DMF
NEWS is Published
quarterly by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to inform
and educate its constituents on matters relating to the conservation
and sustainable use of the Commonwealth's marine resources
Volume
17 Third Quarter July - September 1997
- Commonwealth
Sues on Scup
- Saving
Whales - one at a time
- Federal
Rules to Reduce Whale Mortalities Announced
- New
Lobster Rules on the Horizon
- DMF
Research Published
- "Schoolie"
Stripers Diagnosed With lymphocystis
- Groundfish
Update: Are We There Yet?
- Catch
and Release Survivorship Studies on Big-Game Fishes
- Table
of Contents for Rules Update including Public
Hearings, Regulatory Updates, and Legislative Updates
On
June 19 the Commonwealth filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to challenge the final rule
issued by the Secretary of Commerce and promulgated as a Regulatory
Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder,
Scup and Black Sea Bass Fisheries. There has been no satisfactory
federal response to DMF's frequently expressed concern about equity
and fairness for Massachusetts scup fishermen and dealers.
For
this first year of scup quota management, the Amendment has divided
the annual commercial quota into three fishing seasons with the
quota for the summer season (May-October) being allocated between
states based on National Marine Fisheries Service records of scup
landings from 1983-1992. Massachusetts receives only 15.5% of the
summer quota. In contrast, Rhode Island received 60.8% of the summer
quota. About 90% of scup landed annually in Massachusetts is caught
by inshore fishermen in state waters during the spring and summer.
Issues
of equity and fairness for Massachusetts scup fishermen and dealers
include:
- The
Plan Amendment relies on the grossly incomplete and inaccurate
NMFS record of Massachusetts commercial landings of scup used
to establish Massachusetts' percent share of the scup summer quota
and the 1997 summer quota. Landings recorded by NMFS underestimate
actual scup landings because the vast majority of scup fishermen
in Massachusetts are small-scale, inshore fishermen fishing from
small boats and landing in many small ports or at boat ramps.
These fishermen and the dealers who buy their scup never have
been required to report their landings or purchases to NMFS, or
to DMF, with some exceptions.
- As
a consequence of this grossly incomplete and inaccurate record
of scup landings in the Commonwealth, Massachusetts is being forced
to slash the state's scup landings in one year by about 80%, a
dramatic reduction that is inconsistent with the recovery schedule
established by the management plan. The plan has a 7-year recovery
schedule. A consequence of this schedule and the poor record of
landings that led to Massachusetts 362,029 lbs. summer quota,
will be future quotas approaching zero when the schedule calls
for further reductions in landings!
- The
Plan penalizes Massachusetts scup commercial fishermen and dealers
for scup discards occurring at other times, in other areas, and
in other fisheries (e.g., squid). Discards are fish that are caught
but not kept. The Regulatory Amendment requires that discards
of scup be subtracted from total allowable catch to establish
the annual commercial quota. This procedure has no regard for
individual states or types of fishermen, and as a result, the
Regulatory Amendment unfairly and inequitably discriminates against
states such as Massachusetts whose fishermen have relatively low
amounts of scup discard and mortality of those discards because
many of these fishermen fish with weirs, pots, and handline (compared
to the offshore mixed trawl fishery).
The
amount of scup discards can be tremendous. For example, the 1994
scup assessment performed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
concluded that about 3.2 million lbs. of scup were discarded in
offshore and inshore commercial fisheries in 1993. In 1992 discard
was estimated to be stupendous, 12.7 million lbs. with most of these
discards being juvenile fish! In terms of numbers of fish, in 1992,
about 75.3 million fish were discarded. One hundred percent mortality
of these discards is assumed, an incorrect assumption for Massachusetts
inshore scup fisheries.
The
Commonwealth requests the Court hold a hearing on the merits of
the complaint at the earliest possible date and "enter a permanent
injunction enjoining the defendants from: (a) enforcing in any way
the Regulatory Amendment against any fisherman or dealers in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (b) prohibiting landings of scup
from any federally licensed scup fishermen in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and (c) prohibiting any federally licensed dealer
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from purchasing or possessing
scup." The Commonwealth requests that the Court declare the
Regulatory Amendment to be invalid and order the Secretary of Commerce
(or his designee) to develop and approve a new Regulatory Amendment
which is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and which, at a minimum, accurately reflects
the historical scup landings in the Commonwealth.
As
of the date of this newsletter, no hearing date has been set.
by
David Pierce
Return to Table of Contents?
Disentanglement
teams help save right whales
As
fishermen and many others in coastal communities awaited the outcome
of the final federal rules, the June 24 news of an entangled right
whale east of Cape Cod had many holding their collective breath.
Sighs of relief were heard when news broke of the successful disentanglement
by scientists from Provincetown's Center for Coastal Studies (CCS).
Senior scientists Stormy Mayo and David Mattila and operations manager
Ed Lyman succeeded in removing heavy line with an attached float
from an estimated 40 foot (35 ton) right whale. This successful
disentanglement was the first for the Rapid Response Team, organized
last year with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast
Guard.
