The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Division of Marine Fisheries

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02202

August 22, 1999

Dear Pat:

We offer the following comments on the Spiny Dogfish FMP. As one of the few states with high landings of dogfish and with a serious investment in the future of the fishery, we were hopeful that sensible and effective management of this species in federal waters would sustain markets and continue to provide for some fishermen an alternative to overfished groundfish. Unfortunately, this FMP will do neither. This FMP will cripple the fishery and dramatically impact Massachusetts ports (such as Plymouth, Scituate, and Chatham) where dogfish landings and their value dominate total landings.

We certainly understand all the controversy surrounding the development of this FMP. After all, DMF was a major antagonist constantly challenging the FMP’s logic and the scientific analyses leading to the conclusion that the directed fishery must be stopped entirely with a one-year exit fishery and four years with no directed fishery. At first, the hiatus was to be 10 years, but the Councils backed off this strategy as a compromise to justify dropping the Bmsy proxy from 200,000 mt to 180,000 mt, (females greater than 80 cm).

We still feel this Bmsy proxy is unnecessarily high and derived from a subjectively chosen dome-shaped stock-recruitment curve (Ricker curve) with the just-as-appropriate non-dome-shaped relationship (Beverton curve) and its implications receiving absolutely no consideration. Being driven by this artificial proxy (one needs a dome to get a peak or maximum), both Councils were compelled to act quickly and, some would say rashly, to give this species the same status as coastal sharks, a status for dogfish we still insist is undeserved.

We suspect it will do little good for us to reiterate in detail our earlier comments on the Plan. Those comments were provided to the Council on November 1998. We’ve made our arguments with the Councils and with the joint SSCs of both Councils, but to no avail. Nevertheless, we feel that with the plan so close to implementation, NMFS is now obliged to address some serious plan omissions.

First, the plan assumes it will take 5 years to reach the Bmsy proxy with annual quotas of about 3 million lbs. after an exit fishery of 9.3 million lbs. from November 1 through April 2000 (42.1% of the 22 million lbs. May 1999 through April 30, 2000 quota). However, we note that these quotas are based on assumed continued annual discards (100% mortality) of about 80,000 mt (176,320,000 lbs.)! The model used to project allowable landings during the 5-year period assumes this level of discards and mortality. This fact is undisclosed in the plan, and it must be revealed and explained. Otherwise, there is no way to reconcile this important plan assumption with the Councils’ need to satisfy National Standard 9.

The 80,000 mt of discard was the assumed level of discard in 1997 and was used as a constant in modeling allowable landings for the 5-year period. In keeping with this assumption, allowable landings were reduced by 80% each year to account for expected discards. This amount of discard compares with 20,450 mt (about 45 million lbs.) of landings in 1997. Once again, we ask how the plan will drastically reduce discards. At this time, the plan proposes no strategy to reduce this huge amount of discard. The stock rebuilding schedule cannot be met without an effective control on discard.

Also, with the directed fishery closed beginning in May 2000 and assuming dogfish female biomass will increase to the target, without effective preventive measures to reduce discards, this increased abundance will increase discards. This is not a new problem for the Councils or NMFS. Gulf of Maine cod and summer flounder continue to challenge us all: as abundance increases, with restrictive trip limits, discards increase. In a July 28 letter to you, the New England Council highlighted this potential problem.

Furthermore, total biomass of dogfish continues to be very high. Total biomass calculated at the last SAW revealed a biomass of about 600,000 mt. Biomass of 36-79 cm dogfish climbed dramatically to a historical high of about 400,000 mt. The last NEFSC spring survey indicated that dogfish dominated catch. The potential for high levels of discard is high.

The Plan proposes fishing mortality (F) to be 0.20 from November 1999 through April 2000 and then 0.03 for the remaining 4 years of the recovery schedule. Since bycatch and discard of dogfish in other fisheries; e.g., otter trawlers targeting groundfish, are responsible for a substantial fraction of total mortality (SAW conclusion), how can the Councils hold any hope that the extremely low level of F (0.03) can ever be achieved. This F target is unrealistic and will lead to a closure of the fishery far beyond 2004. The Plan does not acknowledge this eventuality. The Plan rebuilding schedule of five years is far too optimistic and must be revisited with dogfish discards in other fisheries being a major consideration.

Similarly, because the Councils consider dogfish to be "overfished" when F on adult females exceeds 0.08, dogfish will be "overfished" for many years to come despite the stoppage of the directed fishery. Of note, based on "current" abundance of adult females (127,000 mt), dogfish are not overfished. Abundance must drop below 100,000 mt before overfishing occurs. This dual definition of overfishing is quit confusing, and it should be simplified.

We agree the dogfish fishery needs management and restrictions. Assuming the NMFS spring surveys provide reliable measures of the abundance of young dogfish (less than 36 cm), the Councils with state support, especially through ASMFC, should be concerned about the low level of young dogfish in recent years. We assume the 1998 and 1999 surveys showed low abundance (true?). Nevertheless, we are unconvinced that the Plan’s shutdown of the entire fishery is justified. Specifically, there are long overdue analyses requested by the Councils’ Dogfish Committee – analyses regarding: (1) whether the resource can support a directed fishery on intermediate sizes of dogfish thereby reducing fishing pressure on females, especially the large females; and (2) the effects of different discard assumptions on allowable landings during the recovery period.

We are greatly disappointed the Councils and NMFS haven’t dealt with this important directive from the Councils’ Dogfish Committee. These are critical analyses. The fishing industry and the Commonwealth are done a disservice by a foreclosure of other management options that might be revealed by those analyses.

In summary, we continue to argue that the proxy for Bmsy and the F threshold level are unnecessarily restrictive. Because discards in other fisheries are not addressed, these arbitrary definitions of overfishing will keep dogfish in an "overfished" condition indefinitely. The exit fishery and four years of no directed fishery have resulted from an assumed level of discards of about 80,000 mt per year during the "rebuilding" period (model results). Those fishermen and dealers who have followed Council and NMFS’s urgings to find alternative species now will find themselves out of business due to dogfish discards in other fisheries. For this reason it is imperative for the Council and NMFS to explore other alternatives to keep the dogfish fishery viable.

Finally, we emphasize that the Councils did not take 5-year rebuilding schedule to public hearing. Only 10 years was considered. Therefore, the Councils erred by adopting a 5-year schedule resulting in more restrictive regulations. We appreciate the 5-year schedule was the only way to convince the Mid-Atlantic Council to adopt the lower 180,000 mt proxy for Bmsy for adult females. Nevertheless, by adopting the shortened rebuilding schedule, the Councils and NMFS are more restrictive than they need to be.

We intend to submit additional comments on NMFS proposed regulations to implement the FMP. We understand these comments are due by September 17. We hope you’ll agree it’s in the best interest of the Councils and NMFS to give serious consideration to our comments. After all, NMFS has urged states to adopt complementary measures for state waters, and ASMFC recently obliged by giving priority to the development of an interstate plan.

The Commonwealth will remake our arguments and insist that other options be examined. We anticipate that NMFS will be engaged in that debate. Be forewarned that we will not close our fishery for dogfish in our waters when discarding in other fisheries in the EEZ will continue unabated and at high, uncontrolled levels. Our position must have a familiar ring to you (scup). There must be reasonable alternatives for dogfish conservation, and I hope we can all work together to find those alternatives. Some have already been suggested, but they lay fallow for lack of analyses and discussion.

Sincerely yours,

Philip G. Coates,
Director

cc
Mass. Marine Fisheries Commission
Thomas Hill
James Gilford
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Jack Dunnigan