Maine Lobster Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2006
Department of Human Services Conference Room – Augusta, Maine
March 27, 2006 – 5:00 p.m.
Amended 4-26-06
A meeting of the Department of Marine Resources’ Lobster Advisory Council (Council) was held on this date at the Department of Human Services on Civic Center Drive in Augusta. Council members attending this meeting included: Chair Bob Baines (Non-Zone Lobsterman), John Drouin (Zone A), Dan Miller (Zone D), Elliott Thomas (Zone F), Jim Alwin (Zone G), Dana Rice (Eastern Dealer),Ted Hoskins (General Public Member) and Dana McIntire (Non-Zone Lobsterman). Council members not present included: Jon Carter (Zone B), Dan MacDonald (Zone C), Larry Knapp (Zone E), Cappy Sargent (Non-Zone Lobsterman) and David Sleeper (Western Dealer). Commissioner George Lapointe, Deputy Commissioner David Etnier, Deirdre Gilbert, Colonel Joe Fessenden, Linda Mercer, Mike Myrick, Jeni Menendez, Kathleen Reardon, Carl Wilson, Steve Robbins, Erin Estrada and Sarah Cotnoir of the Department of Marine Resources were also present. Others present were Brian Beal, Kristen Millar, Clare Grindal, John Butler, Bill Doane, Lyman Kennedy, Jeanine Drouin, Gerry Cushman, Tom Fletcher and Ted Ames.
The meeting convened at 5:10 p.m.
1. Welcome and Review of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes (November 29, 2005)
MOTION: (T. Hoskins and J. Drouin) To accept the minutes of the November 29, 2005 as written. Unanimous.
3. New Business
a. Downeast Lobster Nursery Studies (Dr. Brian Beal, UMM and DEI)
Dr. Brian Beal gave a presentation to the Lobster Advisory Council about some recent Downeast lobster nursery studies. A Beals Island and Jonesport non-profit project was conducted out of an area known as Great Wass Island and was run by teaming up with the University of Maine at Machias. Egg bearing female lobsters were brought into this facility to produce Stage I lobsters. The idea to grow them into Stage IV (penny-size) lobsters came out of the Cutler hatchery.
What is known about the efficacy of lobster hatcheries is that not all lobsters will survive to reach the commercial fishery.
What we do not know about the efficacy of lobster hatcheries – We do not know the percentage return to the fishery because no one has performed this work in Maine or elsewhere in the United States. We do not know the return rate because no one has designed a field experiment and followed it through for the 5-7 years it takes to develop an answer.
How can the success of a lobster hatch-and-release program possibly be tested?
1. Inject Stage IV or V lobsters with coded, microwire tags into a walking leg or abdomen and then, after 5-7 years, run every legal lobster caught through a magnetometer either on the boat or at the wharf.
2. Take genetic (DNA) samples of tissue from batches of hatchery-reared lobsters and compare those samples to similar ones taken 5-7 years later from the area(s) of release.
3. Determine the number of legal and sublegal lobsters in areas where hatchery-reared lobsters are released and in areas away from release spots and monitor changes in these areas for 5-7 years.
Hypothesis – Post-larval lobsters (Stage IV, V and VI) can live and grow by feeding on organisms that, collectively, comprise the “fouling community.” It is difficult to look at the gut contents since they are so small.
The idea is that one could grow lobsters by taking some container that would trap them, but allow water to flow in and out of a container. This project was tried in Ireland for 11 months with the Homarus gammarus, which is similar to the Maine lobster. It was a low cost, low maintenance project and got as many as 75% to survive. Lobsters doubled their size over a year in Petri dishes. The ones in Petri dishes also had the highest survival rate. This same project was tried in Machias in 2001 with soda bottles and got only a 1% survival rate. They were filled with mud.
The take home message from the experiments is that water flow is critical for the lobsters to survive. There was a 91% survival rate in the field-based lobster nursery results from August 26, 2004 to July 1, 2005.
The goal is to produce a lobster large enough to 1) increase its chances of survival, and 2) accept a physical tag, not a microwire tag, that can be observed directly by fishermen.