The
whale was first spotted swimming with the gear off Chatham by commercial
fishermen who reported the sighting to Coast Guard officials. Coast
Guard dispatched a vessel to "stand-by" the whale and
await the disentanglement team, that arrived within hours. The team
determined the whale was in danger, so began their disentanglement
procedures where they attempted to tire the animal (similar to old
whaling techniques) before getting close enough to work. At this
point they were assisted by commercial fisherman Captain John Our
on his 42 ft gillnet vessel, MISS FITZ. From 3:30 until 7:30 p.m.
the whale showed enormous strength by towing the floats, a sea anchor
and the fishing vessel at speeds of 4-5 knots. When the whale finally
tired, Mayo, Mattila and Lyman approached closer in an inflatable
Zodiac, and they were able to cut away thick lines from the whale's
mouth and along its body. The whale, freed east of Nantucket almost
15 miles from Chatham, was reported to be an 8 year old male, #
1971 in the right whale catalog of known individuals. This may have
been the only recorded sighting of this animal in U.S. waters. Most
have been in the Bay of Fundy, and this whale has been seen in the
Bay of Fundy in mid and late July.
This
case was significant for its timing and team effort.
Timing.
This disentanglement occurred while NMFS officials in Gloucester
and Washington were drafting the final rules. NMFS officials wrestled
with various options to reduce serious injuries and mortalities.
These options included fishing area closures, gear modifications,
as well as surveillance and disentanglements efforts. Many fishermen
told NMFS during April public hearings that they would be willing
to report whale sightings and assist disentanglements, but they
argued against closing down areas or being forced to fish untested
gear modifications, that would be costly and result in gear losses.
The successful disentanglement proved that some mortalities can
be averted by time-tested disentanglement techniques. But fishermen's
cooperation to report sightings is critical for success.
Team
Effort. Give credit to CCS, Coast Guard, and cooperating fishermen.
Coast Guard crews from Chatham and Brant Point (Nantucket) played
an important role by remaining on-site with the whale. There have
been previous reports of entangled whales where disentanglement
teams could not locate the whale, so having a crew remain on-site
with the whale is critical.
The
whale was reported first by the Chatham vessel DEL HY, and the disentanglement
was assisted by Captain Our. Captain Our certainly appreciates the
importance of this event. He served along with DMF on the federal
Large Whale Take Reduction Team that met six times last fall and
winter in Boston. John's input at the meetings was invaluable. He
is noted for his candor, expertise, and willingness to contribute
to any efforts to "save the whales." His participation
in the disentanglement of this 35 ton whale off his homeport demonstrated
the role fishermen can play. In fact, CCS may not have been able
to work safely to disentangle the whale without the MISS FITZ helping
to slow it down. Fishery managers have worried that some fishermen
would not report any whale sightings, especially entangled whales,
for fear of closures.
Fishermen
along the coast can point to the Chatham event as one way their
industry can contribute to the solution. To help fishermen identify
entangled whales and decide the best course of action, DMF will
be mailing commercial fishermen a waterproof card created by CCS
scientists. This card highlights the four large whale species and
lists what to do (and not do) if one sees an entangled whale. For
more information contact DMF in Boston.
Congratulations
to the CCS team, Coast Guard and the Chatham fishermen.
By
Dan McKiernan
Return to Table of Contents?
Federal
rules were announced on July 16 designed to reduce large whale (right,
humpback, fin and minke whales) serious injuries and mortalities.
Most of the measures focus on ways to protect endangered right whales,
because its population status is more critical than the other three
species.
These
rules complement DMF's right whale regulations enacted last winter
to minimize entanglement risk. In response to the overwhelming public
response that included 13,000 comments, the new federal rules differ
significantly from those aired at the 12 public hearings along the
east coast in the spring. They deviate so much that NMFS is calling
them "interim" rules and will accept public comment on
them through October 15. Readers should review the NMFS explanations
in the final rule for full details.
To
meet the objectives of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the plan
closes certain critical habitats to most fishing when whales are
expected to occur, and also requires fishermen to modify fishing
practices in other areas and times "to create a realistic potential
of achieving the MMPA goals without sacrificing large parts of a
vital fishing industry." To meet the MMPA goals for right whales,
the rate of serious injuries or mortalities of right whales must
be less than 0.4 per year down from an estimated 1.1 per year.
Here
are the plan's basics:
- Closures
of critical habitats (e.g. Cape Cod Bay) to some gear types during
times when right whales are usually present.
- Restricting
fishing in the southeast U.S. driftnet fishery.
- Prohibit
lobster and sink gillnet gear from being set in ways that result
in floating line on the surface.
- Require
all lobster and gillnet gear have additional characteristics that
reduce entanglement risk (see lists).
- Require
Mid-Atlantic drift gillnets be either tended (fishermen stay with
the gear) or stored on board at night.
- Improve
the voluntary network of persons trained in disentangling right
whales.
- Prohibit
storage of inactive fishing gear in the ocean.
So
how do these rules deviate from those proposed? Here's some of the
highlights that affect Massachusetts fishermen:
The
"onerous" gear modification proposals were not enacted
(except for gear set in certain months in critical habitat). Fishermen
are not required to deploy any untested gear designs, such as the
break-away buoy link that was to approach 150 lbs. breaking strength,
or sinking line between traps. Instead, fishermen may choose from
a menu of gear modifications that could reduce the risk of entanglement.
This list will change in the future when NMFS and DMF research provides
new designs to reduce entanglement risk.
Many
inshore areas are exempt from the rules. NMFS analyzed the distribution
of right, humpback, fin and minke whales and determined regulation
of fishing activity would have no practical benefit for right whale
protection.
