NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Public Hearing Summary
Amendment 1 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan
Samoset Hotel
Rockland, Maine
October 13, 2005, 6:00 p.m.
Hearing Officer: George Lapointe
Other Council Members in Attendance: Dana Rice
Council Staff: Lori Steele
ASMFC Staff: Ruth Christiansen
Attendance: approximately 35
Mr. Lapointe introduced Council members and staff in attendance and provided some opening
comments about the Amendment 1 development process, the relationship between the NEFMC
and ASMFC herring amendments, and the timing for Council and ASMFC selection of final
management measures. Lori Steele briefed the audience on the NEFMC public hearing
document, and Ruth Christiansen briefed the audience on the ASMFC amendment. After an
opportunity to ask questions for clarification, public comments were taken on both the NEFMC
and ASMFC amendments.
Questions for Clarification
•
Lexi Krauss asked whether the impacts on other fisheries of taking no action are analyzed in
the document and expressed concern about these impacts.
Public Comments
Zach Klyver, Bar Harbor Whale Watch
Mr. Klyver read a written statement into the record (see attached).
Jeff Kaelin
I am a member of the Marine Resource Committee of the Maine Legislature. I want to thank the
Council and ASMFC for having three hearings in ME. It shows how important the herring
fishery is no matter what gear type you happen to be representing or who eats the fish.
I am representing two clients tonight. One is Stinson Seafood, and we will submit written
comments. Stinson did not support any of the limited access alternatives in their final comments
because they do not own boats any longer. Bumblebee Seafoods is the parent company.
Stinson will make comments on the independent measures and ASMFC measures.
I also represent the shoreside processing vessel Atlantic Frost which takes herring and mackerel
throughout the year. We didn’t prepare any comments because nothing in the document affects
their operations.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
1
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
I have been representing the F/V Providian for a number of years. Leslie Raber runs the
company now with her children. She spoke in Portland last night, but she asked me to come
tonight to repeat the comments she made last night in this venue, which you already have a copy
of.
Mr. Kaelin read a written statement on behalf of the F/V Providian into the record (see
attached).
Gib Brogan, Oceana
We were here two and a half years ago, and now we are finally getting there. Thanks for all of
the work you have done on this document. We will be submitting more detailed written
comments.
Oceana supports Alternative 7. This is the best balance of all needs of all user groups. This is
an appropriate step to manage the expansion of midwater trawls, which expanded from 0 to 800
trips between 1996 and 2001. Some boats – described by one commenter last night as industrial
fishing – are capable of using 500 mt codends, and that is listed by the shipyards that
manufacture these boats. So they are capable of more than 1 million pounds in a tow. It is very
large scale.
Alterative 7 protects the valuable inshore component of the herring resource and will allow
full catch of 1A TAC by purse seine and fixed gear fishermen while preserving dense schools of
herring that are important to tuna fishermen, groundfish fishermen, whale watchers, and bird
watchers. As Zack was saying, the watchable wildlife is a very important industry in this
country. The financial aspect of this industry is staggering.
Independent measures – Oceana proposed the bycatch caps for this fishery, and we support
Bycatch Measure 3 to establish the haddock TAC. Establishing this tool as part of the
Herring FMP is an important first step towards a modern response to bycatch in this fishery and
also other fisheries. We hope that this will lead to the addition of other species of fish, mammals
and seabirds that are found in the observer records or that the Council deems necessary to
protect. Something that comes to mind from the most recent stock assessment is GB cod that is
continuing to do poorly.
We oppose using possession limits for controlling bycatch. Possession limits may lead to
increased at-sea discarding, which will undermine the efforts of the Council to assess and control
bycatch. We want to limit at-sea discarding as much as possible.
We support Monitoring Option 1, which uses extrapolation of the observer data to estimate
when the bycatch is reached. This method will reflect the bycatch of fleet as a whole and not just
the observed bycatch. We oppose the method that is used in the emergency action which uses
only observed bycatch. If that method is used, we hope that the Council will see fit to reduce the
allowable bycatch number to reflect the percentage of tows that are actually observed. If only
20% of the tows are observed, the number should be adjusted appropriately. The only way we
see this method of actual observed bycatch could work is if a very high observer coverage level
is used, like the North Pacific.
