge the Service to forge ahead with the proposal submitted by the lobster fishing industry this spring for the long term solution, which would eliminate the need for having DAM's or SAM's anywhere.  This path, although not an instant solution, affords a better opportunity to reduce any risk to whales and do it in a larger area then the DAMs and the SAM try to do now.  The Service has noted that spending time doing stopgap measures delays getting the long-term solutions through the process.  Unfortunately, however, they continue to try and use medicine that won't cure anything but does have side affects for the whales and generates more headaches for the fishermen and the Agency as well.

Has anyone told the whales about these plans yet?

Bill Adler
Executive Director

7/03