Lobster meetings wrestle with entry, effort

First published in Landings, October, 2015.

The Department of Marine Resources’ (DMR) recent round of eight meetings with the lobster industry generated some heated debate, with eastern Maine zones largely in concurrence with DMR’s proposals and zones from midcoast to the west expressing concerns. DMR Commissioner Pat Keliher and several key staff members hit the road for the third time in recent years, this time to speak directly with lobstermen about some potential changes to the lobster entry system slated for debate during the upcoming legislative session.

Commissioner Keliher explained to lobstermen, “We need to create a functional entry system, but the resource is already fully exploited so we don’t want to increase effort into the fishery.” He continued, “But people on the waiting list are looking for a predictable time frame to receive a license so that they can plan to get into the fishery. What is a reasonable time frame… five years? We’re here to get feedback from the industry. The future of Maine’s lobster industry and coastal communities depends on a functional entry system.”

“[DMR] staff looked at two ways of doing that—creating a whole new system with transferable trap tags or by modifying our existing system,” he continued. “I really thought trap tag transfers would be the way to go but after staff analyzed this approach we found that it was high risk and low reward so we took it off the table. Instead, we’re looking at making simple changes to the existing system.” The Commissioner explained that resolving latency remains a priority for the department, but previous proposals have been met with a lot of resistance from lobstermen. Instead, through a series of small changes, the department reasons that latency will slowly resolve itself.

Keliher made his case for simple reforms to create a more functional entry system through three potential actions: 1) change how we approach ratios, 2) increase opportunities for students, and 3) address retirement. A potential fourth reform would address future latency.

The first change that Keliher proposed was to use licenses as the currency for the exit ratios and cap ratios at 3 to 1. This issue was given the most attention and was most controversial. The DMR presented data for each zone on the net increase or decrease in licenses and tags from 2008 to 2014, as well as a hypothetical scenario on the change in licenses and tags had the ratios been based on licenses. The net change reflects the number of licenses sold in 2008 compared to the number of licenses sold in 2014, so it encompasses all of the licenses retired and all of the new entrants to the fishery.

DMR’s analysis shows that Zone C, the state’s only open zone, had a minimal increase of 11 licenses and 29,000 tags during the six-year period. All other zones showed a net decrease in both licenses and tags as a result of the limited-entry program.

In Zone D, licenses have decreased by 15% (168 licenses) under the 5:1 ratio based on tags. However, had the exit ratio been based on licenses rather than tags, licenses still would have decreased by 13% (142 licenses). The Commissioner reasoned that if the zones used licenses for the exit ratios rather than tags, they would have still achieved their goal of reducing effort.

Additionally, using licenses rather than tags would allow more opportunity for entry for those on the waiting list. DMR’s analysis indicates that 45 people would have entered the fishery from the waiting list as opposed to only 18 who have gained entry over the past six years. If licenses had been used for the ratio, the size of the Zone D waiting list would have been reduced from approximately 60 to 33. The DMR concluded that this simple change—basing the exit ratios on licenses rather than tags—would create a more fluid entry system while continuing to reduce effort.

The Commissioner told a group of more than 50 lobstermen at the Machias meeting that Zone A has already implemented these changes and is the poster child for creating a more functional entry system. Zone A voted to change its ratio to 3:1 based on licenses. “I’m not trying to drive a wedge [between the zones],” Keliher said, “I’m just trying to point out that we can make a big difference with small changes. Zone A has had 22 people come off the waiting list in the last two years.” By contrast, Zone B, which also changed its ratio from tags to licenses, but remained at 5:1, has seen only four new entrants in the last two years. Zones D, E, F and G, all of which have a 5:1 ratio based on tags, have seen a range of between two and six new entrants in the last two years.

Feedback varied widely across the zones. Lobstermen from Zones A, B and C generally supported the change, while the other zones worried about creating more effort on the water. Lobstermen at the Deer Isle and Vinalhaven meetings, both located in Zone C, were confused about what the DMR was trying to solve. A Deer Isle lobsterman asked, “If Zone C has only gained 11 licenses since 2008, what’s the problem? Why do zones have ratios?” “That’s a good question,” responded the Commissioner. Ironically, Zone C lobstermen recently completed a non-binding questionnaire to gauge opinion on closing the zone; the non-official results, with a 35% response rate, indicate a roughly 2 to 1 margin in favor of closing the zone.

Zones A and B offered similar feedback. Rock Alley, a Beals Island lobsterman, asked, “What’s the harm in opening them [the zones] all up?” Jack Merrill, an Islesford lobsterman, asked the room, “How many of you guys had to wait seven years to get your license? No one should have to wait that long. It’s not fair.”

Zone A lobstermen wondered why the Commissioner continues to hold meetings to discuss things that don’t need fixing. John Drouin, a Cutler lobsterman who serves on the Zone A Council, asked the Commissioner, “Why are you talking about these things in a way that is meant to create fear? There are no 20, 30 or 40 year waiting lists. The GMRI report said the average time on a waiting list is only six years.” Richard Alley, an Addison lobsterman, asked, “Why do you keep coming out trying to fix things that aren’t broken? Those [latent] licenses aren’t a problem. They pay for them, which benefits the state and doesn’t take anything from the resource.”

Feedback from Zone D and Zone F was more heated. These lobstermen were confused about why the DMR would recommend changing the currency from tags to licenses when the zones already have the authority to use either method. They voiced strong concern that this would result in the Legislature undermining the zones’ authority.