Bycatch Reporting – Oceana supports Observer Option 3 with one caveat – we hope that the
document produced by NMFS will receive full and careful review by the Council and public
before being implemented in the FMP. We hope it gets full consideration. In any observer
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
2
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
program, Oceana hopes that the Council will consider the nature of this fishery – in many cases,
it is 24 hours a day 7 days a week. One observer on a boat may not observe all tows.
appropriate action to account for this should be taken.
If the Council goes forward in November to incorporate observer coverage that is part of the
NMFS document, we would support Bycatch Option 4, which goes to 100% observer coverage,
until NMFS can justify a lower level of coverage.
We support Definition Measure 2, and we oppose Definition Measure 4 because it allows
chafing gear. Chafing gear should not be an allowable portion of midwater gear.
Glenn Lawrence, F/V Double Eagle (herring carrier)
My understanding was always that the trawl fleet would specifically target the underutilized,
untapped resource on Georges Bank. We talked about this before in terms of gear types and
areas. When I was in high school, we would do an experiment using a control and do different
things and look at the results. That really hasn’t happened here. Alternative 7 seems like the
closest thing that we are going to see. It is a little late, and it’s not enough, but it is the only one
that can fly here. Let’s try that one and see what happens. Maybe the migratory patterns will
come back like they used to be, and the spawning habits may change.
David Cousins, President, Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA)
The MLA represents the interests of roughly 1,200 lobstermen from Eastport to Kittery. The
MLA carefully reviewed the management alternatives presented to the Council, and we strongly
endorse Alternative 7. We are not making comments on the ASMFC Plan because we have not
gone over it. We strongly endorse Alternative 7 and independent measures 2 and 3.
MLA supports Alternative 7 because it contains two significant actions to control effort in Area
1 – banning single and paired midwater trawls in Area 1 from June – September and a strict
control date for Area 1.
MLA’s decision to support Alternative 7 is based on our concern about the health of the Area 1
resource, which is under tremendous pressure. Area 1A is at risk of localized depletion. Our
greatest worry lies with the impact of single and paired midwater trawls on the resource.
Many lobstermen have observed that these large trawl vessels divide schools of herring and
interrupt the spawning process for several years. The MLA believes that purse seine gear is less
harmful to the herring resource. Purse seine gear does not contain the same capacity to
efficiently catch fish and has less impact on bycatch. Unlike the trawl fleet, the purse seiners are
able to release bycatch alive. This is especially important during the herring spawning closure
when vessels must stay below the 20% spawning tolerance. It is our hope that limiting Area
1A to purse seine gear only for a portion of the year will slow the removal rate of herring from
that area, reduce bycatch mortality, and cause less harm to the resource over long-term.
The MLA also strongly supports a strict control date in Area 1. It is important to cap or
reduce effort in the herring fishery. There is currently more than adequate capacity in the herring
fishery to catch existing quota. Allowing newer and larger vessels to enter the Area 1 fishery
will threaten the sustainability of the resource.
The MLA supports Definition Measure 3 to modify the regulatory definition of midwater trawl
gear to reflect the definition used in the West Coast Groundfish Management Plan. The MLA
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
3
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
believes it is important to establish a definition of midwater trawl gear to ensure that they are not
fishing on the bottom and afford necessary protection to the rebuilding groundfish stocks.
We support MSY Measure 2 – 220,000 mt – in recognition of the uncertainty in the stock
assessment, particularly the discrepancy between the US and Canadian assessment. This move
would not affect the TAC.
The MLA endorses a year-round ban on paired midwater trawling in 1A. However, we
understand that since this action is not contained in the amendment, it is not possible to move it
forward at this point in time.
There are some in the lobster industry who fear that Alternative 7 could have a negative impact
on lobster bait supply. The MLA believes very strongly that long-term sustainability of the
herring resource outweighs the concern about a short term shortage in bait supply. We do not
want to risk the long-term sustainability of the herring resource, which is the base of the food
chain supporting many other species as well as bait supply for the lobster industry.
The MLA has had a long reputation for being a leader in the fishing industry and for making
difficult and sometimes controversial decisions. The MLA’s support for Alternative 7 is no
exception. The association spent many hours discussing the herring plan with lobstermen, and
we believe our position represents the majority of the lobster industry.