Dynamic
area closures to fixed gear were not implemented at this time. This
rule proposed that NMFS would close an area with a "trigger"
when four or more right whales reside in a specific area for two
or more weeks. NMFS conceded that such a closure would result in
fishermen moving the gear to the periphery of the closed area and
when whales leave the area they could encounter a dense field of
gear. Secondly, NMFS noted that it would take at least two additional
weeks to effectively close the area, and by then the whales likely
would have migrated from the area. DMF expressed concern to NMFS
that, as proposed, fishermen would be hesistant to report whale
sightings.
For
Massachusetts fishermen, the state's stringent Cape Cod Bay Critical
Habitat regulations were adopted. For lobstermen and gillnetters
this means a continuation of the rules in place during January -
May 15: ban on surface and sink gillnetting; lobster traps must
be rigged with sinking line between traps (so-called "groundline")
in a multiple trap string, ban on single pots with a minimum 4-pot
string; and buoy lines must be predominately sinking line fitted
with no more than 1/3 floating line at the bottom of the buoy line.
DMF and NMFS are committed to fund research to identify other gear
designs that would reduce entanglement risk that could be required
in Critical Habitat or added to the list for use in other areas.
Critical
Habitats will remain the focus of attention. For example the Great
South Channel (east of Nantucket) will be closed to all lobster
fishing when whales are expected in the area, but Cape Cod Bay remains
open to modified gear. However, Cape Cod Bay would be closed by
NMFS in the event that a right whale serious injury or mortality
occurred from modified gear set in the area during January - May
15.
For
the period May 16- Dec. 31, fishermen who deploy pots in Cape Cod
Bay Critical habitat, their gear must have at least two of the characteristics
from the "list". Outside Critical Habitat, the gear must
have at least one characteristic from the list. Also fishermen who
set gear in adjacent federal waters around Stellwagen Bank or Jeffreys
Ledge must include two features from the "list" year round.
This menu-approach respects time-honored fishing practices that
vary significantly among areas based on various physical forces
(e.g. strong tides) and sociological factors.
DMF
will reconvene the court-appointed Massachusetts Endangered Whale
Working Group - composed of state officials, fishermen, marine mammal
scientists, and environmentalists - in September to discuss the
state's rules enacted last winter in light of the new federal rules
and discuss whether any changes to these rules are warranted. If
the Group suggests any changes, then DMF may submit these recommendations
to NMFS before the October 15 deadline. DMF requests anyone with
comments on possible changes to the current state rules or interim
federal rules affecting fishing in state waters to contact DMF as
well as NMFS before mid-September.
Finally,
DMF has been working with NMFS officials to design and fund surveillance
programs to monitor right whale presence in Cape Cod Bay and other
adjacent waters for 1998. Contact DMF for further details.
By
Dan McKiernan
Return to Table of Contents?
Gillnet
Take Reduction Technology List
Gear
must be rigged with at least one or at least two, depending on where
the gear is set.
- All
buoy lines are 7/16 inches in diameter or less
- All
buoys are attached to the buoy line with a weak link having a
maximum tensile strength of 1100 pounds
- Gear
is anchored with the holding power of a 22 pound danforth-style
anchor at each end
- Gear
is anchored with a 50 pound dead weight at each end
- Nets
are attached to a lead line weighing 100 pounds or more per 300
feet
- Weak
links with a maximum tensile breaking strength of 1100 pounds
between net panels along the float rope
- All
buoy lines are composed entirely of sinking line
Lobster
Take Reduction Technology List
Gear
must be rigged with at least one or at least two, depending on where
the gear is set.
- All
buoy lines are 7/16 inches in diameter or less
- All
buoy lines are attached to the buoy line with a weak link having
a maximum tensile strength of 1100 pounds (weak links may include
swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate diameter, hog
rings, or rope stapled to a buoy stick)
- For
gear set in offshore areas only, all buoys are attached to the
buoy line by a section of rope no more than 3/4 the diameter of
the buoy line
- All
buoys are composed entirely of sinking line
- All
ground lines are made of sinking line
Return
to Table of Contents?
Draft
Amendment # 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American
Lobster
The
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Draft Amendment
#3 to the Lobster Fishery Management Plan will be presented at DMF/MFC
public hearings scheduled for August 25 (Gloucester), August 26
(Boston), and August 27 (Buzzards Bay). The goal of the Amendment
is a healthy lobster resource and a management regime that provides
sustained harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and
provides for cooperative development of conservation measures by
all stakeholders.
Objectives
Some of the Amendment's objectives are to:
- Protect,
increase or maintain, as appropriate, the brood stock abundance
at levels which would minimize risk of stock depletion and recruitment
failure;
- Develop
flexible regional programs to control fishing effort and regulate
fishing mortality rates;
- Implement
uniform collection, analysis, and dissemination of biological
and economic information;
- Maintain
existing social and cultural features of the industry wherever
possible;
- Promote
economic efficiency in harvesting and use of the resource;
- Minimize
lobster injury and discard mortality associated with fishing;
- Increase
understanding of biology of lobster by improving data and stock
assessment models; and
- Improve
cooperation between fishermen and scientists;
This
fishery management plan seeks to restore egg production from the
lobster resource in each of the management areas to greater than
the overfishing level within eight years from adoption of the FMP,
i.e., before the end of 2005. The lobster resource is overfished
when it is harvested at a rate that results in egg production from
the resource, on an egg-per-recruit basis, that is less than 10%
of the level produced by an unfished population.
