Skip Maine state header navigation
Area 1
Lobster Conservation Management Team Minutes
American Legion Log Cabin –Yarmouth, Maine
January 29, 2002 – 10:00 a.m.
A meeting of the Area 1 Lobster Conservation Management Team (Area 1 LCMT) was held on this date at the American Legion Log Cabin in Yarmouth, Maine. Voting members of the Area 1 LCMT attending this meeting included (12 members and 1 alternate): Chairman Jon Carter (Maine), Norbert Lemieux (Maine), Mike Myrick (Maine), Bruce Fernald (Maine), David Wessel (Maine), Dana Rice (Maine), Damon Frampton (New Hampshire), Joe Golter (New Hampshire), Bob Nudd (New Hampshire), Mike Dearborn (Massachusetts), Gary Ostrom (Massachusetts), Bernie Feeney (Massachusetts) and Alternate Bob Martin (Massachusetts).
Non-voting Alternates present: Alternate David Kandrich (Massachusetts) and Alternate Mike Flanigan (New Hampshire).
Area 1 LCMT members not present included: Christopher Bates (Maine), Larry Knapp (Maine), John Butler (Maine), Thomas Lawson (Maine), Dwight Carver (Maine), William Bartlett (Massachusetts) and Fred Dauphinee – Massachusetts (represented by Alternate Bob Martin).
Also present: Pat White (Maine ASMFC Commissioner and Maine Lobstermen’s Association), G. Ritchie White (New Hampshire ASMFC Commissioner), Bill Adler (Massachusetts ASMFC Commissioner and Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association). Bob Baines and Todd Jesse (ASMFC Lobster Advisory Panel). Terry Stockwell, Carl Wilson, Alison Sirois and Sarah Cotnoir (Maine DMR). Colonel Joe Fessenden, Lt. David Mercier and Sgt. Jon Cornish (Maine Marine Patrol). Bob Glenn and Jim Fair (Massachusetts DMF). Clare McBane (New Hampshire Fish & Game). David Cousens and Patrice Farrey (Maine Lobstermen’s Association). Clare Grindal (Downeast Lobstermen’s Association).
Maine: Bill Anderson. New Hampshire: Dennis Abbott. Massachusetts: Alex Ferent, David Breen, Bill Doherty, Doug Sibbald, Bill Lister, Warren Brow, and John Fleck, Jr.
The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m.
Welcome
Chairman Jon Carter welcomed everyone back to discuss the implementation of the Area 1 Plan. He reported that at the October Lobster Management Board meeting in Rockland, an Amendment was made to the Area 1 Plan. The Amendment specified that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would monitor the percentage of v-notched egg-bearing female lobsters in commercial catches during 2002; and that if the observed rate does not reach 50% by the end of 2002, the Commonwealth will consider additional management measures. As the Amendment was not a part of the LCMT 1 Plan, Carter encouraged the Team to collectively discuss implementation issues for all of Area 1.
Approval of Minutes (March 13, 2001 and September 6, 2001)
MOTION: (B. Feeney and D. Rice) To accept the minutes of the March 13, 2001 and September 6, 2001 meetings as written. All in favor.
G. Ostrom also agreed and appreciated the fact that there was a consensus from the team to work on this Plan as a group of states. He stated that achieving 50% by the end of this year is a completely unrealistic goal for the amount of time available, approximately 6 months.
Addressing questions concerning the F10 conservation value of the original LCMT 1 Plan; J. Fair explained that because a specific management option was not clear but rather a group of options (vent increases, gauge changes) that could be revisited at a later time, the Plan didn’t meet the Technical Committee’s review and the Board sent the Plan back to the LCMT.
G. Ostrom wanted to list some issues that he believed needed to be addressed to hold or reduce effort.
- Latent effort.
- Historical based effort – Without it, the license holder will be able to fish in Area 1 increasing effort.
- Working on a cap will help with the escalation of gear going into the water.
B. Feeney explained that Massachusetts might be facing a measure increase to 3-1/2”, plus some discussion of a 25% trap reduction. If Massachusetts implements their Commonwealth options, the Amendment will impose even more limitations compounding the restrictions. Once this goes through the regulatory process, it would be implemented by May 1st. There is no realistic way that Massachusetts’s fishermen can fish through that many lobsters and notch 50% of the females between May and December. If the 50% is not met, Massachusetts will be subject to two plans. Meeting the requirements of both plans would result in a much higher F-number that would exceed the desired threshold, while placing undue burden on the fishermen. With two conservation plans in place, including historical participation, the only option 480 fishermen would have is to fish in Area 1, which would increase effort.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire have catch reports. Maine knows how many tags they sell; they do not know how many are fishing in the water. If Area 1 went to historical participation, there was a question on how Maine would determine how many people are fishing. If caps went into effect, it was suggested that it could be done on a local or state basis.