Toby Stephenson, Allied Whale, Bar Harbor ME
I work with Allied Whale as a researcher. I have been involved in marine education studies in
the GOM for about 15 years, and for about 10 years, I have been observing whales as a naturalist
out of Bar Harbor, and much of that time I volunteer as a researcher for Allied Whale. For the
last three years, I have worked on data collection on whale watch boats. We are looking forward
to presenting the science to you.
Over the past several years, I have been disturbed by what I have seen. We are seeing a lot of
abuse of the natural resources, a lot of politics, and red tape. Sometimes the decisions we make
are not always the best. I look forward to improvements, and Alternative 7 certainly seems to
be that, and I support Alternative 7. I am disturbed because we arrive at this juncture again and
again with all of the fisheries, we always come to this position where we have overfished it. It
would be great to begin to work with our natural resources sustainably.
This time the issue is threatening a keystone species, herring, which is critical. If the herring
collapses, then everything around it will collapse as well. It is frustrating because we have to
struggle and push to do the right thing, and it would be nice if we did.
I am trying to make a living just like everyone else. I don’t want to see the food chain in the
GOM collapse, and I don’t want to see fishermen lose their jobs either. I believe that we can
work this out in a sustainable manner. What happened to the small independent fishermen and
owner-operated businesses and vessels out there? It seems that we are in an era of corporate
fishing with these big boats we have out there. I know owners of these multi-boat fleets are
trying to make a living too, but these boats are getting bigger and bigger. As we get bigger boats
and bigger nets, we lose fish, and we have less jobs. If we let midwater and pair trawl fishing
continue, we will all be out of jobs, and the oceans will be out of fish. These boats are big
vacuums. We would like to see limits on these boats.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
4
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
The notion that 100 tons of dead fish is 100 tons of dead fish is not true. I have been offshore,
and I have seen whales bubble feeding at the surface while the seiners are setting up for night
fishing. We go back the next day, and the whales are there. It is not the same with midwater
trawls. We see whales, midwater trawls show up, pair trawls show up, and the day after, the
whales are gone. We have very strong data showing the decline of whales as the midwater trawl
effort increases. It is very striking.
I support Alternative 7 because it seems to be the best choice. If it were up to me, we wouldn’t
have midwater trawl and pair trawl boats out there, but this is the best of the alternatives. Thank
you for three meetings in Maine.
Lexi Krauss, East Coast Tuna Association
I grew up in the 1960s on Monhegan Island, which was a Mecca for purse seine fleet. There
used to be lights everywhere at night, but it’s gone now. We can’t blame that on the midwater
trawl boats. I think that the cyclical nature of herring has caused it to change. My observations
are those of a tuna fisherman. We spend 11, 12 hours a day making eyesight observations as
well as fathometer observations. We take in everything we see. Our data has been called
anecdotal, but it is what it is.
I think that the midwater trawl fishery has been destructive to the lifestyle of herring. One of
the things we see on the fathometer is a lack of the big schools of fish that we saw in the 1980s
and mid-1990s. We have seen it go downhill since about 1995, which was the peak of the tuna
fishery in Maine. Our fishery has been declining ever since. When you see less big schools of
fish year by year, you do see herring and mackerel, but you see the schools broken up. It is an
incessant fishery that gives them no break. Seining takes place at specific times of day, and they
have breaks with the weather. The trawl fishery goes on and on. We go to areas in early June
with a fair amount of herring, and within weeks if not days, the herring are gone, the groundfish
boats are complaining, the whale boats are gone. As a tuna fisherman, I am always looking for
whales, and they are gone. When we find the whales, they are also broken up, they are not
together in large numbers like they used to be, and you go and look around them and there will
be a pittance of herring or mackerel or krill.
We are very concerned, and I think that Alternative 7 is a good start. I would like to see the
measures be even stricter, but it’s a place to start. I would like to see increased observer
coverage. You cannot have enough observer coverage – even maybe a roving observer or an
observer team that could go from boat to boat in a fleet. When there are 6-8 of these boats and
they aren’t all hauling back at the same time, you could get a quick glance of what there is there.