Management
Program
Because of the variety of fisheries for lobster, and the need for
management that responds to stock and fishery conditions in multiple
specific areas, the management program for Amendment 3 is specified
on a number of levels. This fishery management plan (FMP) recommends
continuation of all of the management measures that have previously
been applicable in federal waters and those measures contained in
Amendment #2 to the ASMFC FMP for Lobster. In addition, Amendment
#3 will also place additional requirements on state conservation
and management programs.
The
minimum size for American lobster shall be 3-1/4 inches carapace
length. Larger sizes are being considered. It shall be unlawful
to possess a V-notched female lobster. The prohibition on possession
of a V-notched female lobster applies to all persons, including,
but not limited to fishermen, dealers, shippers, and restaurants.
All
fishermen must have a permit in order to land or possess a lobster.
The permit must be issued by the jurisdiction in which the lobster
is possessed. Lobsters caught or possessed in federal waters require
a federal permit, plus a permit for each subsequent jurisdiction
into which the lobster is brought before it is landed, until or
unless an area access program is approved by the Board.
The
preferred alternative for pot fisheries is that it shall be unlawful
to possess a trap larger than 50" x 27" x 17", exclusive
of the runners. Fishermen that already have traps larger than this
size shall be permitted a 10-year period to phase-out all existing,
larger traps. States/Areas are not prohibited from requiring smaller
sized traps. All lobster traps, whether fished commercially or recreationally,
must contain at least one rectangular escape vent per trap with
a minimum size of 1-15/16 inches by 5-3/4 inches.
The
Board intends to implement area-specific proposals to reduce or
cap the number of traps. Each of these proposals would likely cap
traps at some set number in the first year of the plan. In areas
where trap numbers need to be reduced, the plan would then require
incremental reductions in the number of traps allowed to be fished
by a fishermen.
License
limitations, or moratoriums on entry into commercial fisheries may
be established for fisheries in state waters within any management
area. It is the preferred alternative that no new permits should
be issued for commercial fishing in federal waters.
Optional
Measures
The following measures may be applied within each of the respective
management areas on an optional basis in order to meet the goals
of Amendment 3: maximum size limit; mandatory days off/minimum layover
days per week; closed seasons; limited trap hauling hours; owner/operator
requirement; cap/target for landings; and crew size limitations.
Mobile
Gear Fisheries
Mobile gear fisheries will be limited to landing no more than 50
_ 200 lobsters per day up to a maximum of no more than 250 _ 1000
lobsters per trip, for multi-day trips; annual mobile gear fishery
landings will be limited to no more than 2 _ 8 % of the previous
years total lobster landings. The states and industry have determined
that it is undesirable for the mobile-gear sector to target soft,
newly-molted lobsters with mobile gear. Therefore, states will be
required to institute measures to prevent trawling for lobsters
in areas where soft lobsters are common.
Federal
Waters
Both preferred and non-preferred recommendations to the Secretary
are contained throughout the Management Plan sections on specific
management measures. When the plan is finalized and the management
regime is known for each of the areas, this section will list all
of the recommendations that the Commission will be proposing to
the Secretary. In general, the draft Plan recommends that the Secretary:
1) keep the moratorium on new federal permits; 2) continue the federal
regulation currently in place; 3) require that fishermen comply
with the landing laws of the state in which they land lobsters,
regardless of where they were caught; 4) implement any further measures
that will be required on a coastwide basis in this plan.
Monitoring
and Reporting
The current monitoring and reporting program cannot support effective
management of the area management system currently being considered
in this plan. Both the amount and quality of the data must increase
if the lobster resource is to be effectively monitored and managed.
Therefore, the Board is soliciting public comment on the following
reporting system.
Monthly
Reporting
Each commercial fishermen and dealer will be required to report
to their respective states information on their fishing activities.
The following types of information may be required to be reported
by fishermen: landings by area (as specific as possible), vessel,
and gear type; effort by gear type (e.g. # of days fished/catch
per day, trap hauls per day, soaktime, bait used). The following
types of information may be required to be reported by dealers:
pounds and date landed by market category; value.
Subsampling
A small subset (the harbor porpoise program samples less than 5%
of fishermen) of the total fishermen in the fishery would be subsampled
periodically according to a sampling protocol designed by the Technical
Committee. When requested, fishermen are required to permit biologists
on Board to sample their catch. Any information collected will be
kept confidential.
ASMFC
summary as modified by Bruce T. Estrella
Return to Table of Contents?
Two
DMF biologists, Michael Armstrong and Bruce Estrella, had their
research published in the scientific journal, Fishery Bulletin
(Volume 95, No. 3, July 1997). Another biologist, Steven Cadrin,
published in the same issue his research done during his years with
DMF. He now works for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Michael's
paper, "Seasonal and ontogenetic changes in distribution and
abundance of smooth flounder, Pleuronectes putnami, and winter
flounder, Pleuronectes americanus, along estuarine depth
and salinity gradients," provided a quantitative comparison
of the occurrence of these two flounder in various habitats in upper
Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire. Michael found that the potential
for competition between these two species was lessened by their
distribution influenced by water depth and salinity.