Funding for this project came from the State of Maine bonding issued from 2002 which will last through the end of this summer. We’re now beyond the proof of concept and will be seeking additional funding.
C. Wilson asked if there have been significant culturing advancements since the 1999 report. Dr. Beal went to Martha’s Vineyard and spoke with the people that helped set up the Cutler hatchery, which had a 50% survival rate. This recent project came up with a technique in the lab that had a 75% survival rate. The 1999 report also doesn’t talk about nurseries. They didn’t have them yet.
C. Wilson referenced some of the literature that states that Stage IV hatchery raised lobsters aren’t as viable, not as tactile. Dr. Beal said they say the same about clams. We fed them and they had a high percentage of survival.
C. Wilson asked if the researchers tried to collect any live Stage IV lobsters and put them in Petri dishes. Dr. Beal explained that the variance on growth is really small and how can you beat a 91% survival rate?
b. Lobster Seed Fund Discussion
The Department is looking for volunteers for a Seed Lobster Fund Sub-Committee. We have 8 or 9 proposals. At the next LAC meeting, zones may recommend where their portion of the seed lobster fund money should be allocated – female lobster purchase and liberation or research. This year’s Sub-Committee volunteers are Bob Baines, Elliott Thomas, Dana Rice and John Drouin.
c. Lobster Fund/Hatcheries (John Drouin)
The Lobster Zone A Council has been talking about a renewed interest in lobster hatcheries. Cutler had a hatchery back in the 80s or 90s. Without getting into efficiencies, the Zone A Council met back in January and discussed hatcheries and Title 12, Section 6451. The way the funding is set up in this lobster seed fund program is that we’ve forgotten about hatcheries. Section 6 specifically talks about hatcheries and that the advice is supposed to come from the Lobster Advisory Council. The current law can support hatcheries.
Last year each zone had $16,800. Zone A bought 2,500 female lobsters. Realizing there are lots of variables and unknowns, it may not be the best use of that money. Robin Alden and Ted Ames showed Zone A what Zone C was doing. Instead of purchasing female lobsters, Zone A would like to support a hatchery of some sort.
If we agreed that one or two hatcheries doesn’t boost and enhance stocks, then we need to look at this. All of the ideas need to be put on the table and discussed. The Seed Lobster Fund Revenues and Expenditure Report will be available for the next meeting. The State is also going to be talking about Addendum VIII, as well as looking at the work that has already paid off. The right approach is to bring the suite of things forward and make a recommendation.
J. Drouin said that the law is already in place that would allow for the allocation of money toward hatcheries. He stated it shouldn’t be the Department’s job. It should be with input and advice from the LAC. It was clarified that the LAC makes recommendations to the Commissioner. The DMR AC is advice and consent – and they vote on regulations.
The comment was made that if you cannot support the v-notches on bottom already, why put more.
The Department needs to evaluate their effectiveness before the State goes into hatcheries wholeheartedly. If a zone wants to spend money on a hatchery, at this point, it will not do any good in the event of a decline. We need to come up with ideas on how we could allocate some of these funds. One hatchery will not rebuild a fishery.
T. Hoskins stated that Zone C will meet in a week or so to look at efficacy of hatcheries.
The Commissioner explained that there are plenty of other research questions, not just hatcheries. We’ll continue this discussion after the Sub-Committee meets.
d. Maine Lobster Promotion Council Nomination
The Maine Lobster Promotion Council would like to propose Dick Groton to join their Council as a Public Member representing the Mid-Coast region. He is the Executive Director of the Maine Restaurant Association and has spent much of his career in the restaurant business. He would be replacing Tim Harkins.