Glenn Robbins
I am still in favor of Alternative 7. It’s a start, and it’s getting us there. If this goes through, the
spawning closures are what I am worried about. The Canadians have limits on the boats – 40
permits and one or two trawlers. They won’t let the trawlers on the shore, they have to go to
Georges. They don’t like the spawning beds to get ripped up. Herring spawn on gravel and sand
where the trawlers can tow. They are draggers, and they rip up the spawning ground, and that
destroys that stock for the next year. We are having that problem right now – trawlers are
fishing on fish that are ripe and running down in Ipswich and below. It has been happening
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
5
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
every year since we have had spawning closures. It is not enforced, Maine has done a super job.
Massachusetts just doesn’t enforce it. Something needs to be done, or it’ll be gone whether we
are seining or trawling. The seiners wiped the stock down 15-20 years ago because we fished on
spawn herring, and we stopped that. The trawlers don’t know that and they continue to do it.
We need better enforcement on that. Eventually maybe we can keep the trawlers out of 1A
forever and then watch the seiners.
I also want 100% observer coverage. I welcome observers on our boat. The problem is what I
hear is that they check the trawlers and say that they don’t have too much bycatch at times, and I
ask why. They say that they are only towing at night, when the fish lift. I suspect that if there is
not an observer on there, they are towing on the bottom during the daytime. That’s when they
are on the bottom and the easiest to catch. That’s what we do when we tow with our trawl net on
bottom. And it tears up the spawning beds.
Charlie Finley, F/V Western Sea
Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I was a captain on one of the Stinson seiners. At that
time, European stocks collapsed. We all started pair trawling, and we did that for three seasons.
At the end of those three seasons when we rigged back for seining, it was almost five years
before the schools came back together. Anyone who says they don’t spread the herring out is not
telling the facts. Alternative 7 is the thing to do.
Roger Fleming, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)
CLF will submit comments. This amendment is an opportunity for the Council to advance a plan
that provides significant benefits for the overall health of the GOM ecosystem. We think that
Alternative 7 offers the greatest benefits to the widest range of stakeholders that will be
affected by this amendment. Alternative 7 will create a buffer zone in the nearshore area from
June – September. We feel that this will protect schools of herring from being dispersed or
completely caught by trawl vessels and will help to preserve the feeding grounds for groundfish,
whales, tuna, and all of the other species that are important to the ecosystem. We also think that
this will help make significant progress towards addressing capacity issues central to this
amendment.
We support the preferred alternative for vessel monitoring system (VMS). We think that
this is consistent with the position that we have held in recent years before the Council in other
fisheries. It is a necessary measure to help is get better data to improve management.
We support Bycatch Measure 3 for 1% catch caps on GOM and GB haddock. We think that
the Herring Committee should consider in future amendments expanding this measure to address
other groundfish species that are affected by bycatch in this fishery.
Bycatch Monitoring – we support Monitoring Option 1 for the catch cap, which would
provide for extrapolation of bycatch data across the fishery. Not extrapolating makes little sense.
We should try to get the best estimates possible for total amount of bycatch in the fishery, and
extrapolation is a proven, tested method for doing that.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
6
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
Bycatch Reporting Measure 3 is the best measure. It would require a comprehensive observer
program to determine the nature and extent of bycatch to be implemented by NMFS by 2007.
We look forward to reviewing the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM), and it
makes sense to take our time to do it right, and this option would present the opportunity to do
that.
We support Midwater Trawl Definition 2. This is the recommendations of the Enforcement
Committee and is important for helping to address bycatch issues for groundfish.
In terms of mixing and matching, our view is that the Council could do that, but it would
require another notice and comment period. In Portland at the Council meeting, a compromise
alternative was brought forward that was essentially a mix and match alternative, and it was
rejected because of a sense of urgency for getting this management plan done. Regardless of the
legal implications, just in terms of fairness, it is time to make these decisions and move forward
with management of the fishery.
There was also a question posed about best available science and whether the science used to
substantiate localized depletion needs to be peer-reviewed science. Of course, the legal
standard is best available science, it is not a requirement that it be strictly peer-reviewed. I
would submit that there is not peer-reviewed science out there that indicates that there is not a
localized depletion issue either. What you have is a lot of observations by a lot of different
stakeholders in New England fisheries, and the Council needs to make the best decisions based
on data available.