Bruce
co-authored his paper, "Seasonal movement of offshore American
lobster, Homarus americanus, tagged along the eastern shore
of Cape Cod, Massachusetts," with Thomas Morrissey, a former
DMF employee of many years. These two lobster biologists concluded
from their analysis of lobster tagging data that lobsters tagged
off Provincetown, Truro, and Eastham were onshore migrants from
an offshore stock that seasonally become "superimposed"
on the endemic inshore stock. They concluded: "The relative
importance of the offshore lobster resource to recruitment in shoaler
waters must be assessed. We need to know the degree of interchange
between the two lobster groups in order to refine stock assessments."
Steven
co-authored his paper, "Retrospective analysis of virtual population
estimates for Atlantic menhaden stock assessment," with NMFS'
Douglas Vaughn. These investigators delved into the intricacies
of assessments of menhaden (pogy) abundance and their effects on
the nature of fishery management advice.
Hats
off to these current and former DMF biologists for their accomplishments!
Return to Table of Contents?
Sportfisheries
Program biologists have received a number of phone calls regarding
"schoolie" striped bass (typically measuring 12"-
18") with fin abrasions and a yellow/white slimy and granular
growth on their sides. A good number of these fish were noted in
and around Sandwich and Barnstable estuaries along Cape Cod Bay
and in West Falmouth Harbor. Anglers from other parts of the state
have also reported infected fish in their catches.
Samples
obtained by DMF staff were delivered to pathologists at the Woods
Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, who diagnosed these fish as having
lymphocystis. Lymphocystis is a virus-caused disease fairly common
among spiny-rayed freshwater and marine fishes. Effects on individual
fish are typically non-lethal but the disease makes fish unattractive
to fishermen. Although reported as rare in striped bass, when noted
it is commonly associated with temperature stresses, overcrowding,
and abrasions to scales and fins.
As
the large year-classes produced in the past few years recruit to
our waters in record-breaking numbers and these fish prolong their
stay in our waters, or over winter here, we expect to see more of
this disease and winter fish kills. Anyone noting striped bass with
signs of this disease, or fish kills, are encouraged to report them
to DMF.
By
Paul Caruso
Return to Table of Contents?
An
unprecedented decline in the Northeast groundfish stocks led to
Amendments 5 and 7 of the New England Fishery Management Council's
Northeast Multispecies Management Plan. The amendments' objectives
were to reduce mortality of groundfish (e.g., cod, haddock, yellowtail
flounder) caused by fishing, and to increase groundfish abundance.
This was to be accomplished by reducing fishing effort and implementing
large area closures, gear restrictions, and possession limits for
recreational and commercial fisheries.
Nearly
three years have passed since Amendment 5 with its emergency year-round
area closures. Amendment 7 was implemented about one year ago. Consequently,
the obvious question has been asked by managers and fishermen: "Are
we there yet?"
To
assess the amount of stock recovery, three questions need to be
addressed: (1) Have the Council's target fishing mortality rates
for the stocks been achieved?; (2) What is the abundance of the
spawning stocks (abundance of adult fish) in relation to the Council's
minimum thresholds?; and (3) Has there been good production of young
fish (recruits) needed to rebuild spawning stocks?
Scientists
continue to evaluate the Plan's progress. In June of this year,
the status of Georges Bank cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder,
Gulf of Maine cod, and Southern New England yellowtail flounder
were reviewed by scientists at the 24th Stock Assessment Workshop
(SAW) held in Woods Hole. These assessments will be critiqued by
a Congressionally-mandated National Research Council review panel
this summer.
In
general, results of these stock assessments were positive. The status
of Georges Bank cod and haddock and the two yellowtail stocks has
improved. Fishing mortality for these stocks are near or below the
target levels established for rebuilding. Spawning stock biomass
has increased for these four stocks; however, abundance remains
low relative to historic levels. Spawning stock biomass is less
than the threshold for Georges Bank cod, Georges Bank haddock and
Southern New England yellowtail, and near the threshold for Georges
Bank yellowtail. A threshold has not been established for Gulf of
Maine cod. A threshold is a minimum abundance level above which
the probability of good recuiment improves.
Although
spawning stock biomass for these stocks has improved from record
low levels, recruitment in 1994, 1995, and 1996 remained low relative
to historic levels for Georges Bank cod and haddock and Southern
New England yellowtail. Recruitment for Georges Bank yellowtail
is just average. Thus, the rate of stock rebuilding for these four
stocks will be modest over the short term. If fishing mortality
remains at 1996 levels, landings should increase for haddock and
the two yellowtail stocks. Nevertheless, the SAW concluded that
although the situation for these four stocks is better, strong management
measures need to be maintained for continued rebuilding that eventually
will lead to increased, sustainable landings.
The
logic for more protection and keeping fishing mortality under control
is clear. Low fishing mortality directly increases the spawning
stock biomass by allowing more fish to grow and spawn (reproduce)
before harvest. The number of eggs a female produces is proportional
to its weight, therefore, the larger the fish, the greater its contribution
to spawning stock biomass. The effects of a single year of growth
is seen in the following example: a 3-year old cod, weighing around
4 lbs., will increase to over 6 lbs. a year later, an increase of
52%. Additionally, as spawning stock biomass increases, the probability
of good recruitment increases. Consistent good recruitment quickly
rebuilds the spawning stock. Abundance spirals upwards.
In
contrast to Georges Bank cod, the situation for Gulf of Maine cod
is bleak. Fishing mortality hasn't declined and remains well above
the overfishing definition. Recruitment for the last two years is
the poorest recorded. Spawning stock biomass dropped to a record
low in 1994; it has since stayed near that level. At the current
fishing mortality, spawning stock biomass and landings will continue
to decline. The SAW advised that the stock is on the verge of
collapse and that fishing mortality should be reduced to a level
approaching zero.