MOTION: (E. Thomas and J. Drouin) To nominate and recommend to the Commissioner that Dick Groton be accepted as the Public Member representing the Mid-Coast region. Unanimous.
e. Maine Lobster Promotion Council – Certified Maine Lobster Program (Kristen Millar)
Kristen Millar discussed a project that the Maine Lobster Promotion Council (MPLC) is going to pilot this summer. The concept is to place a band on all Maine lobsters. It is going beyond the COOL requirements and addressing the generic nature of the term “Maine Lobster”. The MPLC has trademarked the term “Certified Maine Lobster Program”. It is a pilot project done only in New England, so it will take some time to fine-tune. Some of the outline basics in this program:
• Any lobster caught in Maine or caught and processed in Maine
• Give market what it’s asking for, which gives industry better return
• Better value to chefs
• There’s an additional value by differentiating allowing trade people to buy Maine lobster
• Bands will be Certified Maine Lobster USA
• Asking dealers and food service trade to sign an agreement
There are about 70 lobster dealers that have restaurants. Promotional materials will include placemats, table tents, coasters, window clings, etc. The restaurants will pay for the materials.
Another component is the Lobster Passport promoting Maine Lobster. They have been distributed in tourist centers. It will also be inserted in the Downeast magazine (July and August issues) for out of state subscriptions.
Not all lobsters are from Maine. Why is Maine lobster the best? The heritage, tradition, taste – are established in the mind of consumers and chefs. It gives us additional leverage in the marketplace and it allows us to have communication with media, market, etc.
The MLPC is reserving the right to change the images used in the promotional materials.
D. Rice suggested that this not be mandatory for dealers. Without elaborating, there are some downsides of just Maine lobsters. There may be times that the product may not be a good image of a Maine Lobster. Used selectively, this program could be an asset, but proceed slowly. For example, in California, Maine Lobster was boycotted.
Regarding Marine Stewardship Council certification, Kristen has spoken with people promoting Alaskan Pollock. They said it was difficult, but worth it. The MPLC is considering getting an evaluation to determine if there is any value in this type of program. Within 3 years, Wal-Mart will be requiring that their seafood products be certified. They are a major market. We can’t control distribution. Around here, lobsters are likely Maine lobsters. That is not necessarily true in New England.
The Commissioner explained that both programs may have risks, but with the changing marketplace, they should be considered.
4. Old Business
a. Continued Lobster Effort Discussion
The effort discussion was moved to the end of the meeting.
b. How to Proceed with Safety Equipment
The Commercial Fishing Safety Council (CFSC) is moving forward with the drill instructor’s course and implementing that into the apprentice program. The CFSC will be seeking funds from the Lobster License Plate Board to help offset the costs to apprentices.
The CFSC is also proposing to implement the Coast Guard safety gear requirements for state boats. They streamlined the boundary line into Coast Guard rules and turned it into our 3-mile line. People are encouraged to attend the upcoming public hearings to provide suggestions or feedback. All State of Maine commercial fishing license holders will be required to have safety gear – it‘s not specific to registered or documented vessels, but rather boat size and distance from shore. All State of Maine fishermen will have the same rules – it can’t be less restrictive than the federal rules.
5. Reports and Updates
a. DMR Updates
Rulemaking – Double Tagging in Zone G & Zone F. There is a Public Hearing Thursday, March 30th at 6:00 p.m. at the Scarborough Town Hall. The Commissioner is proposing a double lobster trap tagging provision that uses removable tags by non-Zone G lobstermen, who fish in Zone G, when fishing traps in Zone G, and by non-Zone F lobstermen, who fish in Zone F, when fishing traps in Zone F, in order to increase the Marine Patrol’s ability to enforce the current 49/51% trap component of the Lobster Zone Limited Entry rules of Zone G and Zone F. This proposed tagging requirement would be effective September 1, 2006.
This has been discussed since 2001. Some Zone F fishermen were reportedly fishing all their tags in Zone G.
The idea is there will be a removable tag specific to a license number and have the words Zones F&G on them. Any non-Zone G licensees fishing traps in Zone G waters west of the western line must affix a second removable tag to all lobsters traps when fished in that zone. Any non-Zone F licensees fishing traps in Zone F waters east of the eastern line must affix a second removable tag to all lobster traps when fished in that zone. The first tag is affixed permanently. The removable tag can be removed if the gear is shifted. The absence of a second removable tag on traps fished in Zone G, by non-Zone G licensees, and in Zone F, by non-Zone F licensees, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation.
There was a question whether someone would be in violation if they were missing one removable tag. Col. Fessenden explained that the officers use discretion whenever looking at any situation. He also stated that Marine Patrol does not think everybody is violating the law.
