MEETING SUMMARY. VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisors meeting Fairfield Inn & Suites, New Bedford, MA June 12, 2014

Transcription

1 New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS PHONE FAX E.F. Terry Stockwell III, Chairman Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director MEETING SUMMARY VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisors meeting Fairfield Inn & Suites, New Bedford, MA June 12, 2014 The VMS/Enforcement Committee met on June 12, 2014 in New Bedford, MA to discuss alternatives under consideration in Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, and prepare a letter commenting on the proposed rule regarding gear stowage. MEETING ATTENDANCE: Terry Alexander (Chairman), Ellen Goethel, John Quinn, CDR Kurt Virkaitis, Patrick Moran (Committee); Kirby Aarsheim, Beth Casoni, Claire Fitz-Gerald, Peter Hanlon, Michael Pierdinock (Advisors); Louis Goodreau, Michelle Bachman (NEFMC staff); Jason Berthiaume, William Semrau, Ross Lane, Tim Wilmore, Susan Williams (NMFS GARFO staff); Joseph Heckwolf (NOAA General Counsel, also an Advisor); LT Josh Boyle (USCG); Kelly Wilbur and Raymond Kane (Attendance attached). KEY OUTCOMES: The Committee made recommendations concerning Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Approved a letter, at the behest of the Council, commenting on a proposed rule for Gear Stowage; specifically recommending that allowing yellow mesh be included, and that the requirement to detach the towing wires from the net be excluded, and Discussed the enforceability of a motion by the Groundfish Committee to include in Framework 53 an alternative to address issues regarding the use/manipulation of mobile gear to target smaller fish. PRESENTATION: OMNIBUS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AMENDMENT 2 Michelle Bachman (Council Staff) presented a summary of alternatives and enforcement considerations, Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OA2) Draft EIS (attached). OA2: Michelle Bachman indicated that the Enforcement Committee s comments on OA2 would be presented at the public hearings for that action. She described the three types of areas proposed 1

2 where fishing activities would be restricted: year-round habitat management alternatives, seasonal spawning management alternatives, and year-round dedicated habitat research area (DHRA) alternatives. Habitat alternatives and research alternatives apply to all mobile bottomtending gear, with broader restrictions in a few cases, and spawning alternatives generally apply to gears capable of catching groundfish. In the existing GOM Cod Spawning Protection (Whaleback) Area (GOM Spawning Alts 1 and 2) and new Massachusetts Bay Spawning Protection Area (GOM Spawning Alts 2 and 3) charter boat fishing is permitted with pelagic line gear only. Habitat research areas are closed for three years, then re-opened unless research is ongoing. One of the research areas (Stellwagen DHRA, Alternative 3) includes two options for subsets of the area to be designated as reference areas, which would place restrictions on recreational groundfishing. Michelle then explained each of the maps found in the OA2 attachment (pages 20-36). The habitat management alternatives for the central GOM, western GOM, Georges Bank, and GSC/SNE sub-regions include an alternative to remove the existing year-round groundfish closures and Amendment 13 habitat closures (there are currently no closures in the fifth region, eastern GOM). The different types of fishing potentially displaced by the management alternatives are described in the economic analysis, which was not included in the presentation. Habitat areas were selected because they take longer to recover from the adverse impacts of fishing. Spawning alternatives generally include combinations of existing areas during seasons that encompass groundfish spawning activity, and their conservation benefits are evaluated based on how they overlap with large concentrations of large fish in the surveys, not by observing spawning behavior per se. The fishery-independent surveys do not fully capture the spawning season for all species. Western GOM Habitat Alternative 8 would exempt shrimp trawls from the northwestern corner of the WGOM Habitat Closure Area, which is included in Alternative 1/No Action. Terry Alexander noted that the shrimp trawl exemption area is important because when shrimp move offshore in late winter/early spring they congregate in this exact area. It may be difficult to identify what gear/fishery is being used from the air, especially if the vessels involved in the shrimp exemption do not have VMS and thus do not declare into the fishery. Western GOM Alternatives 7A and 7B would identify either the existing inshore roller gear restricted area (7A) or an alternate area (7B) as a habitat management measure where roller gear size cannot exceed 12 inches in diameter. The current inshore roller gear area does not apply to shrimp trawls. Joe Fessenden, chief of ME enforcement, explained problems for enforcement and fishermen, 3-4 seasons ago, with the shrimp exemption: the rule was 12 inch rollers, but some operators thought it was 16 inch rollers, and some small boats didn t use any rollers because they were unaware of the rule. Mike Pierdinock, a charter boat operator, showed how the Stellwagen DHRA reference areas could be problematic for charter and recreational fishermen, if they require stowing gear and removing hooks, and prohibit filleting. (Note: tuna fishing would be allowed in the reference areas, and the presumption is that restrictions on recreational fishing would mirror those currently in place for the Whaleback spawning area. This would mean that transiting would be allowed, but that groundfish gear would need to be stowed, and any groundfish caught outside the area would need to be stored.) These boats use live bait and vertical jigging for both cod and tuna, and it is hard for enforcement to determine which type of jig is being fished without boarding the boats. Although there may not be tuna in the areas at times, the time and expense in 2

3 fuel of steaming around the areas increases and it is more efficient to transit through them (note: transit would be allowed provided that groundfish gear and fillets were stowed). The equipment used for cod and tuna are entirely different, the reel and pole for tuna are larger, but this is, again, difficult to determine from the air and requires onboard examination. Charter boats usually fish bottom, shark and tuna with yards of line, and carry all this gear to take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves. With respect to irregular shaped boundaries for closed areas, Kurt Virkaitis of the Coast Guard stated: The standard policy preferring straight vs. curved boundaries applies. The curved boundaries that are proposed are along the state/federal waters boundary line. These curved boundaries, especially donut holes, are problematic to enforce without state cooperation. It is hard to enforce areas that are broken and result in gaps miles wide, like the gap between the Jeffreys Ledge and Small Stellwagen HMAs in western GOM habitat management alternative 5 (page 24 of OA2 presentation). If part or all of Closed Area II is removed or the area is made seasonal via this amendment, there would need to be increased effort to enforce the Hague Line/EEZ. Gear restrictions (i.e. habitat management options 3 and 4) are not preferred, because they must be enforced onboard the vessel. Whether the gear is in the water or not can be determined from the air, but the gear type can only be determined by boarding the vessel. Seasonality, spawning areas, adds another layer of complexity enforcement. It is hard to stay ahead of constantly changing regulations; when the Coast Guard boards a vessel they must be aware of the regulations for all fisheries that the vessel may potentially be pursuing. The Coast Guard does not want to mistakenly give a fisherman a violation, because of confusing and constantly changing regulations. Peter Hanlon, a former MA enforcement chief, summarized the need for no entry closed areas, that is, a vessel is either in or out of a closed area like CA I & II, with no exemptions. Otherwise, it is less likely to be enforced effectively. Ellen Goethel appreciated the enforcement s challenges associated with curved lines, but fishing generally follows along fathom lines, and when a fathom line goes into the corner of a closed area it is difficult to stop fishing abruptly. Ellen thought that we need smaller closed areas. Joe Heckwolf, NOAA General Counsel, saw the need for two essential elements: 1. VMS polling should increase whenever a fishing vessel is within 1 mile of a closed area, and 2. Transiting of smaller areas (e.g. Fippennies Ledge, Platts Bank) should not be allowed. It was discussed later that even small no-transit areas might pose a hardship to vessels if they lie very close to shore. Joe then explained what other corroborating evidence was necessary to make a closed area case. If the regulations are that a vessel cannot be inside a closed area, then remote monitoring with VMS is sufficient, but if the regulations allow transiting and simply prohibit certain types of fishing, an overflight is needed. Not allowing entry into a closed area will increase the cost of a 3

4 fishing trip substantially, according to Terry Alexander. It will be a huge expense to go around areas, especially a large area like the W-GOM closure, because of the 6-7 hour steam time. Joe Heckwolf clarified that he was talking about small closed areas only for no transit, so one hourly ping was not enough. He said that either the taxpayer or the fishermen must pay for enforcing/monitoring, and suggested an increase in pinging only when a vessel was near a closed area. Kirby Aarsheim thought that monitoring speed is what is necessary, so the Coast Guard has more VMS data to use, and thought that fishermen should receive a grant to pay for the increase in pings. Kurt Virkaitis pointed to the proposed increase in the number of closed areas from five to ten, that we cannot count on increased air time, and that the cost of more pinging is an important issue. The cost of pinging, or VMS polling, was next considered. As an example, Terry Alexander noted that the current hourly pinging requirement, in groundfish, costs his vessel about $200 per month in VMS operating costs. Bill Semrau, Northeast VMS Program Manager, made several points: Increased polling (additional position reports) of vessels entering a closed area is a good tool for Enforcement; When increased polling was employed in the past, OLE notified the vendors who charged NOAA for the additional position reports; It would be helpful if the Committee or Council sent a a letter to NOAA expressing their need for increased polling; The cost of a position report is 6 or 7 cents each; Currently, the NE regulations require at least 2 positions per hour for scallop-permitted vessels, and at least one position per hour for other fisheries; We should consider a no transit option for smaller closed areas, because we cannot use speed alone to determine if a vessel is fishing. Joe Fessenden asked if it would be possible, to determine gear deployment, to put sensors on nets, winches, and the hold. He said that without boarding a vessel, it is difficult to adjudicate a fishing in closed areas case, and added that some dealers already use both VMS and sensors [on their boats]. He said that, now, if a patrol vessel boards a fishing vessel, then that fact is announced around to the vessels fishing in the local area. Claire Fitz-Gerald asked how charging NOAA for extra pings would work, and if the vessel would have to declare, over VMS, that it was near a closed area. Bill Semrau thought that fishermen shouldn t have to do anything, that it could be programmed into VMS systems, and that it would be helpful to state that in writing. He said that such programming could be done manually or automatically, but that he preferred an automatic program because the VMS office has no 24/7 personnel. Questions were raised concerning what increased pinging would actually accomplish; if the fishing vessel s speed is known to be 3, rather than 7, knots, then the Coast Guard could be notified to investigate. Joe Heckwolf responded that the spatial pattern of vessel position over time can be used to indicate steaming vs. fishing, and that you ll know more about that pattern with pings at 5 minutes vs. 1 hour. Susan Williams, an OLE agent, said that VMS units can go out near a closed area, and a ping will be missed, but increased polling can help mitigate this problem as well as provide a psychological enforcement tool. Terry Alexander reminded everyone that it is legal to go inside a closed area, if the vessel is not fishing. He added that 4

5 fishermen don t know when their VMS units transmit a ping, and that they generally work the line of closed areas. Joe Heckwolf replied that, with small closed areas and no transit allowed, if there s a ping inside the area, then they have a case. Again, the pattern of pings, if they indicate fishing, adds more corroborating evidence, and law enforcement officers can use that information during a subsequent interview with the operator. John Quinn argued for a level playing field for both fishermen and enforcement, and was concerned with the preponderance of evidence; VMS is not a high standard of proof. Joe responded that to build a case, additional tools are necessary, and a circular pattern of pings inside a closed area, for instance, may show fishing activity. Terry Alexander agreed, but said that the same pattern would appear if something is broken on the vessel. Kirby Aarsheim asked if the Coast Guard was willing to expend their resources at sea, to investigate more serious violations. Kurt Virkaitis of the Coast Guard said, yes, they would investigate with that kind of evidence. He added that, with more pings, fishermen are expected to be less likely to go inside a closed area or cut through the corner. They would queue an aircraft to fly-over, for example, the Jeffreys Ledge habitat area if more pings indicated fishing activity. Currently, a vessel can steam through that area at 3 knots, which also may indicate fishing activity, without being detected, because pings occur only once an hour. Joe Fessenden reiterated that net sensors are not expensive, that the technology is already available, and that they would aid enforcement in determining fishing activity. Beth Casoni, of the MA Lobsterman s Association, supported increased pinging, if there is no cost to the fishermen. John Quinn and Kurt Virkaitis agreed that increased pinging should begin when a fishing vessel is within ½ mile of a closed area, rather than 1 mile. There was some discussion that resolved that the expense of increased pings over the current requirements would be borne by the government. Terry Alexander wanted to see approval of increased pinging in the Habitat Amendment, but Michelle Bachman indicated she was concerned that this might constitute an entirely new alternative, which would be difficult to add, at this stage in the amendment s development, without causing delays. John Quinn did not want increased pinging as part of OA2, but done separately, in light of the uncertainty associated with amendment time frames. The actual polling frequency was thought to be better left to OLE. Bill Semrau said that the standards for VMS equipment require the capability to poll every 5 minutes, and he supported 5 minutes as the increased polling frequency. Sue Williams thought there should be some flexibility, and OLE may want to poll for 10 or 15 minutes, depending on the circumstances. John Quinn replied that the request should specify only increasing polling, and the decisions of who pays and frequency be left to OLE. Ellen Goethel said that NOAA has increased VMS polling before, and the Council should send a letter to NOAA requesting it. As it is not a new regulation, it need not be submitted in an amendment. Both Kurt Virkaitis and John Quinn stated that the request should mention the necessity of increased polling is due to the impending Habitat OA2 action and the implementation of many more closed areas. The discussion then turned to the difficulty of presenting a motion to the Council; neither the Habitat nor the Enforcement committees have a session during the upcoming Council meeting, June 17-19, The Committee Chairman, Terry Alexander, agreed to discuss this situation with the Council Chairman, prior to the next Council meeting. 5

6 After the evolution of these arguments, and after several perfections, the following motion was made: MOTION: (Goethel/Fessenden) Request that the Council, in light of the potential for increased habitat closures, send a letter to NOAA requesting that they consider increasing the frequency of VMS polls when a vessel is within half a nautical mile of a closed area, with the understanding that the cost of these polls would not be passed on to the fishermen. Motion as friendly amended carried 6/0/0 Mike Pierdinock asked the Committee to request a letter to NOAA, to identify if the enforceability of prohibiting recreational bottom fishing in the Stellwagen area is problematic, that is, the enforceability of stowing gear, preventing the filleting of bottom fish, and allowing fishing for other species, in the area. Ellen Goethel questioned, why a letter to NOAA, when the Committee was commenting on habitat alternatives. After some discussion, Michelle Bachman summarized the issue, to be raised and discussed by the Habitat Committee for public hearings, with respect to the enforceability of recreational rules in closed areas, including gear stowage, filleting of bottom fish, and fishing for other species in the closed areas. The Council staff then focused on specific issues and recommendations found on pages of the presentation. The smallest closed area, Fippennies, is 13 square NM. What are the best methods of enforcing small areas: Coast Guard overflights, VMS ping rate, prohibiting entry? Joe Fessenden asked what size is small enough for a no entry closed area. In general, he was not concerned about straight lines, but thought that bigger closed areas are better for enforcement. Terry Alexander agreed that the shape should not matter, that a straight line for fishing is a fathom line. Fippennies could be a no entry closed area, but closed areas inshore should not have entry prohibited (as they bottle up the fishing ports and cannot easily be avoided). An offshore closed area, like Fippennies, can be avoided by changing course by 2 degrees. Kirby Aarsheim pointed out that safety, and especially personal injury, may require transit of any closed area, without repercussions; she mentioned such a case on-going now. Joe Heckwolf assured that there is provision now, in the law, for such circumstances, that no entry is qualified by cases involving compelling safety reasons. Ross Lane, of OLE, mentioned that fishermen with compelling safety reasons for transiting a closed area do notify the Coast Guard via VMS. Kurt Virkaitis described the current situation, enforcing non-straight lines and gaps along Canadian waters, and, based on this experience, said 5 miles across, at any point, is probably the minimum dimension for a closed area, and that this distance is a more important consideration than minimum square mileage. He added that this related to the current 1 hour VMS polling rate, but that 5 minute pinging would make distance [or size] less of a problem; enforcement advice on closed areas is directly related to the VMS polling rate. Terry Alexander said that it takes 15 minutes to get the gear on the bottom, 15 minutes to haul the gear up, and, with typically ½ hour of fishing, you would steam 3 knots in that one hour. Kurt replied that fishermen can cut across a narrow area or corner, for instance, in the middle of a tow. He wanted the Committee to build a case for increased VMS polling, especially with numerous small areas 6

7 as proposed in many of OA2 alternatives. Michelle Bachman said small closed areas the two Cox Ledge areas and Fippennies Ledge, but only the Cox Ledge areas are close to shore, effectively blocking the entrance to New Bedford. She added that the spawning closure in Massachusetts Bay (GOM Spawning Alternatives 2 and 3) is close to shore as well. Bill Semrau identified two important closed area features. First, it is important whether the closed area is inshore or offshore, and whether it is parallel or perpendicular to the coast. Second, VMS vendor equipment is required to send a message in order to restart positioning, that is, fishermen cannot restart VMS units. Terry Alexander uses Boatracs and said, therefore, he doesn t know [how you could turn the VMS off and on]. Kurt Virkaitis indicated that restarting VMS units would not be as much of a problem if the pinging rate was, say, 10 minutes, but the current 1 hour pinging rate can result in nearly 2 hours between pings even if the unit remains on, because the actual polling time within the hour is random. Ellen Goethel said that it is possible to turn the VMS unit off/on and extend the gap between pings, for example, to enter a closed area. Terry offered that, if adding rules is due to a couple of bad guys, an alternative approach may be to drastically increase the penalties on violators. John Quinn urged the Committee to continue to comment on the habitat amendment. The issue of curved lines, close to shore, and donut holes inside some proposed closed areas, was noted already, by the Coast Guard, as being largely adjacent to state waters. The states of MA and NH do not allow bottom trawling in their state waters. Thus, the issue boils down to the marine laws of Maine and vessels that fish Maine state waters with a state permit only, which exempts them from participating in the VMS program. Joe Fessenden, chief of Maine s Marine Patrol, stated that there are significant spawning closures all along the Maine coast. These spawning closures extend into the late spring and summer, and limit all fishing for groundfish. Small mesh fishing is allowed during January through March, and prohibited for the other nine months. That being the case, the closed areas proposed in OA2 that abut Maine state waters, including those with donut holes in the GOM, are effectively closed, for most of the year, to the shore of Maine and within the donut holes. Michelle Bachman pointed out that there are some vessels without VMS, for example, shrimp vessels from ME, NH and MA, can fish in federal waters and would not be required to use NMS unless they possess a federal permit in another fishery that requires VMS (i.e., Northeast Multispecies). Terry Alexander agreed that that is true, but shrimpers with a state permit only cannot possess any other fish, such as groundfish. Joe Fessenden added that crab and recreational fishermen, also, do not have VMS. Terry replied that, in this case, nobody is fishing with mobile bottom-tending gear. Kurt Virkaitis reiterated that prohibiting foot ropes, requiring 5 fathoms between disks, and other gear modifications are difficult to measure on the dock. Additionally, there is not enough room to measure 5 fathom spacing on deck at sea. The Coast Guard was questioned whether they could see a ground cable and disks during hauling. LT Josh Boyle, USCG, responded that they could work that into their checklist, but they needed to have a ground rope defined. Michelle Bachman asked how enforcement knows the permit type of a fishing vessel, for example, some of the OA2 alternatives exempt clam dredges from particular closures. Kurt Virkaitis replied that they know from the air or from the VMS declaration code, and that discriminating clam vs. scallop dredges, for example, would not be problematic. 7