Mr. Klyver mentioned a few studies that are forthcoming that sound interesting. A study by the
Island Institute in Rockland in 2001 was brought to my attention. They looked at four years of
field observations for herring spawning events in inshore waters of eastern coastal Maine and
some areas of Canada. They also did two years of interviews with fishermen and what they
found was a reduction in the number of yearly spawning events, accompanying decline in the
thickness and area of egg mats, which indicates an overall decline in spawning activity from the
1980s to the late 1990s. It appears that adult and juvenile herring are no longer as abundant in
parts of their full range, particularly along the nearshore areas. Four years present a picture of
temporally later spawning events, reduced in extent, number and volume, while still
geographically-centered in the traditionally-identified core areas of Downeast Maine and New
Brunswick. They say that it appears that herring are no longer as abundant as they once were.
While the biomass has increased dramatically in offshore waters, fishing effort prefers to remain
in nearshore areas where the fish congregate, and it also allows easy access to the markets. It is
in this inshore area where spawning populations are dropping and where effort is concentrated.
Management must address the issue of localized conservation and develop strategies to support
it while recognizing the continued importance of fisheries to coastal communities. They also
address the capacity questions. I will submit a copy of this study with my comments.
In closing, with regard to the scientific issue, a precautionary approach would argue that in the
face of scientific uncertainty where you have significant risk to the ecological resource, a
precautionary approach should be taken. Alternative 7 is the most precautionary and the
preferred approach.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
7
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
Mary Beth Tooley, East Coast Pelagic Association (ECPA)
I gave statement last night. I just want to respond to some comments I have heard tonight. One
of them is that stakeholders support Alternative 7. I do believe that harvesters that prosecuting
the herring resource are stakeholders in the herring fishery, and 85-90% of those stakeholders –
vessel owners – do not support Alternative 7. We only know of two vessels that are
prosecuting the fishery today that support this alternative.
I also heard that tuna populations are of concern in the GOM. I do not believe that tuna
populations should be an indicator of the health of the herring resource. Tuna are currently listed
by NMFS as overfished with overfishing occurring. I have spoken with NMFS scientists about
the status of tuna, and they say that the assessment is dismal and there are very few giant tuna
left in the population. To use this as an indicator for herring that are considered in a healthy state
is not correct.
There was a reference to the status of herring in early 1980s following pair trawling. There
was a significant pair trawl fishery that occurred for the fillet market. It was shortly after that
when I became a participant in the herring fishery, but this was also a time when herring was
severely overfished by foreign fleets, right up until 1976, as close to the shore as Jeffreys Ledge.
The herring resource on GB was “extirpated,” meaning they found no fish in the survey for quite
a number of years. I think that it is important to keep these things in mind.
Jeff Kaelin
I want to comment on Mr. Fleming’s paper from the Island Institute. I remember that paper
very well because I was the director of the Maine Sardine Council going back to 1985, and we
participated in that work and looked at the spawning areas down in Cutler. I would ask the
Council to take a look at what gear types were being used in the area leading up to that time.
There was literally no trawling activity in the GOM at that time. So we are just as capable of
overfishing spawning stocks with purse seines as we are with trawls. When they bring that data
in, look at it. It has nothing to do with trawling activity in the GOM. That is really out of
context.
Rich Ruais, CHOIR and East Coast Tuna Association (ECTA)
The authority on bluefin tuna assessment is ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics. The last stock assessment projected that the adult stock in the western Atlantic was on
the road to full recovery by 2018. What we are seeing is in Canada the last several years –
record years. They are catching their quota, and the scientists are pleased with the size
distribution of catch. In the Central Atlantic Ocean this past winter, the Japanese had another
very good year on giants and were bothered by small bluefins, which bodes very well for the
future. In the Mediterranean Sea, the farms are ahead of where they were last year. ICCAT
scientists are saying what is happening in New England is a local phenomenon with no
explanation right now. We are providing one partial answer to that question and that is midwater
trawling has reduced the herring forage in the GOM to the point that when the bluefin tuna
come in to New England, they do not stay here. They do come in here for the first couple of
weeks in June each year. The harpooners get a crack at them, but they don’t stick around in the
face of intensive midwater trawling on very small bluefin tuna fishing grounds.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
8
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
David Turner, Downeast Fixed Gear Association
Thank you for three hearings in Maine. We are concerned about fixed gear. I have been in the
fishery since 1976 in one form or another, but I haven’t been trawling and don’t plan to. I am
President of the Downeast Fixed Gear Association, Director of Cobscook Bay Fishermen’s
Association and part-owner of Christina M fisheries, and I am not paid by any of those
companies. I have a history in the herring fishery. Market conditions make a lot of difference on
who’s fishing and when they are fishing. I wrote a letter September 23, 1997; if I changed the
date, it would be pertinent today, and I will be submitting that letter.
