The history of this gauge issue for Area 2 goes back to a Lobster Plan Addendum passed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) late in 2003.  The Addendum mandated four more gauge increases beyond the four that had already brought that area to 3 3/8” in just two years.  The further increases were included as an option when the draft document was released for comment.  That option had the most opposition of any of the proposals.  Nevertheless, without any quantifiable scientific evaluation presented on its benefits, it was selected by the Board and went into the final version of Addendum IV. 

It should be noted here that it is estimated that well over 80% of female lobsters in Area 2 are sexually mature, or capable of having eggs, at 3 3/8”, so besides further battering the beleaguered Area 2 lobster fishermen in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, it is debatable whether it was even necessary.  It should be remembered that getting more lobsters to the sexually mature stage has always been the name of this game and in this area, it could be argued, they have already done their share.  The pleas, however, went unheeded, until now.

 At a Lobster Conservation Management Team (LCMT) meeting last fall, both the fishermen and the two states agreed that trap effort had already fallen to a respectable level without a trap plan in place so the aim was to keep it from zooming back up out of control if fishing improved.  The question was, and still is, how to do that.  The gauge issue plays into this in that at least fishermen could have a shot at catching something they can keep in the traps they do fish.  It also gives fishermen an incentive to work constructively towards what both sides had agreed they should do regarding future trap levels.  If these levels stay relatively stable or increase only at a modest level, the need to actually implement a trap plan might not even be necessary.  This might be wishful thinking on our part but that possibility should be considered.  This is not to say that some plan shouldn’t be developed, it should and it would therefore also be conforming to a directive from the ASMFC’s Lobster Board.  The motion that passed, however, mandating this action was to develop a plan that “caps effort at or near current levels”.  Managers need to have a plan ready to go but what’s wrong with adding only if future trap levels exceed a certain figure?  This gives both sides, the fishermen and managers, some breathing room in this very imperfect science we call fishery management.  It would not be good enough for industry to tell managers that if something like trap levels sharply accelerated that, “trust us, we’ll get back to you later”!  Likewise, in addressing the fishermen’s needs, the gauge increase should be put on hold.

 We urge the fishermen to address the managers needs for an effort control mechanism and therefore should work with the two involved states to achieve both aims.  We also urge the states to work in turn with their fishermen to do the same.  We must also, therefore, encourage the other states on the Commission’s Lobster Board to understand the trials and tribulations that both states and their lobster fishermen are going through and be receptive to and supportive of what hopefully will be brought to them for their approval.

 As we’ve said before, managers must be willing to give a little and not just take, take, and take some more.

 C’mon people, let’s get together and work with each other!

    Bill Adler
Executive Director                     

3/05