N. Lemieux explained that there needs to be a tolerance for virgin eggers. Lobsters will need to be notched and released. It will take some time to get through the population. These numbers should not be held against the fishermen that are making an effort to participate in this plan. Whoever is recording the data, should consider these numbers.
B. Feeney reiterated that in order for Massachusetts to achieve 50%, it would need additional time to fish through the population. Considerations should be allowed as long as there are steady increases of even 10-12%.
J. Fair stated that the average fisherman in Massachusetts could sit back and do nothing and still be in compliance. However, if they don’t punch the lobsters, another plan would have to be implemented.
There was some Team concern that the data is coming from the lobsters hauled up onto commercial lobster boats. There needs to be additional means of considering this data.
C. Wilson reported that each state has established sea sampling programs. Currently, in Maine 75% of the egg-bearing lobsters are notched. Data methods may vary from electronic logbooks, which would be verifiable with sea sampling. It can also be evaluated through trawl surveys. In the model world, the data is analyzed by the lobsters that you “encounter”. When the State of Maine measures v-notches, it is as they come aboard, not when they leave the boat. It’s a mark recapture experiment – the probability of it being caught and then the probability of it being v-notched.
Over the last 20 years, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association notch survey almost tracks identically with the sea sampling program. It has been between 70-80%.
There was some discussion that if a virgin tail is caught and released, there is no way to know how soon they will be of egg-bearing age. Fishermen shouldn’t be held in jeopardy when they release a virgin tail that all of sudden becomes egg-bearing age. The lobsters need to captured to be marked and recaptured to be counted.
If 65% of lobsters we see in Maine are second time spawners, couldn’t there be some mathematical formula to calculate an attainable rate? Since Massachusetts has not historically notched their lobsters, another consideration would be to combine Maine’s v-notching rate, with New Hampshire’s rate and Massachusetts’ rate and look at a percent increase for Area 1.
C. Wilson reported that the Technical Committee would be looking at the monthly v-notching rates, expecting that the highest rates right before they drop their eggs. There is also a seasonal component.
J. Carter claimed that the 50% recapture rate is completely unachievable. Other measures that have been asked of Area 1, haven’t asked for results in such a short period of time. However, the Commonwealth will consider additional measures if this goal is not met. Time is the factor – there will be no time to see the results.
B. Feeney made it clear that Area 1 is being held accountable for an F# now, based on data that is so far behind. If the Commonwealth was falling behind, it would be nice to know in a few months’ time.
B. Glenn reported that in 2000 strictly using a trap survey, Massachusetts saw less than 10% rate of v-notching of egg-bearing females.
G. Ostrom stated latent effort is also a negative factor in this plan. Currently, Massachusetts fishes 385,000 traps. If Massachusetts’ 400 latent licenses started fishing, they could potentially put 320,000 traps back in the water. He described a concern in Massachusetts for Maine’s increase in gear. Would there be a way to cap effort? What if we attained 100% observed v-notching, but still didn’t achieve F10%? What if Massachusetts puts in another 320,000 traps and New Hampshire puts in more traps, it would still be over.
Massachusetts is addressing the 400 plus latent licenses. With this process, the license holder can purchase their license, never break a rule, but over time if he’s not fishing the license, the license will only be worth 400 traps.
There needs to be some protection for the guy fishing 200-300 traps in a 24 footer to not be bought out by a bigger boat, and adding those traps onto the already 600-800 traps. Perhaps a tiered system could help cap potential effort.
No historical participation and lack of a control date in Area 1 will factor against us. This lobster fishery is the only fishery that isn’t being regulated with a control date. However, looking back at the rate of one prior regulation of “buy traps or lose them”, we don’t want to react and get a regulation in place that defeats itself.
B. Feeney asked what happens if a new model comes along in 3 years – will there be any flexibility in this plan? And what if we’re doing what has been accepted in the plan, but with a new model, only gives us F8%?
J. Carter also asked what if all these things we’ve been doing all along without any additional changes, but simply changing to a new model, yielded F10%?
C. Wilson explained that additional models are like a second opinion. Things may be better or they may not. With the development of a new model, there would probably be a new definition of over-fishing. For the time being, we should work with what we have.
There has been some rumor that F20% was a number that would be looked at south of Area 2. Area 2 has a very serious disease problem and may be considering F20% as their target. Area 3 is targeting the brood stock. However, F20% is a number used more for finfish. F10% was chosen for lobsters in Area 1, as they are very resilient. Gauge increase is viable for warmer waters – the GOM is different.