Why
hasn't the Gulf of Maine cod stock improved like the other stocks?
Several factors are at work. Fishing effort may have shifted to
the Gulf of Maine due to offshore closed areas and effort restrictions.
Approximately 50% of cod landings in the Gulf of Maine are landed
by vessels making one day trips. Many of these vessels were exempted
from Council days-at-sea restrictions prior to 1997. In addition,
the way fishing effort was defined for regulatory purposes was advantageous
to the traditional small day-boat fleet found in the Gulf of Maine,
and as a result, these vessels were not impacted as greatly as offshore
trip vessels by days-at-sea restrictions. Fortunately, in 1997 the
Council adopted further Gulf of Maine restrictions such as trip
limits and gillnet effort reduction measures to reduce mortality
on cod. More restrictions probably will be needed to achieve the
target mortality for Gulf of Maine cod.
So
the answer to the question: "Are we there yet?" is: "Not
quite, but we appear to be heading in the right direction for some
stocks." The Georges Bank and Southern New England stocks are
beginning to show benefits from recent management regulations. Stock
sizes have increased. More protection is needed for Gulf of Maine
cod and fishing mortality rates cannot be allowed to increase on
the other four stocks if rebuilding is to continue.
By
Steven J. Correia
Return to Table of Contents?
Since
1993, DMF sportfisheries biologists have been studying physiological
effects of rod and reel angling on post release survivorship of
sharks and tunas. Catch data generated by DMF's tournament sampling
program since 1987 (see article in last quarter's DMF News), show
that a high percentage of these big game fish are released. In addition,
federal imposition of a commercial minimum size and recreational
bag limits for bluefin tuna has increased numbers of this species
released annually. The objective of the 4-year study has been to
determine physiological effects of angling stress on large pelagic
species. This project has received financial and technical support
from the National Marine Fisheries Service and generous field support
from numerous fishermen.
A
two-pronged approach has been taken by DMF biologists to quantify
and characterize effects of angling. First, relative health of the
fish is determined by taking a blood sample after the fight. High
muscular activity and stress induced by angling causes changes and
disturbances in fish tissues and organs. These changes, manifested
in blood, may be severe enough to alter normal physiology and behavior,
and ultimately compromise survivorship. In some cases, fish may
die, either on the line or more likely after release. Such as with
evaluations in human medicine, various chemical constituents of
blood can be used to profile condition of the fish before it is
released. For each species, changes in blood chemistry can be compared
to several variables which are associated with the fight such as
tackle type, fight time, water temperature, and fish size. Is
a tuna or shark capable of recovering from the internal disturbances
caused the angling event?
The
studies second part involves actual assessment of survival with
acoustic telemetry. Sharks and tunas fought for extended periods
have been outfitted with acoustic "pingers" which allow
DMF scientists to follow the fish, tracing its location and depth
over several hours. This provides direct evidence of short term
post-release survival. In addition, since most of the fish blood
sampled to date have been tagged and released, tag-recaptured fish
provide direct evidence of long term survival. The levels of exhaustion
that tunas and sharks can withstand comes from the correlation of
blood chemistry data, fight data, and survival information.
To
date, 317 big game fish comprised of 14 species of sharks, tunas,
and marlin have been blood sampled during the study. The bulk of
these fish are bluefin tuna (105), yellowfin tuna (62), and blue
sharks (72). Preliminary findings show that these fish exhibit fluctuations
in blood pH and blood levels of hormones, electrolytes, and metabolites
due to the fight associated with rod and reel angling. Each species
was found to have a different physiological response to angling.
For example, the metabolic byproduct of anaerobic glycolysis is
lactic acid. Analysis showed that blood lactate levels in angling-stressed
tunas were significantly higher than those in sharks and marlin.
Moreover, bluefin tuna possessed extremely high levels of blood
lactate relative to other species sampled.
During
the second phase of the study, DMF biologists have tracked 10 bluefin
tuna, 4 blue sharks, and 1 yellowfin tuna for periods ranging from
2 hours to 48 hours. Five of the bluefin were tracked in cooperation
with researchers from the New England Aquarium, the University of
Hawaii, and commercial tuna fishermen, Bill Chaprales and Jeff Tutein.
These fish were not taken on rod and reel; the acoustic tag was
applied with a modified harpoon. The behavior of these "non-stressed"
fish will be compared to that exhibited by the other five exposed
to capture stress. In addition, four of the stressed bluefin were
tracked off the coast of Hatteras, NC, where a rapidly expanding
catch and release winter fishery has developed.
All
of those fish fought on rod and reel, blood sampled, and released
carrying acoustic transmitters were determined to be completely
exhausted by the event, and all survived the duration of the tracks.
In addition, tag recaptures of two blue sharks and one yellowfin
tuna that were previously blood sampled by the study provided long
term evidence that these fish were not physiologically compromised
by the angling experience or the tagging.
