PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — Fishermen and federal officials grappled Friday with the increasingly bleak prospect of finding some way for the historic industry to avoid collapse amid troubles with the health of Gulf of Maine cod.

Their meeting came in the week after regional regulators bought fisherman a yearlong reprieve from what would have been devastating cuts in 2012. But projections discussed Friday showed fishermen still face disastrous cuts in 2013 that most won’t survive.

“It’s going to be hard to preserve the industry at those low numbers [in 2013] and that’s something that concerns us a great deal,” said Sam Rauch, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries arm, who led the meeting of fishermen, scientists and regulators.

“This truly is one of the iconic fisheries,” he said in an interview after the meeting. “When you think of what the U.S. fisherman is, it’s an inshore Gulf of Maine cod fisherman. That’s why we are so devoted to working through this process to try to overturn every possibility we can. But the future, 2013, does not look rosy.”

The cod in the Gulf of Maine has been crucial to New England fishermen from Cape Cod to Maine for hundreds of years, and four years ago, after a major assessment, it was thought to be one of the region’s strongest species. It brought in $15.8 million in 2010, second highest amount behind Georges Bank haddock among the region’s 20 regulated bottom-dwelling groundfish.

But data released last year indicated the fish was so severely overfished that even if all fishing on it ended immediately, it wouldn’t rebound by 2014 to levels required under federal law.

As a result, fishermen were looking at an 82 percent cut in what they were allowed to catch in 2011, a catastrophic reduction that would have wiped out fishermen around the region — not just those who rely on cod. That’s because major restrictions on cod severely limit fishing on the other key groundfish species, such as flounder and haddock, in order to protect the cod they swim among.

Last week, regional regulators at the New England Fishery Management Council asked NOAA to adopt a one-year emergency rule that would enable regulators to avoid the massive cut. And they recommended allowing fishermen to catch either 6,700 metric tons or 7,500 metric tons of Gulf of Maine cod in 2012.

On Friday, Rauch signaled that NOAA would allow the 6,700 catch limit in the 2012 fishing year, which starts in May. That would mean a tough 22 percent cut from what they were allowed to catch in 2011, though not nearly as deep a reduction as first feared.

The problem, according to new projections discussed Friday, is that after the emergency rule expires in 2013, fishermen are again looking at a cut in cod catch just as severe as the huge reduction they were originally facing.

From the first indications of cod trouble, fishermen and their advocates have questioned the science behind the new data and Friday was no exception.

“We don’t trust your data,” New Hampshire charter boat fisherman Bill Wagner told regulators. “We don’t believe there’s a shortage of codfish. We don’t believe there’s a crisis in codfish.”

Massachusetts Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, who represents the port of Gloucester, criticized what she characterized as the constant, massive swings in scientific assessments on the size of fish populations.

“We’re always in the same dilemma and I don’t understand why,” she said.

Gloucester fisherman Al Cottone said the new assessment has put the fishing industry “on death row.”

“The anxiety the industry feels is unprecedented,” he said

With so much doubt about the science behind the new data, Cottone said, regulators should give fishermen as much fish to catch as possible while they try to remove uncertainties in the numbers.

“To basically flip the switch on the industry with so much reasonable doubt would be irresponsible,” he said.

Rauch said the verifying and improving the science is a top priority, and no one can predict if the new work can find something in the next year that significantly improves the assessment of cod health.

“It’s always possible we’ll find something there, but even if we don’t this year allows us time to better plan … for where this industry may end up,” Rauch said. “Fishermen are resilient, they figure out ways to adapt. But this will be hard to adapt to.”

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. Rampant GREED.  Anyone fished for urchins lately? Since the 1980’s? The cod will follow the fate of the urchins if allowed to be wiped from the gulf by the greedy that insist on eating their seed corn.

  2. These Fishermen  totally destroy the Fishery by over fishing and total GREED. How many fisheries will they be allowed to rape and destroy. Sell or dump the boats and get a job at Mickey D’s this way you can peddle fish fillets instead of rapeing the Ocean.

  3. How can they not understand that a resource is not infinite. Willful ignorance should be a punishable offence.

  4. there is a large leap between greed and survival.. Cuts may need to be made, but the science at this point is flawed at best. anyone can say anything they want , it can be based on direction or truth.. but science is only science when there is proof of the research. here there is only a guess. the fact is they have no real idea what the fishery is ACTUALLY doing .. they have no idea what the numbers are… for all they know the fish may have moved a few miles on way or another.. they need to review their findings and do a mulligan… this industry is not about greed.. it’s about survival …

  5. I am really sad to see comments that are target the  blame
    solely on fishermen.  There are many questions here going all the way back to the
    70’s when Magnuson set the 2014 date –  how the science has been
    conducted from the beginning  (and I’m not faulting scientists here either – it’s a new
    territory trying to assess the health of fish stocks in a fluid dynamic
    environment.) 

    The finger wagging people who live in and on coasts, whose septic
    systems send vast plumes of nutrients into the bays, are quick to accuse
    without examining their own coastal practices, and how their lawns,
    chemical usage etc. do damage.  No one has been able to quantify who the
    “deed doers” are at this point, and it’s not constructive to demonize
    ANYBODY at this juncture.

    What happens to the fishery will affect you far beyond whether there are
    cod or not.  I can assume that the economic costs to communities that
    lose associated access to the seas, and failed businesses that no longer
    serve the fishing industry (from bait dealers to fuel sales, engine
    repair, and even more the charter businesses that take out recreational
    tourists) will make a big difference to everyone once the industry has
    left.

    So for the sake of a constructive conversation – can anyone contribute a
    suggestion? And if they have good ideas – where is the proper place to take those suggestions.   For instance I think there are discussions about how to
    measure fish stocks on a more limited spatial scale – short words – for
    fishermen working with scientists to understand how fish inshore can be
    measured and regulated on a regional basis – how science fish coops can
    work with the federal government to protect inshore stocks with the
    offshore regulators….if I’m just a person who respects fishermen and love the seas – where do we offer help submit suggestions? 

     How about looking for a united
    constructive solution?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *