In a move that has many lobstermen wondering if legislative term limits should be reconsidered, members of the Marine Resources Committee planned to consider a bill in late April that would radically change Maine’s carefully crafted limited entry plan for the lobster industry.
“We worked for 15 to 20 years on this plan,” said David Cousens of South Thomaston, president of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA). “There’s no one on that committee who was around when we struggled with it and passed it. They [lawmakers] don’t possess the knowledge to run an entry program.”
A term-limits law passed several years ago has by now eliminated all the lawmakers who were serving in the legislature when the lobster statutes were enacted. “There’s no historic memory there,” said Cousens.
Following years of wrangling, the legislature, with support from the lobster industry and the Department of Marine Resources, established Lobster Management Zones in 1996, the Apprentice Program in 1997 and the Limited Entry Program in 2000 in order to stop the escalation of effort in the lobster fishery.
“The current system is fair and equitable, and provides an avenue for youth and others interested in lobstering to enter the fishery,” said Patrice Farrey, executive director of the 1,200-member MLA.
Maine’s zone system divides the coast into seven zones with councils elected to represent each one and a member of each council forming the state’s Lobster Advisory Council. Under the current plan, entry to the lobster fishery is limited and potential new entrants must go through a two-year apprenticeship as a sternman. After completing the apprenticeship, a successful apprentice must wait until a lobsterman retires or leaves.
Members of the committee considered four separate bills at an April 7 public hearing, and despite testimony from the industry that ran 2-1 against passage, killed three of the bills but rolled their provisions into the fourth. Marine Resources planned to consider the revised bill, L.D. 0277, “An Act to Amend the Eligibility Requirements for a Lobster and Crab Fishing License,” on April 28. The bill’s provisions are so broad lobstermen fear if it passes the entire program will unravel.
With around 100 harvesters in attendance, five council representatives spoke against the entry change at the hearing. The other two zone councils were unable to meet in order to take a vote before the hearing, said Farrey, so they could not testify for the group, although some of their harvesters testified against the change.
“I have never seen anyone have to wait more than a year” after apprenticeship to get a license, said Cousens, adding that most people finishing the apprentice program get licenses right away.
The one remaining bill contains several exemptions to the lobster entry provisions. Among other things, it would allow anyone who can prove they ever held a lobster or crab license for two years to apply and receive another one now, reinstate a few specific lobstermen who lost their licenses when they failed to renew them during the changeover and allow anyone who served in the military to get a license without going through the apprentice program.
A separate bill seeking to allow the sale of lobster and crab licenses, currently not allowed, will carry over to the next session.
Lobstermen were asked quietly by lawmakers before the hearing not to pack the hearing room and subject committee members to repetitive testimony. “We were asked to choose one person to speak for each group,” said Cousens. “We did that, and afterward, they counted each testimony as being only one person, not as representing the whole group,” said Cousens. Even at that, the testimony ran two-to-one against the bills.
“It’s important to consider who testified against these bills,” said Farrey. “The testimony against these bills included the MLA, the Lobster Advisory Council, five lobster zones (Zone G, Zone F, Zone E, Zone D and Zone B), the Southern Maine Lobstermen’s Association and the DMR, as well as many individual lobstermen. If you take into account all those who were represented in the vote against, it is probably more like 10-1.”
“The Marine Resources committee is not informed as to the history of the zone process or how we were declared overfished and made sacrifices to comply,” said harvester and MLA member Frank Strout of Cape Elizabeth, who did not attend the hearing and was surprised the committee failed to discard the bills. Later, he sent a message to a lawmaker who supports the industry viewpoint. “Please listen to the testimony from the public hearing,” he said. “The zone chairs that spoke represent their constituents much the same as the committee members do, they are the voice of many.”
“The lawmakers fundamentally don’t understand that this stuff is in statute and the legislature put it there,” said Farrey. “They think no one has ever considered these things.”
“Even people who thoroughly opposed limited entry now think these rules are fair and equitable,” said Pat White, York harvester, former MLA executive director, member of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Pew Oceans Commissioner member. “The lawmakers hear the one-sided sob stories, they feel bad and want to do something for the people who were affected. That’s understandable. But they don’t realize that any change affects everyone. Anyone who wants their license back can go through the apprentice program. Anything else will be unfair to everyone else.”
A former legislator from Harpswell, David Etnier, a fisheries expert, was recently appointed as deputy commissioner of the DMR. Etnier attended the April 7 hearing, testified against the proposed bills and showed the committee the series of letters and informational packets that had been mailed to every licenseholder throughout the process of turning the limited entry proposal into law.
“These letters went out under three commissioners starting in 1994,” said Etnier. “What I find interesting is that industry showed up and overwhelmingly opposed the bill, but members said industry has a vested interest in keeping the number of licenses limited. Perhaps some do, but most don’t. They don’t realize that many harvesters lost a lot of traps when the laws were passed. They reduced the gear they’re fishing and, yeah, they resent slicing up the pie further.”
“The bottom line of the DMR’s perspective is that it was a painful process to establish controlled entry into the fishery, and it’s an important part of proving how conservation-minded Maine lobstermen are to federal regulators,” said Etnier. “It was painful work, spread over eight years. We finally reached a point where industry supported the changes. The general feeling in the DMR and industry is: we support entry into the lobster fishery, but only through the apprentice program.”