Gerry Cushman, a Port Clyde lobsterman, stated, “I’m out on the water every day and your numbers don’t make sense. You [Commissioner Keliher] say we’ve lost 168 licenses, but I have not seen any reduction in the number of traps in the water. There are traps set on top of traps. We are still on the edge with bait. There is already too much effort. How can you say that you are going to increase entry and not increase effort? You are taking latent effort out and putting active effort in. None of this makes sense!”

Based on its analysis, DMR staff argued that the increase in effort lobstermen are seeing on the water is not coming from latent effort or from new licenses. Rather, the increase in effort is coming from within the fishery — from lobstermen changing how and where they fish. Bob Baines from South Thomaston asked, “So what do you think will happen if the offshore fishery falls off and all of those boats come back inshore?” Carl Wilson, director of DMR’s Bureau of Marine Science, answered, “It would be a mess.”

It comes down to how one defines effort. For lobstermen, effort equals traps in the water. For DMR, effort equals licenses and trap tags sold. Based on the level of emotion expressed during the meetings, these are clearly not the same thing.

Bar Harbor lobsterman Jon Carter said that the ratios were put in place at a time when managers were demanding that Maine control its effort because the lobster population was thought to be in decline. “Weren’t we supposed to go to 1:1 once we reached our goal? Maybe we need to rethink why we are keeping people out of the fishery because the resource is really healthy,” he said.

“This is not the same fishery and not the same resource that we had when this system was put in place over 15 years ago,” noted the Commissioner. Since 2000, statewide lobster landings have more than doubled, from 57 million pounds to 124 million pounds. While landings have increased, two zones have had people on the waiting list for 10 years; five zones have had people on the waiting list for at least eight years.

At the Portland meeting, Chebeague Island lobsterman Jeff Putnam warned, “You shouldn’t undermine the zones. There will be more effort in the water if you change to licenses.”

Long Island lobsterman Steve Train asked the Commissioner, “If the Legislature decides to do this anyway, will you at least consider not counting those latent licenses [with no tags] when they are retired?” Another Zone F lobsterman asked if the Commissioner had considered how many more people will sign up for the Apprentice Program if time on the waiting list is shortened.

“You know, if we just leave the existing system alone, effort will be cut in half in just 10 years as lobstermen retire. Have you considered that?” asked Donny Young, a Cushing lobsterman. He suggested that if the DMR insists on changing all the exit ratios to licenses, they should consider putting a cap on the number of tags for each zone.

The DMR’s second proposal, to improve student entry by increasing the age to obtain a commercial license from under 18 to under 23, was well received across the state. “It’s not right that kids need to choose their career by the time they are 15 to get into this fishery, and it’s really not right that kids would have to drop out of school to complete their time,” said David Cousens of South Thomaston. Lobstermen across the state concurred that this would be a good change to the entry system. Dwight Carver, a Beals Island lobsterman, agreed. “It’s the right thing to do and it’s about time. We need to give a person time to grow up before they decide what they want to do.” DMR noted that this change will help alleviate pressure on the waiting list. “We hope that by getting more students through by increasing the age, we would move a lot of people off the waiting list,” added DMR’s marine policy director Deirdre Gilbert.

The Commissioner raised the question of whether this sort of reform should be retroactive. “What do you think about going through the list and letting anyone who had completed their Apprentice Program before they turned 23 in? That would really move some people off the list.” DMR staff stated that, depending on the zone, this would move from four (Zone E) to 15 (Zone D) additional people off the waiting list. Some liked this idea, some did not. Others questioned how this helped the older Apprentices. In Zone B, lobstermen asked what more could be done for Apprentices on the list: “Can they get a token amount of tags to fish like students, to keep them interested? “Can DMR use tax records and give credit for time as a sternman?” and “Can’t you do something to get full-time lobstermen from other zones off the list?”

There was no consensus from the industry on how to deal with lobstermen who are winding down their careers. The DMR proposed creating a new limited commercial license which would be offered with fewer tags and at a lower cost. The license would be available to purchase voluntarily for those who want to keep a lobster license but are fishing less. Presently, 11% of all commercial lobstermen hold an over-70 license (530 licenses). DMR staff noted that creating a limited commercial license might not do much for those on the waiting list, but it would address some of the latency. Some lobstermen felt that this couldn’t hurt; others could not understand the point since over-70 licenses are already discounted and those lobstermen don’t have to purchase 800 tags. Zone A lobstermen offered a different approach, noting that if you allow lobstermen to purchase only the tags they want to fish each year, and remove the provision that you can only increase by 100 tags each year, you wouldn’t need a limited license and you would get rid of a lot of latent tags.

The final idea offered for discussion was a “use it or lose it” concept for new entrants. “Should we be looking at preventing the creation of new latent effort in the fishery?” asked Commissioner Keliher. “I know many Apprentices have been frustrated when licenses are awarded and not fished.” The Commissioner also asked if new entrants should be required to report their landings. Most lobstermen agreed with requiring new entrants to use their lobster licenses within a specified time range; there was virtually no support for requiring them to report.

“The department believes these changes can create a more functional entry system without increasing effort,” Keliher said. “We need to continue to get industry feedback, but we will be putting a department bill forward for the upcoming session in January.” House Marine Resources Committee Chair Walter Kumiega noted, “There should be time for DMR to take this bill out to the zone councils for feedback.

They would need to meet in January, February at the latest.”