 |
|||||
|
|
RI Cont. Art I, Sec 17, 1842
"The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the Charter and usages of this state."
The court so recognized in identifying the rights of the fishery and privileges of the shore "that there must have been some such 'privileges' which were then recognized as belonging to the people and which the framers and adopters of the constitution intended to change into [rights] beyond the power of the general assembly to destroy." (Jackvony v. Powel, 67 RI 218, [1941]) (emphasis mine)
Greg DiDomenico
Garden State Seafood Association
To all those who rely upon the squid fishery,
Over the past years I have spoken to many of you regarding Amendment 9 and 10 to the squid fishery management plan. The focus of our discussions have been the incidental catch of butterfish that can occur in the directed Loligo squid fishery. Below you will find a summary of Amendment 10 from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
For the purposes of this email I would like to concentrate on what we can do together as an industry to prepare for the implementation of Amenendment 10 and the "Butterfish Bycatch Cap" that will be monitored and implemented in 2011.
When you read the MAFMC summary you need to know that the decision to implement a "Bycatch Cap" in 2011 instead of 2010 was not supported by the Agency (NMFS). Despite the Agency's serious opposition, the MAFMC decided that it was best to wait for the results of the Benchmark Assessment that will be conducted in 2010 to determine the condition and biomass of the butterfish resource. This critical decision not only gives us another year to prepare for the "Bycatch Cap" to be implemented but it will be done using a recent and thorough stock assessment.
The time has come to focus our collective efforts and address the incidental catch of butterfish. Our goal should be to work within the limit of the amount of butterfish allocated to the "Butterfish Bycatch Cap" in a manner that allows us to catch the entire Loligo squid quota. As an industry we need to discuss and formalize ways in which we can achieve this goal. I have heard the industry discuss changes in the fishery such as shorter tows, a reduction in speed when hauling back and increased communication among the fishing fleet to determine where the fishing has low incidental catch of other species such as butterfish. Ultimately any change in fishing practices must come from within the industry, must be supported by the individual fishermen and put into practice in the fishery. Individually we have taken the first steps by submitting research proposals to test and develop fishing gear modifications. I hope this is the start of a formal working relationship that all fishermen from our respective states can support.
I welcome your comments, questions and most of all your assistance.
Please call me to discuss these issues further. I look forward to moving forward with your help.
I hope this short email serves as the beginning of a formal effort that all of us can support and all of us will benefit from.
Looking forward to hearing from you all.
Greg DiDomenico
Garden State Seafood Association
Amendment 10 Approved
The Council met in Kill Devil Hills, NC October 14-16, 2008 and approved Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for submission to the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 10 is designed to rebuild and maintain the long-term health of the butterfish stock, and, to the extent practicable, generally minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the MSB fisheries.
For preferred alternatives, the Council voted that in 2010, a 2-1/8" minimum codend mesh requirement would be implemented in the Loligo fishery in Trimesters 1 and 3 (the previously considered fishing circle mesh requirement was removed). The Council also voted to include a seasonally allocated butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery starting in 2011 (i.e. the Loligo fishery would be closed when it caught a pre-specified amount of butterfish). The directed Loligo fishery would be allocated 75% of the butterfish ABC specified for a given year and the cap would be monitored based on existing levels of NMFS observer coverage (the previously considered industry-funded observer program was removed). The allocation of butterfish mortality would be: Trimester 1=65%; Trimester 2 = 3.3%; and, Trimester 3 = 31.7%. There would be no in-season closures in Trimester 2 due to difficulties in tracking the relatively small bycatch amount allocated to the Trimester 2 Loligo fishery, but overages and/or underages would be accounted for in Trimester 3. If Trimester 2 bycatch levels increase and reduce the cap amount available in Trimester 3, the Council could activate the in-season closure mechanism for Trimester 2 in future years. The Amendment would also include a 72 hour notification requirement before Loligo vessels could make a directed Loligo trip, primarily for the purpose of observer placement. If a vessel is selected to take an observer, the vessel would have to carry an observer (if available). Vessels would always have to notify NMFS when a trip is cancelled (even if the vessel is not selected to take an observer). If a vessel cancels a trip after being selected, the vessel would be assigned an observer on its next trip for which an observer is available.
The Council also voted to include a provision in Amendment 10 that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will annually review the performance of the butterfish mortality cap program during the specification process and make recommendations on any additional measures necessary to the success of the butterfish rebuilding program. If the Council does not adopt SSC recommendations, then NMFS would implement measures through the MSB annual specifications process to aid the rebuilding of the butterfish stock, consistent with existing MSB regulations.