Search What's New Site Map Home Links The Paper Let's Talk Our Library About Us

 
Gulf of Maine Times

Vol. 1, No. 3
Contents

Headline
Features
Gulf Log
Council Currents
Resources
Gulf of Maine Watershed

Back Issues

Summer 1997
Spring 1997

>
Site Search
Powered by Google
GO!   


GOMCME LogoGulf of Maine Council on the Marine
Environment

Fishing gear conference conclusion
Sound management requires fishermen, scientists to join forces

Ashland, Massachusetts - Fishermen and scientists need to collaborate more to study how fishing gear affects the ocean floor and its inhabitants, and should also join in upcoming discussions defining essential fish habitat, according to participants in a recent conference here.

Approximately 150 fishermen, scientists, managers, and environmentalists from all over New England gathered at Northeastern University's Warren Conference Center in Ashland to discuss how the effects of fishing gear on New England's sea floor relate to fisheries, habitat, and biodiversity.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea Grant College Program and the Conservation Law Foundation planned the event to promote scientific knowledge, fisheries sustainability, and ecosystem health.

Sponsors included the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, the Regional Marine Research Program for the Gulf of Maine, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Massachusetts Envir-onmental Trust, and the Connecticut Sea Grant Program.

The conference steering committee will send recommendations generated at the meeting to the New England Fisheries Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, state agencies, and others who will help draft an essential fish habitat management plan required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, according to Judith Pederson of MIT Sea Grant.

Designed to conserve and manage US coastal fishery resources in light of declines in certain fish stocks, the Act requires that the management plan be in place by the end of 1998.

The recommendations conference or-ganizers will offer for consideration will include identifying important habitats; improving estimates of gear distribution and frequency of use; measuring fish productivity in general terms, rather than basing estimates on individual, site-specific studies; developing ways to cut down on species caught incidentally; classifying habitat most vulnerable to fishing gear; improving economic evaluations of fisheries; and urging managers to consider zoning the ocean floor similarly to how land is zoned for specific uses.

Change not necessarily harmful

Diverse speakers at the conference shared their observations and research findings on how natural disturbances such as storms, and disturbances caused by fishing gear affect fish habitat and the ecosystem as a whole.

Some speakers stated that natural and gear-related disturbances are often comparable in degree. Some presenters said that dragging gear along the ocean floor has only harmful effects. Others asserted that, while some changes along the sea floor may harm one species, they can benefit another.

For example, some gear can damage certain species without catching them, or can catch the wrong kind of species despite design characteristics of the gear intended to prevent these problems. Damaged animals can become part of the food supply for other species.

Others explained that fishing gear can sometimes cut down on predators that prey on species being harvested in a fishery.

Though conference attendees may have differed on what constitutes a problem for fisheries habitat and what does not, they appeared to agree that too little research has been conducted into the costs and benefits of these underwater demographic changes.

Diversity or productivity

During the discussions, debate arose from two conflicting perspectives on whether preserving biodiversity or maintaining productivity should take precedence in studying and managing fishery habitat. Supporters of diversity as a priority said that, in the long term, fisheries benefit from what they described as a resulting increase in food that supports many kinds of commercially valuable fish populations.

But others supported reserving certain areas for cultivation of particular stocks." Fishing has always been about production," noted scalloper Richard Taylor. "We don't expect biodiversity in a wheat field. We get rid of pests there to keep bread in the supermarkets."

During a day's end discussion, participants agreed that while diversity and productivity may not be mutually exclusive priorities, one or the other will have to be adopted as the primary goal in the interest of developing a workable management plan.

Participants concluded the conference by emphasizing the importance of collaboration on the part of scientists and fishermen to pursue studies of the effects of fishing on the sea floor, and of methods that will enable successful fishing while protecting the health of the fishery habitat.

"Science and industry must work together to come up with new ways of fishing. We can't go on with the same old auto trawl and put ourselves out of business," said long-liner Fred Bennett. Fishermen at the conference urged researchers to recognize them as a resource, and some researchers said they are already working with industry partners.

Noting that the Magnuson-Stevens act is only about 20 years old, John Williamson of the New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association asserted that plenty of work lies ahead for those responsible for looking after the fishery resource. According to Williamson, "We're only at the very crudest beginnings of fisheries management."