I agree with the Herring Committee and Council’s vote on the preferred alternative,
Alternative 7. It’s been a long process and there have been a lot of intentional delays to try to
postpone the control date. It is the most restrictive alternative there is and it is needed and it is
time for this to happen.
• MSY – MSY Measure 2 – I agree with what they did.
• Timing of Specifications – Three-year process is preferred and agreed upon.
• TAC set-asides for research is appreciated. Tagging is critical for what we are going to do
in the future and what happens with the stock. I am also a proponent of co-management with
the Canadians.
• Management Boundaries being redefined seems to be the most reasonable – to enlarge
Area 3 for many different reasons.
• VMS should apply to all vessels except fixed gear.
• Vessel Upgrades – we already have the 165 ft/3,000 horsepower in the plan. The measures
in this document are carry-overs from other fisheries, and they were plugged in because they
were convenient but do not fit herring fishery. A vessel in the herring fishery will simply get
a carrier and increase hold capacity. If these other measures go into effect, you can cause
safety issues with a guy overloading his boat or two boats getting together when it’s rough in
order to get the extra bit of cargo ashore. Some of the smaller boats don’t even carry, they
need a carrier. We have seen serious issues with the size restrictions in other plans and it has
caused some serious safety issues.
• Fixed Gear Measures– at the Council level, I continue to be concerned about fixed gear
because I don’t think that a lot of people at the Council and Commission level do not
understand about what’s going on with fixed gear in Maine. And that is where it is going to
make a difference.
Fixed Gear Measure 2 is the preferred measure from Downeast Fixed Gear Association.
Fixed gear has had a long history and is the only sustainable fishery since we have to sit and
wait for the fish to come to a fixed spot. Any Catches by fixed gear only take the edge of a
moving bunch of fish, leaving some for tomorrow. There are only a few good fishing nights
during the season with the mood and the tide levels; Mother Nature supplies her own effort
controls to this fishery. Fixed gear never hurt the herring stocks. Overfishing is a mobile
gear issue and specifically trawlers with their 24-hour a day effort, even fishing in tough
weather.
The eastern ME stop seine and weir fishery should be treated the same as the Canadian
fishery occurring within 20 miles east of Cutler, and the catch should be deducted from the
20,000 mt allocation provided to the Canadians on the assessment side. This catch should
not be included in the Area 1A TAC. The goal should not be to regulate this historic fishery
out of existence. Again, the VMS requirements don’t apply to this fishery. It has been
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
9
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
exempt in the past, and that should continue. If we don’t catch these fish, the tide takes them
into Canada, and they are taken anyway. It is a small area, and it is at the end of the herring
moving up the coast. If we have a heavy catch of the TAC in southern Maine, we could see a
closure for us prior to even getting started. Almost the minute we get started, we end up with
a spawning closure, which usually takes effect mid- to late August into September. If we
save these fish, the tide will shift them into Canada, and they have no spawning restrictions
in that fishery, and it’s only a few miles. It is not a conservation measure.
We agree with protecting spawn herring, and we agree with the 20% tolerance on
mobile gear. But it is necessary to exempt the fixed gears east of Cutler until the Canadians
regulate their inshore fishery. It was that way prior to 1999, and we think it should be
returned to the way it was.
We have concerns about the trawlers on spawning grounds and the lack of groundfish is
considered a prime reason why the catch of fixed gear is down. We are in hopes that when
the pollock, cod, squid, and silver hake come back, the fixed gear fishery numbers will go up.
Fixed Gear Measure 2 could be implemented with Fixed Gear Measure 3 for the fixed
gear fishery in the rest of the state of Maine. Penobscot Bay would not come under the east
of Cutler rule. This 500 mt set-aside would help the rest of the fixed gear fishery.
•
Bycatch issues are very serious and have been temporarily solved. This is a pair trawl issue,
and it hauled in the purse seine fishery with a 72-hour notice which really doesn’t fit, and
that should be changed.