8 CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Enforcement Committee recommendations from June 2013 are on pages of the OA2 attachment. Although some of those recommendations apply to alternatives that now are nonpreferred, the Committee retains them in the event some of these alternatives do become preferred. For example, the gear modification options are not identified as preferred by the Council, but the Committee reiterates its advice with respect to prohibiting ground cables, requiring disks, or specifying cable lengths. The Enforcement Committee recommends: OA2 and closed areas in general should apply to all mobile bottom-tending gear, without exemptions Gear modifications on trawls would be difficult to enforce. No closed area, or parts thereof, should be less than five (5) NM across. Rules for the state waters of ME, MA, and NH should be known to fishermen and enforcement officers, to determine when fishing, groundfishing, and bottom-trawling are allowed and prohibited. Vessels without VMS and fishing in the EEZ must be identifiable. Large closed areas with straight boundaries are currently enforced and enforceable. Small closed areas that allow no entry are optimal for enforcement. Small closed areas that are close to shore and block vessel access to fishing grounds are impractical, without transit provisions. Allowing increased VMS polling (see motion) mitigates most problems associated with OA2 closed areas, and in general: o Enables enforcement of a larger number of closed areas o Enables the enforcement of smaller areas o Enables the enforcement of irregular areas o Should occur when a fishing vessel is within ½ NM of a closed area o Frequency should be at the discretion of NOAA o Additional cost should be borne by NOAA 8

9 LETTER: RE PROPOSED RULE FOR GEAR STOWAGE REQUIREMENTS A draft letter was presented to the Committee (attached). COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE FOR GEAR STOWAGE REQUIREMENTS Joe Fessenden asked why the Committee, in 2011, did not recommend removing the requirement to detach the towing wires from the net. At that time, this rule was felt to be irrelevant, because the wires were never attached to the net and there was, therefore, nothing to enforce. The draft letter now recommends removing this requirement to make it consistent with the summary in the proposed rule, which indicates the requirement to detach the towing wires from the doors (not net) is removed. Removing both requirements to detach the towing wires would eliminate ambiguity and confusion for both fishermen and enforcement officers. Terry Alexander explained that, when the gear stowage requirements were originally implemented, the requirement to detach the towing wires from the net did apply to eastern rig trawlers. Eastern rigs, however, are no longer operative in the fishery. Jason Berthiaume suggested that the letter include this qualification, that eastern rigs did attach the towing wires to the net. This is now included in the letter (bold sentence in the attached). CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Council had authorized the Enforcement Committee to approve and send the letter commenting on this proposed rule. The deadline for comments is June 30,

10 OTHER BUSINESS The committee discussed the motion from the Groundfish meeting, June 9th, to include in Framework 53 an alternative to address issues regarding the use/manipulation of mobile gear to target smaller fish. This change would require all twine behind the tapered part of the net belly to be 6 ½ inches. This would include the lengthener and the codend. The Coast Guard indicated that they did not know how widespread this problem is, because it is hard to catch. They reiterated several times, however, that enforcing this regulation at sea would not be a problem. The cod end shrinks with use, and fishermen asked for tolerance in the lengthener, at 6, in order to re-use old cod end netting. The discussion turned to tolerance in general, and the Coast Guard indicated that it uses its discretion and common sense. Joe Fessenden described how shrimp nets have a 1/4 tolerance in the body of a 4 net, but other trawls are the opposite, with tolerance in the cod end but not the body of the net. Patrick Moran said there should be no tolerance, or fishermen would go on as usual, and the Coast Guard should use common sense. Ellen Goethel had great reservations since the vote on Monday (at the Groundfish Committee meeting), without a tolerance. She said that, without tolerance, fishermen would have to buy new nets instead of using old, shrunken netting. She questioned changing the whole fishery for a problem the extent to which is not known. It would be better, when such violators are caught, to throw them out of the fishery. Finally, net makers should be consulted, because mesh size changes also change the way the net fishes. Peter Hanlon agreed with Ellen, saying 95% of fishermen comply, 4% are on the edge, and 1%, the violators. He