Bill pits lobstermen vs. fishermen

PORTLAND – The lobster industry presented a united front Tuesday against a proposal aimed at helping fishermen and the Portland Fish Exchange by allowing trawlers to sell in Maine the lobsters that inadvertently end up in nets.

Supporters of the bill contend Maine is losing out because trawlers are taking their catch to Massachusetts, where it’s legal to sell the lobsters. That has led to a smaller volume of fish auctioned and fewer fish-processing jobs, among other things.

But lobstermen said Maine’s $300 million lobster fishery is far too valuable for lawmakers to pass a bill that would lead to more lobsters being landed by trawlers. The effect could be to imperil the future of the state’s signature seafood, they said.

“It’s too great of a risk to take,” said lobsterman John Butler, who was flanked by lobster industry officials at a news conference on the Portland waterfront.

By federal law, fishermen are allowed to keep up to 100 lobsters a day, or 500 per trip, that are hauled up in their nets.

In 2005, Maine fishermen sold 120,000 pounds of those lobsters in Massachusetts, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s a tiny fraction of Maine’s total 2005 harvest of 67.3 million pounds.

Hank Soule, manager of the Portland Fish Exchange, said that by his accounting, lobsters landed by trawlers in offshore waters amount to about 2 percent of total landings. The bill might boost those levels to 3 percent, he said.

“We don’t think a 1 percent increase in the lobster harvest is going to have any impact on Maine’s inshore lobster fishery. If we did think that it would, we wouldn’t be bringing this forward,” Soule said.

Lobstermen contend the proposal would open the door to more trawlers targeting lobster. They also said the offshore fishery is especially important because large female lobsters found in those waters produce millions of eggs.

Finally, they said, the bill offers no guarantees that the trawlers would go to the Portland Fish Exchange instead of Massachusetts. Fishermen still may go to Massachusetts because diesel fuel is cheaper there, they said.

Soule acknowledged the proposal faces an uphill battle because of opposition from the state’s 6,500 lobstermen.

But he said it’s important for the Legislature to debate the issue because the number of boats that sell at the fish auction has dropped from 250 to 110 and the number of fish-processing jobs has dropped from 1,700 to 800.

“I call this the Mount Everest of Maine’s fishing regulations. It’s a tough hill to climb. It’s not something we wanted to climb but now we have no choice. Something is going to have to change if Maine is going to continue to have a groundfish industry,” he said.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, described the bill in similar terms.

“It may be a David-and-Goliath kind of battle. But the stone we’ll have in our sling is information. It is science,” Haskell said.

Soule said researchers have told him that lobsters caught 50 miles out to sea do not interact with the inshore fishery targeted by traditional lobstermen, so there’s no need to fear the loss of broodstock. He also said it makes sense to have them landed in Maine, which unlike Massachusetts restricts the size of the lobsters.

The bill also would cap the amount of lobsters landed by trawlers at 94 percent of the overall catch to protect lobstermen using traps, he said.

Nonetheless, lobstermen don’t like the idea of any proposal that has the potential to weaken the fishery. Despite bountiful lobster catches in recent years, they’re worried that there’s already too much pressure on the lobster fishery.

As it stands, lobster represents Maine’s most important fishery and one of the few fisheries that remain relatively healthy in New England.

“We’ve practiced very good husbandry over the years. We’d like to think future generations will benefit from our husbandry,” Butler said.