• Midwater trawl gear definition should be changed. You don’t need chafing gear when you
fish in midwater.
• Sector allocation should be left alone until the limited access process is done, the dust
settles, and we see who the players are, and maybe get on to that in a year or two.
• Days out has been a good process once we got away from the four days out of the fishery
when it first started. The two days seems to have worked since Day 1. The only issue has
been the sardine industry versus the bait industry, the timing, and that was resolved last year.
• Pair trawl versus purse seine – the pair trawls fish 24 hours a day, they take everything,
they fish on bottom. Unfortunately, when they catch it, it is dead; it has to be dumped if the
market cannot accept the size and quality of the fish. They also have a bycatch issue, which
has been temporarily addressed. I feel they still have a dispersion issue, which is disputed by
several. The pair trawl fishery has been the explosion in the catch effort in Area 1A in the
past 8-10 years.
• Control date – if we don’t stick with the control date, there will be several large vessels
ready to come in, and that is not good.
• Meetings – It has been better recently. But the meetings need to be accessible for the fixed
gear fishery and people from eastern Maine. It is 300 miles one way to go to Portsmouth.
• Discards – I don’t feel that discards from the fishery have been addressed. It will come with
better observer coverage.
• Another issue that is not addressed in this plan is real-time management. It needs to be
reviewed. We need to have joint management with the Canadians or we will never be able to
manage the herring fishery.
We have postponed this thing long enough, and a lot of it has been intentional with the politics.
It is time to get on with this control date and get with the plan.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
10
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
Dan Fill, Captain on herring seiner/trawler
I also fished lobster inshore and offshore. I see it day in day out – the midwater trawl and pair
trawl go up inside. I have seen them tow for miles through lobster gear. I call them on the radio
and they just shut the radio off.
Chafing gear shouldn’t be on the footrope. I have chafing gear on my midwater trawl, and I am
glad that it’s there. I will make one tow and chafe the meshes right off the footrope. I’d
probably do it within an hour because I am towing the bottom so hard. Charlie Finley – 15 years
ago – pointed out the midwater trawlers are the end of the fisheries, and he was right. He said
the fish are going to break up and go in every direction. There will be months when you won’t
find any fish at all, and this is all happening.
When I go groundfishing, I have had bigger sets of groundfish in my midwater trawl than I have
in my groundfish codend.
Observers – I am glad to take them so that they can see what is happening in the seining world.
I have gotten my observer reports back. I want to see what is happening with midwater trawlers.
Some trawlers have gone three weeks without any observers. I know for a fact that there is
bycatch in there. I know there are seals – if they get down east of Isle of Haute, the net will be
full of seals. They catch whales and porpoise. I know a boat that had quite a few porpoises the
other night. I hear this stuff. You need to do something about it.
I support Alternative 7, and I think that it should go further and should include the other areas.
In terms of these big boats wanting to fish 1A, I remember the Providian saying at many
meetings that they want to fish GB and they don’t intend to fish 1A. Now he wants to fish 1A.
Why can’t the big boats stay offshore? And them you have some big boats out of Gloucester,
and Massachusetts is not regulating the spawning closures. They don’t care and they are
kicking Maine all over the place, and we have the herring. We should not cower to
Massachusetts. They are letting the boats come in and land the spawn herring, I know they are.
Darrin Kelly, Gouldsboro ME
I am the owner of a small ecosystem tourism guide company based in Gouldsboro ME. We are
specializing in outdoor learning adventures by sea kayaking, canoeing, and hiking in downeast
Maine. Alternative 7 is the best option for the largest economic engine in the state, which is
tourism. For the last decade, I have earned by living off the GOM. I worked on whale watch
boats, and I have also been doing field work on seabirds on many coastal islands. I have been
teaching environmental education to students from all over the world at the whale camp in Grand
Manan and New Brunswick. I have had students write back to talk about one of the most
amazing experiences for them, when they were sitting on the western side of Grand Manan, and
they saw two right whales caught in a weir, and the local family was able to release these two
whales. It is fair to say that releasing whales from midwater trawls is going to be a little more
difficult.