It
is anticipated that this study will be completed in 1997 with additional
tracks of bluefin, yellowfin, and blue sharks. Although preliminary,
results of this study indicate that concerns of high mortality due
to exhaustive exercise associated with rod and reel angling may
not be justified. Nonetheless, this study does not fully take into
account long term effects of physical trauma resulting from the
fight. Rough handling of fish, use of gaffs, internal hook damage,
poor tagging, and excessive time out of water can cause irreparable
damage to a fish that is released. Post-release predation is another
factor that may increase in association to angling stress. Recovery
may take days or months if the fish survives, and will require a
metabolic cost. While some degree of physical trauma can be assessed
in this study, short term ultrasonic tracking may not be sufficient
to measure long term effects of such trauma. Tag recaptures of our
sampled fish do help to rectify this. Physiological stress can be
minimized by reducing fight and handling time. However, physical
trauma can only be reduced through conscious efforts of anglers
when choosing to release a fish. Hook design, handling methods,
tagging tools, and experience all play a major role in proper release
of all gamefish.
By
Greg Skomal and Brad Chase
Return to Table of Contents?
DMF
NEWS
EDITORS:
Dan McKiernan & David Pierce
GRAPHICS: David Gabriel
DMF
receives state and federal funds to conduct research, management
and development of the Commonwealth's marine fishery resources.
Information in this publication in alternative formats is available.
Philip
G. Coates, Director, DMF
John C. Phillips, Comm'nr DFWELE
Trudy Coxe, Secretary, EOEA
Argeo Paul Cellucci, Governor
Comments
and suggestions for the newsletter are welcome. Please contact the
Editors at (617) 727-3193, or write to DMF, 100 Cambridge St., Boston,
MA 02202.
Publication
#17020-12-7000 8/97-$2030
Division
of Marine Fisheries
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Rules
UPDATE
Public
Hearings / Regulations / Legislation
Volume
7 Number 3
Table
of Contents for Rules Update....
- Notices
of Public Hearings
- Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission Public Hearing on Striped
Bass Management
- Regulatory
Update
- Legislative
Update
Notice
of Public Hearings
Scheduled
for August 25, 26, & 27, 1997
PLEASE
NOTE THE EARLY SCHEDULE FOR HEARING TIMES
Under
the provisions of G.L. c. 30A and pursuant to the authority found
in G.L. c 130 ss. 17A, 80, and 104, the Marine Fisheries Commission
has scheduled hearings on the following:
1)
DMF proposal to amend the existing 3-week Sea Herring Spawning Closure
(322 CMR 9.00) to enhance spawning protection. Two options will
be considered:
Option 1) Retain the 3-week closure but change the starting
date to September 17, one week earlier than the current Sept. 24
- October 14.
Option 2) Use biological data gained through monitoring herring
spawning condition and then close the fishery when warranted, enabling
DMF to close as early as September 17 if herring spawning is early;
DMF also seeks comments on a proposal to extend the closure beyond
three weeks if warranted (e.g. more than 25% of herring contain
spawn).
2)
DMF will accept comments on a recent emergency action that clarified
the summer flounder possession limits to make them on a per-vessel
limit basis instead of a per-permit limit. Also DMF established
a process to authorize vessels not engaging in fishing activities
to transport summer flounder under the authority of a valid dealer's
permit.
3)
DMF proposal to require escape vents and biodegradable escape panels
in scup pots and sea bass pots (322 CMR 6.12) as required by the
interstate fishery management plan.
4)
DMF proposal to no longer issue permits to participate in the limited
circle-gillnet fishery for bluefish (322 CMR 4.05 ) that is permitted
in south eastern Cape Cod Bay and south of Cape Cod.
5)
The interstate Lobster Management Plan as drafted by The Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission will be presented and comments
accepted.
Three
hearing dates have been reserved:
Monday,
August 25, 1997 Mass. Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay,
Tuesday, August 26 at UMASS Boston, and
Wednesday August 27 at the Gloucester Fuller School.
All
hearings will begin at 6:30 p.m. for items # 1 through #4.
Lobster Management Plan will be discussed at or after 7:00 p.m.
Return
to Table of Contents for Rules Update?
Striped
Bass Management Plan Ready for Change
The
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Striped Bass
Board has voted to develop another amendment to the Atlantic Striped
Bass Plan to further manage this important resource for 1998 and
1999. Addendum II is needed because the current plan does not provide
management guidance after this year.
After
receiving new information that 1996 harvest rates in the coastal
fishery were approaching the maximum allowable rate, the Board agreed
to identify various options to adjust fishing practices in 1998
and 1999 in response to significant increases in recreational harvest.
In addition to these options, ASMFC will describe at public hearings:
(1) new modeling techniques being used for striped bass stock assessments
and quota estimation and (2) options for allocating quotas between
states and user groups. To assure future sustainability of the striped
bass resource, the Board will ask for public comment on establishing
more conservative harvest rates.
Public
comment on these changes will help striped bass advisors and the
Board determine final actions for Addendum II. DMF will host
ASMFC September hearings on this subject in Gloucester (24th) and
Buzzards Bay (25th). Details of the Amendment and the hearings
will be distributed as soon as they are finalized.
Return
to Table of Contents for Rules Update?
During
the period June - August, the following decisions were made by DMF
and the Marine Fisheries Commission regarding issues aired at the
June 24-26 public hearings.
Groundfish
management actions regarding cod trip limits and winter flounder
protection for state waters to complement federal actions. Two
actions were proposed: A). 1000 lb cod trip limit for any vessel
fishing within state waters, and B) a requirement that trawlers
fit their nets with 6" diamond mesh (instead of square mesh)
to enhance escapement of winter flounder. Both items were postponed
pending imminent federal action.