Wilson described the two reference points. The target is the ideal goal. The threshold is where you are at, and generally, “bad things are happening”. Therefore, F10% is a threshold, not a target.
If Massachusetts doesn’t meet the 50%, will DMF give time to come up with something else or will it just be considered incomplete? J. Fair explained that it would go to public hearing and the state directors wouldn’t have a problem giving something back. It is only Massachusetts using that 50% target. There was some concern that Area 1 would break up since was only a Mass target.
D. Cousens stated that there is a problem with trying to implement rules fast. Spending lots of time and effort on that Amendment will break up Area 1. The Technical Committee needs to work on the model. Only the egg-bearing females are notched. There are a massive amount of lobsters that are not egg-bearing lobsters that do get notched. This should be considered as some sort of a cushion.
J. Carter concurred that credit should be given when egg-bearers are re-notched. Whether a lobster has eggs or not, it should be given credit as a potential egg-bearer.
B. Feeney reported that initially, there was some discussion about returning a certain amount each year. With the recent Amendment, this is no longer a discussion item since Mass fishermen are getting between 30-70 that need to be notched per haul, making it a slower process.
Col. Fessenden reminded the team that with Area 1’s zero tolerance, any lobster with a nick is illegal. Parts of Massachusetts in Area 3 and OCC are allowed to keep a ¼” v.
G. Ostrom stated that Massachusetts is going from 10-pot recreation fishery down to 5 pots, cutting the trap numbers by 8%. Mass is short on marine patrol officers. A suggestion was made to have someone sit in plain clothes and start checking some coolers.
There’s much more incentive to notch since these big lobsters return so much back to the fishery. However, there is concern about finding a safe place to put an oversize – with divers on one side and recreational fishers on the other. Mass is part of Area 1 and this needs to be addressed as a whole team. Area 1 needs until 2008 for this plan to work, not until the end of 2002.
Audience member Bill Anderson was a long time supporter of not going up on the gauge. After listening to people talking about going up on the measure, he wrote up a letter, which he distributed to the panel. About 5 years ago, Susan Waddy gave a presentation trying to support the reasons for needing an over-size measure. Her work is now complete and will be making a presentation at the forum.
Going up on the measure will result in the lobsters not molting as often. As females start to mature, they start skipping a year. There will be surges, sometimes skipping two years, as they get up in size.
B. Feeney stated that a 5” lobster would produce at a ratio of 27-1. Even though they molt less often, they can extrude eggs twice a year. A gauge increase will not get result in a brood stock situation. Of the lobsters up to 3-3/4”, less than 10% of the females are fertile. A 1-1/2 to 2 pound female lobster is equivalent to 17 one-pound lobsters, which should be considered.
N. Lemieux explained if a lobster comes aboard and there’s a mark on it, re-notch it and throw it back. A survey was done showing 2:1 “v-notched females with no eggs” to “the eggers with v’s”.
Wilson described the Technical Committee positive concerns of throwing back in areas that are not notching. The idea is that you are putting notched lobsters back in the water – an investment in the fishery. Between 30-40% of every female lobster in sea sampling is returned without eggs. Wilson suggested that team members encourage fishermen in their areas to v-notch. V-notching is the only reason it satisfies the model. It is not necessary to have 100% participation to have 100% v-notching.
D. Rice added that everyone involved are all citizens of the GOM. Increasing the measure will be a cause to constantly react to regulations. Massachusetts is just asking that they have more than 6 months to come up with 50% before there are any more changes to the rules and regulations.
P. White suggested making any written recommendations to the board. If Maine has been notching for 20 years, and is only reaching 75%, how is Massachusetts supposed to reach 50% in 6 months? This is just setting us up for failure.
B. Feeney asked about a contingency or some other evaluation of the v-notching method, to include a definitive increase, for example 10%, to somehow correspond that to the F#. Other concerns include, a desire to have a control date, latent effort, and capping effort. Wilson reported that there will be a new stock assessment in a year and a half.
B. Baines asked about addressing the Lobster Management Board that the team is concerned that it is not possible to reach the 50% that is specified in this Amendment. Even with 100% participation, it will take longer than 6 months to reach 50%.
J. Fair explained that he told Commissioner Lapointe he would support this Amendment, if there was some way to measure and some way to enforce. 50% was just a random number in order for people to see the importance.
P. White emphasized the great concern with the documentation of that number. Numbers from 2001 weren’t even available when that 50% number was stated. Maximum benefit will not be realized until the last day of the year. J. Fair expected that the numbers would be very low at the beginning.