My first point is that herring is actually worth more alive than dead. It is a more important
resource economically to the State of ME. If we are going to harvest herring, which I think we
should do, then the most economically viable way do it is with weirs, fixed gear, and small boats
owned and operated by local captains.
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
11
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
I want to share a little math lesson about a small area in 1A – Schoodic Ridges, the Ballpark –
one whale watch boat out of Bar Harbor taking 350 passengers, three trips each day, 1,000
passengers. That would full day, which may only happen a few times a year (August), but with
each paying $45 per trip, that could be upwards of $45,000 per day going on one boat – for a
resource that doesn’t go away. By leaving the herring there, you are creating livelihoods for
dozens of crew. That school of herring out at Schoodic Ridges – you have gannets diving into
the water, white-sided dolphins, and tuna zipping through the water. It is a pretty amazing sight.
Then, harpooning a big tuna is upwards of $10,000 per fish. Let’s compare this with local
lobstermen, active members of the community. There is a reason why folks who are hauling
lobster gear are against midwater trawl boats. They didn’t have any bait this summer. Compare
$4-$6 per pound of lobster and everything else to the pennies per pound that ship to the Baltics
that is being caught by the midwater trawl boats with foreign crews mostly. They will move
from the North Sea, now to here, and then they will move to the next area once they are done
fishing out the GOM.
It is not just a matter of dollars – the whale feeding grounds are at stake, seabird survival
on many islands is at stake. That is priceless. The value goes beyond, and that is alluded to in
the Magnuson Act. There are many other resources that need to be accounted for in decisions.
In closing, as a small business owner dependent on the GOM in other ways besides fishing, I am
for Alternative 7.
I also believe that with limited access, there should be a preference for small boats and fixed
gear fisheries. When you emphasize limited access based on the amount of herring you catch,
the folks who are exploiting the resource unsustainably get rewarded, and folks who are trying to
conserve get penalized. We should be closing spawning areas and should have zero tolerance in
spawning areas except for weirs. This is a fishery that has been around for hundreds of years and
won’t fish out the stocks.
I support a reduced sustainable yield of 220,000 mt, and we need 100% observer coverage.
Bycatch – whales and seals as well as groundfish. As an outside observer, I am amazed that we
are talking about allowing midwater herring boats to keep haddock. It’s like cutting down on
traffic violations by making it legal for RVs to run stop signs. It doesn’t make sense to reward
boats when others are sacrificing all these years.
Thanks for the democratic process. But changing alternatives after the verbal and written
comments – if there is mixing and matching, as a member of the public I would feel that this
undermined the process. If there is any changing or mixing and matching, then we need a new
chance for verbal and written comments.
John Higgins
As an independent State of ME commercial license holder, I am here to support 3.7.4 –Open
Access Incidental Catch Permit for vessels that are not qualified for a limited access permit, to
allow them to obtain a permit to possess no more than 5 mt of herring per trip.
Mary Beth Tooley, ECPA
Regarding the crew composition, there is a 75/25 rule that the Coast Guard enforces.
It is worth clarifying the mixing and matching. It has come up several times, and there seems
to be some impression by the public that the Council would either be limited in mixing and
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
12
Rockland, ME 10/13/05
matching, or that it would require public hearings again. Neither is exactly true. It can be true,
but it is not always true, and it’s important to understand that.
The advice that we have received from NOAA General Counsel is that if something is
analyzed in the document, the Council can choose that option. The Council chose to put
alternatives together, so some of the analysis is dependent on other analysis to hold the
alternative. If there is mixing and matching, they will determine at that time whether it requires
more analysis, and it may or may not. At that point, they would decide whether to send it back
for analysis and back out for public hearings. If it is not required to be done, then that won’t
happen. The Council will take the action as they did with Amendment 13. In Amendment 13,
that analysis really wasn’t even in the document.
Darrin Kelly
Clarifying the crew remark – You just have to walk down the docks in Gloucester to hear the
Irish accents and Mexican accents to know who is working on board.
In terms of mixing and matching, I was talking about what is actually fair in terms of
democratic process.
Glenn Lawrence
I am in favor of Alternative 7 and it’s the best choice to go with, but there maybe there might
be something else with mixing and matching. (Mr. Lawrence asked some clarifying questions
regarding mixing and matching of measures in the alternatives.)
Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing
13
Rockland, ME 10/13/05