The penalty for this violation is the same for every rule, possibly license suspension, loss of gear, etc. Only 40-50 license suspension hearings are done per year.
A Zone F fisherman expressed that this is just one more step he (and Zone F fishermen) have to worry about and the rest of the zones do not have to worry.
This table and the whole room care about limited entry by zones. We elected to not have people boxed in, so we have the 49/51%. We drew these lines. When we moved to limited entry by zone, with support of this Council, that was a state law change. Otherwise, how do you enforce the different ratios? There are tagging problems on most of the boundary lines – A & B, C & D, D & E and E & F. It has been a recurring problem in Zones F & G. The Department is proposing to address this with a double lobster trap tagging provision. People are shifting back in traditional ways and this is an attempt to make it enforceable.
A Zone F fisherman stated that it is just a handful of guys that are cheating the system, but this change is going to affect every F & G boundary fisherman. There is no solid proof that the Zone F guys are cheating – they are only allegations.
It was suggested then to do this for the whole coast. Why single out just Zones F & G? Most of the complaints have come from that area for years. There will be a Public Hearing on March 30th and the deadline for written comments is April 10, 2006. When it comes back to the DMR Advisory Council, public comments will not be accepted in that setting. Comments must be submitted by April 10th. The Department would be receptive to putting it forward for the whole state if it proves successful, but Zones F & G are where the complaints are coming from.
ASMFC – On March 15, 2006, ASMFC approved releasing the Draft Addendum VIII to Amendment 3 for public comment. Four public hearings will be held in Maine the week of April 10th – Portland, Rockland, Machias and Ellsworth. The Draft Addendum explores establishing new biological reference points based on recommendations from the 2006 Stock Assessment, which moves us away from the F10 model. It also investigates setting up a much needed consistent coastwide monitoring and reporting criteria for the lobster fishery. Insufficient data is the primary limitation on the ability to manage the fishery.
The State of Maine is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, but we’re in the red light with effort. Because of what was in the Stock Assessment particularly relating to effort, the Commission thought it was important to get additional data in this fishery.
In this ASFMC Addendum process, Public Hearings will be held in April and the Commission will meet in May to vote on options to be included in the final Addendum.
B. Doane stated that the industry has already informed the ASMFC that they do not want mandatory reporting.
The Department’s position will be to vote for new reference points and explain the unique difficulties in Maine with mandatory reporting. However, if they both are approved, the ASMFC will set a date and will find the State of Maine out of compliance for not having the enhanced data collection.
The other States will want Maine to collect this information. With the Stock Assessment saying we need better data, like it or not, it’s coming our way. We need to head it off and tell them what we’re willing to report. We participate in the ACCSP. Who better to collect the data than us? They had a fairly aggressive schedule. We’ll have a discussion in May or August.
D. McIntire suggested going to a lottery to get a good sampling of the length of the coast. Is the State of Maine going to have the resources to process this info? Every fisherman providing data - what does that give us?
D. Rice commented that North Carolina used data collection to hold NMFS back. It was a benefit for the state of North Carolina.
Another suggestion was maybe there would be more industry acceptance if two people from each zone keep the books for the districts for a year and couple this with increased sea sampling.
The Area 1 LCMT will be meeting soon to discuss management areas. In the current Area 1 Plan using the F10 model, we would have to implement a vent increase in 2007. Since the last Stock Assessment says we’re not overfished and if the new biological reference points are adopted, we will not have to have the vent increase.
Whale Update
Steve Robbins explained that he began as a gear specialist for DMR in June 2005. He is working on a project where fishermen are using experimental rope and documenting that information in a logbook. Anyone that has a logbook to turn in, please contact Steve to make arrangements for pick-up.
DMR Resource Scientist Erin Estrada will be administering data on whale sightings, foraging, whale characteristics and also looking at fixed gear in the Maine lobster fishery.
Currently, the State of Maine is waiting on the long delayed final rule from NMFS for a possible implementation date of 2008.
The Commissioner stated that the Take Reduction Team will meet this fall. They will talk about pending rules, the vertical line issue and the DAMs from this past winter. From a state perspective, we have a proposed exempted area roughly mirroring 3 miles.
The Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation (GOMLF) has secured $2 million for 2006 and is in the process of building a poly buyback program to take place within the year starting in the southern Maine area. If it’s successful, they could potentially get more money in 2007 and 2008 and move up the coast. Contact the GOMLF for more info.
Patrol Update – Col. Fessenden discussed the gear conflict meetings that were held last fall. The overall feedback was good and saw great compliance. There were a number of draggers complimenting lobstermen. The information that was shared was the most helpful. There were a few issues. Gerry Cushman stated that he heard good feedback and this year was not as confusing and tense as other years. Dan Miller also expressed that a few lobstermen complained, but overall, it was positive.
The Department is working on some sort of violations network. For example, if there’s a big theft of lobsters in one area and they are going 60 miles away to sell them.
Specialist Logan running the P/V Vigilant got his hand smashed while working. He crushed some of the bones in his hand and will be out for a while.
Marine Patrol is recruiting for officers in anticipation of attending the Academy in August.
Sgt. John Williams will be retiring at the end of the month after 30 years of service.
b. Zone/Industry Issues – Summaries
Zone A: J. Drouin reported that Zone A met back in January. Carl Wilson gave the Stock Assessment Presentation. They discussed the Seed Fund money and hatcheries. Continued effort discussions were also on the agenda.
Zone B: A Zone B representative was not present at the meeting.
Zone C: A Zone C representative was not present at the meeting.
Zone D: D. Miller stated that Zone D’s last meeting was on March 13th. There were two major discussion items. One was the effort reduction questionnaire that was sent out to Zone D fishermen. The Zone Council decided that there was a strong enough return to pursue effort reduction dialogues. District meetings are being held at the end of March, beginning of April. The second issue was the Zone D & E boundary line. It is primarily a New Harbor issue. Zone E fishermen are coming into Zone D, but Zone D fishermen can’t go into Zone E. The next Zone D meeting is scheduled for April 4th.
Zone E: A Zone E representative was not present at the meeting.
Zone F: E. Thomas reported that Zone F met on February 2. They voted to have a ballot sent out with the lobster management apprentice options B & C. The Zone F Council will meet on April 6th to discuss the results of that referendum.
Zone G: J. Alwin stated that Zone G met on January 4th. The major issue was double tagging. Carl Wilson gave his Stock Assessment presentation. Steve Robbins was there to talk about whales. A week later, another meeting with the Commissioner was held in Cape Porpoise to follow up on F & G double tagging issues.
Kathleen Reardon expressed that the Department is trying to find sea samplers willing to make 2-3 trips per month, plus data entry a ½ day per trip. Please contact Carl Wilson if interested. This program will be working with the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation.
Another project for this summer is the Ventless Trap Project. There is a week left to collect bids for the project and less than 20 bids have been submitted. A total of 9 days are fished in June, July and August. We’re trying to get people to contract the whole area. B. Baines commented that this could cause problems for guys not fishing their own harbors.
To follow up on an earlier conversation, Tom Fletcher who works for NMFS in Gloucester stated that Protected Resources are a huge issue in his office. One third of the staff works on Protected Resources. With regard to landings information, NMFS absolutely doesn’t want to have to do reporting for Maine. In light of the recent Draft Addendum that ASMFC is proposing, Maine should highly consider doing their own data collection/ reporting rather than having the feds do it.
4. a. Continued Lobster Effort Discussion (Deputy Commissioner David Etnier)
To follow up on effort reduction discussions from recent LAC meetings and the Forum, Deputy Commissioner David Etnier reviewed some pros and cons on the major issues, some of which are fairly flexible and can be done by policy and regulation.
Zone D sent an effort reduction questionnaire to the Zone D fishermen. Nearly 300 license holders responded with their ideas of the problems and possible solutions. One of the most frequently raised issues was that replacement tags are being used illegally. Why doesn’t DMR do something?
In 2005, there were 175,000 replacement trap tags being sold, over and above the 3.2 million tags being sold. Zone D had the most replacement tags at 42,000. Since the year 2000, replacement tags sold for all the zones averages approximately 4.5-5% per year of total tags sold.