D. Kandrich inquired about getting information (status) half through to determine how Massachusetts is doing. Start the discussion now – if Massachusetts is pushed, consider coming down on the oversize.
Massachusetts will have more work right now. Even if every individual isn’t notching, other fishermen who will notch it will catch the lobster.
D. Cousens suggested the team write a letter to the Lobster Management Board stating the problem with the Amendment (time frame).
There was a question about a temporary measure that all 3 states could implement for a period of time, to let Massachusetts have the time they need to get through their stock of lobsters. A possibility could be a temporary decrease in the maximum gauge or temporary decrease in maximum gauge on female lobsters.
Increasing the gauge would be a problem to everyone. No other areas would be able to truck lobsters in that are undersize.
J. Carter explained that the Board accepted the Plan. The State of Mass didn’t accept the Plan as written. However, the arbitrary 50% is documented. Even if there is 100% compliance, a 50% recapture rate will not be achieved by the end of 2002.
A. Ferent out of Boston explained that the gauge increase has been talked about for 20 years. DMF says it is the only thing that will work. It will put a lot of people out of business. He expressed that it is irresponsible to pick a number of 50% without knowing the facts. They already have it in their mind that it won’t work; they want a gauge increase.
MOTION: (D. Rice and G. Ostrom) The Area 1 LCMT supports the plan and believes it will work; however, the Massachusetts contingency Amendment as written, is of concern to us. It reflects a time frame that is unrealistic and unworkable and request that the timeframe be revisited and allow for a more realistic, achievable amount of time to fish through the population.
After further discussion, the above motion was withdrawn.
AMENDED MOTION: (B. Feeney and G. Ostrom) That the Area 1 LCMT will write a letter expressing its full faith of the plan as proposed and submitted, and believe it will accomplish the original goals. There are some concerns on the contingent Amendment and vote that Massachusetts has put on it, and that there should be two considerations:
1) Some leeway in the timeline given, considering the virgin v-notching program that Massachusetts has just started; and
2) Some leniency on the targeted observed v-notching percentage of 50%.
This Plan is an LCMT local control management team effort that the team has spent 2-1/2 years perfecting. It should be given a chance by the fishermen, as it was written by the fishermen. All in favor.
The Technical Committee reported that they have not yet met to determine how Canadian lobster migration or re-notching will be factored into the model. Even with 100% compliance, factoring in virgin population is a concern. Massachusetts reported that they do not yet know their observed rate of v-notching for 2001. The real-time observed rate is imperative before making such casual decisions, such as the 50%. Jim has challenged the Mass fishermen to come up with some observed catch.
B. Feeney commented about the possibility of historical participation and a control date cap at a future meeting. Both issues addressed as a unit, or all these efforts will be in vain.
T. Stockwell reminded the Team that they have a complete Plan and suggested that they go fishing, v-notch and allow the Plan to “cook” for the next year and a half when there will be a new stock assessment. No changes or new actions need to be immediately considered. He stated that the purpose of the Commonwealth’s Amendment was to strongly encourage Massachusetts industry participation and that the percentage of observed rate will increase over the length of the year. He asked when the Technical Committee will address migration, virgin stocks and re-notching issues?
Wilson replied that the Committee will be addressing these issues this spring.
B. Nudd was concerned about the timing of establishing a control date for participation in the trap fishery. With the displacement of effort in the fishery already with all the changes in the groundfishery, this should be addressed soon. The buyback permit program will have $20M in new capitalization starting February 19th. If CLF wins their suit, there will also be a 63% reduction of days at sea. It was explained that control dates are done through the states, not through the ASMFC (Area 1) process.
Mass has a moratorium with a long waiting list of people 3,000 to get in. Will they give up licenses for money? They can get a license, but not any traps.
An Addendum IV will be proposed. The content of the Amendment will be discussed at the February Lobster Management Board; possibly the inclusion of the Area 2 plan.
Rather than a control date or cap, which still allows transferability, take the latent licenses out of the fishery instead. Once they die, the license is torn up and never re-entered the fishery. B. Adler explained that they can’t transfer those 412 licenses. There is a qualifier requiring the license holder to have fished 4 out of the 5 years.
D. Rice stated that the latent licenses are a state issue, not an area issue. Consideration needs to be made to the possibility of somebody buying a fed permit, going up and down the coast, and landing somewhere else.
Call Terry and/or Sarah with agenda items for a future meeting. Another meeting will be scheduled this spring.
MOTION: (N. Lemieux and G. Ostrom) To adjourn. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.