described, ten years ago, the use of small twine that snapped on haul back. Such men, Peter said, will devise and conquer every change to regulations. Terry Alexander replied that it is not the body of the net that is being changed, so it won t change the way the net fishes. He said the standard lengthener, which he doesn t use, is 50 meshes, but that is not a regulation but a practice. Ellen disagreed, she said a small change can change the way the net fishes. Terry Alexander explained to the Committee that the proposal requires 6-1/2 inch twine in the lengthener and is part of Groundfish Framework 53, which is one year from implementation, and shouldn t be a problem. Kurt Virkaitis was concerned with the body of the net, and asked what an extension is now. Terry replied that 25 to 50, at the most, meshes of 6 inch twine comprise the extension. Ellen Goethel questioned if the Coast Guard could tell the difference between a net with and without an extension. She said that some nets taper in different places. Kurt stated they measure the cod end, [then look to see what s beyond that]. Terry described how there is a seam under the belly of the net, so you can see where the belly ends; straight back from the taper is either a cod end or an extension/lengthener. Kurt clarified that, at the laces, where the extension connects to the cod end, there are 1-2 meshes.. Terry explained further that 99% of cod ends are double bound, whereas the bellies are single bound twine. Ellen advised checking the entire length to the taper [from the cod end] and intense training for boarding officers to identify whether the net does or does not have an extension. 10

11 Terry Alexander described how the average taper is 3 bars-down one point, 3 bars-down one point, etc. He said there is a definite difference between the belly and the cod end/ extension, but that it may be hard for boarding officers to identify. Kurt Virkaitis stated that the proposal is enforceable at sea, [to measure 6-1/2 inches in the extension]. He could not say how widespread is the practice of choking the net while it is in the water, because it is currently very hard to detect a piece of wire or twine that may have been used for such a purpose. Ellen Goethel asked if today s discussion was informational, or if the Committee would make recommendations to the Council. Terry Alexander responded that Ellen and he would relay today s discussion to the Groundfish Framework 53 session at the next Council meeting; he felt that the proposal may not be much but may deter a few violators. Ellen wanted to request increasing the penalties for manipulating net material, restricting mesh size, or adding a liner, in order to catch smaller fish. Joe Heckwolf replied that the comment period on the penalty schedule was closed, but, looking at the flexibility already in it, said that General Counsel would consider all the facts mentioned today when assessing these violations. Ellen asked if the Council should send a letter with respect to these violations and officially ask enforcement to use their discretion. Terry reiterated that, during the discussion on Framework 53 at next week s Council meeting, he will make it clear that the Enforcement Committee thinks these are serious violations. Joe offered to look at how General Counsel approaches these cases. He mentioned an on-going trial in Boston, involving a restricted cod end, and would report whether they were liable and the fine. Joe Fessenden described how Maine had received a complaint a couple of years ago about liners down East, from a sector manager. The Coast Guard and Maine cooperated, using an unmarked 46 lobster boat miles offshore. Using VMS they made two boardings, miles apart, on two vessels with catches of redfish, but neither were they fishing a liner nor a restricted cod end. These violations are very difficult to enforce, and we were criticized by one of the captions in this case, who was quite upset and raised safety issues and the dangerous nature of the boardings (enforcement officers used a rubber boat from vessel to vessel). Kurt Virkaitis reminded the Committee that the intent of the Groundfish motion was not liners but choking the net. He added that both are difficult to catch, but are enforceable. Committee members who are also members of the groundfish committee and were at the June 9th meeting, made several arguments both in favor and against this motion, and plan to discuss them, most likely, during the groundfish session at the Council meeting, June 18, CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations included several statements by the USCG that the motion to require all twine behind the tapered part of the net belly to be 6-1/2 inches is enforceable. The VMS/Enforcement Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 3:00 PM. 11