Col. Fessenden stated that Marine Patrol has been criticized for not enforcing the 10% over. It’s more difficult to enforce than the 49/51%. It’s another impossible rule for us to enforce. The problem must be addressed by changing the way the tags are issued.
D. Etnier distributed a draft trap tag replacement policy for discussion purposes. Three concepts were proposed with their respective pros and cons.
Concept One: Dispense only as requested throughout the year
Concept Two: Delay release of any replacement tags until some point in the fall and by request only
Concept Three: Eliminate them – only exception being a catastrophic loss
B. Baines referred to Concept Two and suggested that a license holder could be eligible for a third each month of your max replacement tags (80) in July, August and September. D. McIntire agreed that there’s some merit in Concept Two.
Another suggestion was that if you can’t enforce it, back it off to 5% replacement tags – only get 840.
J. Drouin revisited discussions from the May 2005 LAC meeting. Of the 8 people that were voting, people were supportive to distribute local replacement tags only on an as needed base. Further discussions at DMR proved that this might be more difficult. It would take time away from enforcement activity by Marine Patrol if they were used as the primary means of distribution.
Downeast fishermen know that they can’t fish replacement tags. We hear it that it’s a problem to the western part of the state.
J. Alwin stated that once the state went to replacement tags, the trap limit became 880.
D. McIntire explained that there are legitimate losses of traps. It’s a very sensitive issue that divides wharfs. There are some people that if they lose a trap, they replace a trap, and not go over the 800. If you can’t show the replacement tags, it’s prima facie evidence. Why is that so hard? Where are the 880?
G. Cushman reported that at their recent joint District meeting (Districts 5, 6 and 12) there were 75 fishermen that were asked how they felt about replacement tags. 73 out of 75 said get rid of them. There are 15 draggers, two ferries and every yacht gets fuel going through there. It says a lot when they say get rid of them.
In the whole concept of effort reduction, replacement tags don’t add up to much, but status quo isn’t good either. Please bring this to the zones and bring feedback to the next meeting.
Other issues brought to the table include:
• Latent licenses “Use it or lose it” concept
• A tiered license system
• Licenses as currency doesn’t make sense – should use tags as currency
• Students and waiting lists
The timeframe for this Council concerning tags will be summer. DMR has to order tags by September for the following year.
B. Doane commented that Portland Harbor is unique. There are draggers, two anchorages where tugs come in, recreational boaters and lobstermen are fishing in channels. Now they’ve dredged the area, they’ll be getting more tugs. In some cases, gear could be lost quickly. Fishermen need something, whether it is through Marine Patrol or some sort of access.
If every existing student license holder became a commercial license holder and went to 800 tags, that would equal 675,000 tags. Right now students have 53,000 tags. Not including students or apprentices, 1,330 people fish 400 traps or less. Maybe use control dates for those licenses with 400 traps or less and not include them into the exit ratio. Looking at this Council, we should have recommendations coming out in the fall - by October.
Zone D has too much effort and we need to do something or see what the state does and we’ll react to that.
J. Drouin acknowledged that things could be done, but sometimes with unintended consequences. Because Zone A was getting so many apprentices in their open zone, they had to go to Limited Entry.
License numbers are going down. Zone C wasn’t even closed and their numbers are going down. Why not propose that everybody gets 400, 600 and 800 - Part timers, full time fishermen and full time lobstermen. Have a retroactive control date. It’s up to you to prove if you want more than 400. Are these proposals coming from the Department or coming from industry? We should meet more frequently for the next few months.
Commissioner Lapointe cautioned that retroactive control dates may be a problem legally, depending on how it is done.
6. Set Next Meeting Date and Agenda
The date of the next Lobster Advisory Council meeting was set for April 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. at the Department of Human Services on Civic Center Drive in Augusta.
Next agenda: Allocation of seed lobster fund money
Seed Lobster Fund RFPs – recommendations by subcommittee
Replacement trap tag policy at next meeting
Effort discussions
MOTION: (D. Rice and T. Hoskins) To adjourn. Unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
