Scientific data needed to determine fishery health

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. In a recent column, “Special-interest groups manipulate fishery rules” (BDN, Feb. 11), herring industry representatives argued science should judge whether their industrial trawl ships should be allowed to continue to fish in areas of the ocean closed to protect spawning groundfish. We could not agree more. And that is why we are seeking to exclude herring trawlers from these areas.

The column claims that “when there’s not enough science, the door is wide open for manipulation by special interests.” The truth is, that is exactly what happened when the door to these groundfish-closed areas was opened to herring trawlers 10 years ago and it continues today.

Groundfish-closed areas were created to help spur recovery of New England’s severely depleted stocks of cod, haddock and other groundfish. For more than 10 years groundfishermen have been excluded from these areas. With time, many groundfishermen who initially protested the closed areas have not only accepted them, but embraced them. We have come to see these areas as nursery grounds, places where fish can reproduce and eventually help restore the fishery.

Groundfish populations have made some resulting gains. But we are far from a full recovery. The majority of stocks remain overfished and none have achieved their recovery target.

Why, in spite of these sacrifices, haven’t we seen better results? Those of us who have fished these waters for decades think a lot of it has to do with the herring industrial trawl fleet.

Today’s herring industry is dominated by large-scale trawlers. Since the early 1990s, fleets of these ships have arrived from all over the world and caught the vast majority of the region’s herring. What’s more, these ships “pair trawl” – the technique of rigging larger nets between two ships – a practice that is banned in many of the world’s fisheries.

Industry representatives say that their nets don’t drag along the ocean floor, instead targeting herring higher in the water column. The debris found in their nets tells a different story: an informal poll of our fishermen confirms our belief that rocks and metal don’t float.

Data on how much groundfish is caught by herring trawlers are indeed woefully insufficient. Government observers have been on board less than 3 percent of their fishing trips – comparable vessels in other U.S. fisheries are required to have 30 percent to 100 percent coverage. Further, the monitoring methods used allow hundreds of thousands of pounds of catch to go undetected.

Yet, even the limited data available show that thousands of pounds of groundfish are caught by herring trawlers annually. If this official data were extrapolated, as the herring industry sometimes say it should be, the total weight of groundfish caught would be in hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Arguing that their nets would catch only negligible amounts of groundfish, the herring trawlers muscled their way into the groundfish-closed areas in 1998. In truth, that decision was based on negligible amounts of scientific data – a mere baker’s dozen of observed tows, most of which were not even in the closed areas in question.

Represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, Maine groundfishermen are suing to reverse this ill-advised policy. To some, it may appear like a feud between fisheries. It is not. It is an attempt to restore a fishery that desperately needs help.

The industry column calls for additional research and federal observers to find objective answers. They are seeking government funding for an industry-designed study, yet they refuse to make the study public. Their press statements, however, indicate the scope of the study is extremely limited, providing only partial observer coverage in one closed area for one month. We are skeptical this is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars or that it will deliver objective results.

Fortunately, New England already has a management tool that would supply a reliable answer – the Exempted Fishing Permit. Fishermen seeking objective scientific evidence and fairness should embrace this approach.

Here’s how it would work: herring trawlers would be allowed to fish in closed areas on an experimental basis. Each ship would carry an impartial observer to monitor and calculate the total amount of groundfish caught by herring trawlers, using an approved protocol. The experiment would have caps on acceptable catch and bycatch, and the National Marine Fishery Service would analyze the results.

Fishery managers would finally gain the information they need to make a sound, scientifically-based decision about herring trawlers access to groundfish-closed areas.

The herring trawlers never should have been allowed into groundfish nursery grounds without sound scientific analysis and a strong monitoring program. Somehow the industry has turned this principle on its ear, arguing that operating in the shadows represents sound science and fairness.

Glen Libby of Port Clyde is a commercial fisherman and chairman of the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association. Roger Fleming is an attorney with the public interest environmental law firm Earthjustice.