Some background: while many of the offshore stocks have shown positive
signs of recovery (See article in this DMF News by Steve Correia),
Gulf of Maine Cod and winter flounder have not "turned the
corner" to recovery. These two nearshore stocks are probably
suffering additional exploitation because groundfish vessels are
displaced from offshore closed areas to those remaining open areas
nearshore in the Gulf of Maine.
Federal fishery managers have already enacted a 1,000 lb per day
cod trip limit, and this rule would apply to any vessel that possesses
a federal permit - even if that vessel were fishing in state waters.
For a vessel with only a state permit, the federal rule would not
apply. Nearly all trawlers and gillnetters have federal permits
so they would already be required to comply with the trip limit.
As for winter flounder, the prescribed use of "diamond"
mesh would enhance escapement of undersized fish. Ironically, what's
good for flounder may not be good for cod. The use of diamond mesh
would result in more undersized "roundfish" being caught.
Diamond mesh enhances escapement of undersized flatfish, while square
mesh works best for roundfish.
Pot
Fisheries: Regulation eliminated that required fishermen who participate
in various pot fisheries (lobster, conch, fish) to limit their number
of traps to the limit of the pot fishery with the lowest limit.
This regulation enacted back in the mid '80's proved to be confusing,
cumbersome and unenforceable. DMF hopes to devise a trap tag system
for fish and conch pot fisheries in 1998.
Striped
Bass Commercial Permitting: The Commission discussed the complex
system of striped bass commercial permitting. DMF issues to bona-fide
charter boat operators striped bass special permits ($10 per permit
up to six per boat) to cover the fishing activities of customers
when bass are sold at the end of the trip. These "John Doe"
permits are not available to private boat operators. DMF and MFC
decided to pursue a new and improved permitting system through legislation.
One new permit may be a striped bass boat permit covering all anglers
aboard the boat. The Commission's Commercial Licensing Subcommittee
will be proposing an overhaul of all commercial permit types. Legislation
will be filed for 1998.
Mass.
Commercial Fishermen's Association Petitions:
A)
Request for gear-free zones for mobile gear (trawlers, scallopers)
access in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. The Commission was
sympathetic to the plight of draggermen who have documented that
fixed gear precludes them from seasonal fishing in key areas. MFC
requested DMF arrange meetings between draggermen and fixed gear
fishermen to determine if agreements between the groups could be
accomplished instead of formal regulations. DMF staff will report
at the September MFC meeting. DMF and the MFC attempted to broker
an agreement between industry groups in 1989 when they undertook
a year-long effort to reduce fishing effort and reduce gear conflicts.
While the "seamless package" of proposals was not enacted
in its entirety, many of the proposals have been enacted one at
a time over the past eight years. However, gear-free zones to accommodate
trawlermen were never enacted.
B)
Request to allow night trawling for scup in Nantucket Sound until
midnight, currently prohibited by the night closure to trawling.
The Commission has heard past testimony that scup are far more vulnerable
at night than during the day. This request would not just allow
the so-called "evening tow" from dusk into the darkness;
but would also allow an additional tows. However, scup are considered
overfished and in need of cutbacks in mortality. The Commission
voted against increased access at this time. DMF first enacted the
night closure to trawling in 1992 in Vineyard and Nantucket Sounds
to protect scup, and extended it later that year to all state waters.
Massachusetts
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) petition to reduce bluefish
recreational limit from 10 to 3 fish and to enact a commercial bag
limit of 100 lbs. plus one fish. The Commission rejected this
petition. DMF expects to enact new rules for bluefish for 1998 when
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council will be recommending changes for the
1998 fishery to address the decline of bluefish stocks. Recreational
rule changes for next year could include a minimum size as well
as a drop in the recreational bag limit.
Squid
trawling with small mesh nets temporarily extended in 1997 through
June 15. This was a 15-day extension of the fishery. Fishermen
were allowed to continue to trawl for squid in waters under the
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth south of Cape Cod and around the
islands. Sea sampling - as well as reports from dealers and fishermen
-showed the squid size composition remained predominately large
through the period. Cooler than normal temperatures likely delayed
the normal succession where squid size shifts to predominately small
squid
Return
to Table of Contents for Rules Update?
H.
90, the bill which would raise penalties for the possession
or selling of scrubbed or dipped lobsters and H. 91, which
would allow DMF to promulgate regulations regarding the transfer
of limited entry fishery permits, were reported favorably from Natural
Resources and are currently before House Ways and Means. S. 1013
(S. 1082 was attached), which would permit the on-shore processing
of shell-on frozen lobster tails by wholesale dealers, passed the
Senate on July 22 and is currently before House Steering and Policy.
S. 1074, which would prohibit the sale of live bait in a
plastic container, was reported favorably from Natural Resources
and is before Senate Ways and Means. The bill is in the process
of being redrafted.
For
information about these bills or other legislative matters, please
contact Priscilla Geigis, Deputy General Counsel, DFWELE. Phone:
617-727-1614, ext. 388.
Return
to Table of Contents for Rules Update?
Return to Table of Contents?
UPDATE
is published quarterly to publicize regulatory matters affecting
marine fisheries.
Director: Philip G. Coates, DMF
Commissioner: John C. Phillips, DFWELE
Secretary: Trudy Coxe, EOEA
Governor: Argeo Paul Cellucci
Editor: Daniel J. McKiernan, DMF / Art Dir.: David G. Gabriel, DFWELE
Date Last Update: August 26, 1997
|
