Lobster bait issues await federal resolution

First published in the MLA Newsletter, October, 2012.

The Maine lobster industry, already challenged by low prices and cross-border squabbles, also struggles with questions about bait: What will be available for harvesters next year? Menhaden, Atlantic and river herrings and alternative baits all have issues that must be resolved on federal or state levels before harvesters can plan their next season around them.

Herring remains the predominant bait used by Maine lobstermen but its prevalence has declined in recent years. According to Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) port sampling data, herring comprised 66 percent of bait used in 2008, when measured by trap haul, down from 74 percent in 2006—a direct correlation to the 30 percent reduction in the inshore herring quota during this time period. At the same time, use of menhaden for bait increased to 22 percent of bait by trap haul in 2008, up from 12 percent in 2006. The state’s 2011 data show the use of herring remained steady at 67%, while menhaden use increased to 30%. The use of other baits including frozen hard baits and other non-native baits has increased significantly during this time.

Herring provides food in the wild for many species but are landed commercially and sold as bait for lobster harvesters and as a food source for developing nations. Herring is jointly managed by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan adopted in 1999 established a management structure which requires an allowable catch for the fishery, sub-allocated by management area.

The most recent piece of the herring plan, Amendment 4, originally included a broad range of issues such as catch monitoring program, river herring bycatch measures, criteria for midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas, and measures to address interactions with the Atlantic mackerel fishery. However, the Council split the document so that Amendment 4 could deal with the new requirements mandated by the Magnuson Stevens Act such as setting annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) in time for the 2011 fishing season as required by the law. The Council is working on the other issues through Amendment 5.

In early August, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler tossed out Amendment 4, making it null as of August, 2013. The order requires National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Council to review the most recent science, take action to minimize the bycatch of river herring and shad and consider new approaches for setting the allowable catch for sea herring that accounts for its role as food for other fish, birds, and whales.

Because Amendment 4 was split, DMR Commissioner Patrick Keliher said the split “provided a perfect vehicle to initiate a lawsuit but this lawsuit may well result in further time delays in streamlining shad and river herring by catch reduction measures.”

A review of the most recent science was conducted through the 2012 herring benchmark stock assessment, which included an estimation of the role of herring as a forage species. The assessment concluded that sea herring stock is rebuilt – it is not overfished and over fishing is not occurring. Based on these results, NEFMC is in the process of developing its next 3-year specification package to set overall catch limit and allocations for each management area. Preliminary recommendations could result in a 16,000 metric ton increase annual quota available to the herring fishery for the 2013 to 2015 fishing seasons, though those measures will not be in place in time for the start of the 2013 fishing season. NEFMC will begin deliberations during their September meeting with a final decision expected later this year.

NEFMC and NMFS are still working to comply with the judge’s order to minimize the bycatch of shad and river herring in the sea herring catch. “The judge allowed the council one year to address the ruling so any additional bycatch mitigation measures will not be in place for FY 2013,” said Keliher. Thus it is unlikely that the herring bait situation will change for next year. It is anticipated that these bycatch measures likely will be implemented through Amendment 5.

The future of menhaden, which comprised nearly 30% of Maine’s bait supply in 2011, has become a hotly debated topic amongst managers, recreational anglers and commercial harvesters. In September, ASMFC released draft Amendment 2 which includes a range of harvest reductions from 0 to 50% from current harvest levels. According to ASMFC, both the 2010 benchmark stock assessment and the 2012 stock assessment update indicate the stock is experiencing overfishing but the stock is not overfished based on the reference points used in the most recent assessment. The assessment also indicates that the number of fish in the population has been declining. Amendment 2 is designed to take steps to end overfishing and manage Atlantic menhaden not only as a fishery but as a critical ecosystem component.

In August, 16 members of Congress, including Representatives Michaud and Pingree, wrote to the ASMFC raising concerns over the flaws in the menhaden assessment. Of greatest concern was the omission of the results of a University of New England aerial survey of the northern range of the menhaden stock which indicates that the menhaden stock is twice as big as the assessment indicates. Due to issues surrounding data and the model used to assess the stock, the ASMFC states that “uncertainties in the 2012 stock assessment update make it difficult to quantify the level of reductions needed to meet those goals [of Amendment 2].”

Substituting alternatives baits for herring and menhaden constitute another complicated issue, although resolution at the state level appears to be in sight.

A problem arose several years ago when moose and deer carcasses—body parts with hair still on them—were pressed into service as bait. State officials and others thought the public image of feeding lobsters animal body parts might not be the best one for the industry, an idea reinforced when some diners reported finding hairballs in the stomachs of their cooked lobster. Concerns also arose about the possibility of land-based pathogens polluting the marine environment.

In 2005, the Legislature passed a law allowing the DMR to regulate the use of alternative baits, defined as baits not originating from the marine environment, and banned the use of offal, or the waste parts of non-marine organisms, making an exception for “hairless hides,” or treated hides already sold and used commercially as lobster bait. The Legislature also granted the Commissioner the authority to pass rules to protect public health. In 2007, DMR created regulations requiring alternative bait companies to list all ingredients on their labels. In 2012, yet another bait law was passed by the Legislature to give DMR authority to develop a list of approved freshwater species for use as bait, and a list of marine species which are not approved for use as bait to include the location from which it is harvested.

“Although people knew that non-marine organisms meant land-based, not freshwater organisms,” it was necessary to pass a law to clarify the situation, said Deirdre Gilbert, Director of Marine Policy with the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR). “We went to the legislature and said there was some confusion around freshwater fish, because it was technically prohibited, but some was already in use.”

Although marine organisms were allowed, salmon racks have long been banned out of fear of spreading ISA (infectious salmon anemia), a disease that often infects farmed fish in pens. Most freshwater fish were not a problem, but carp caught in some parts of the country might be an issue at some times of the year, Gilbert explained.

“It seemed like someone should have control over this,” she said, so the DMR was granted rulemaking power to create a list of allowable freshwater species and banned saltwater species. Before entering into rulemaking, Gilbert said the DMR is talking to dealers to find out what they’re seeing that’s available to sell, and taking feedback from industry participants.

In order to have proper guidance for determining what’s allowed and what’s not, DMR and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) will share a new pathologist who can make recommendations on the subject. In the interim, before rulemaking and the pathologist is hired, the DMR has been awarded $25,000 this year from the Lobster Research, Education and Development fund, which is funded by the sale of lobster license plates, to pay a consultant to help with the determinations.