Angry Urchin Fishermen Demand More Fishing Days

by Laurie Schreiber



The Zone 1 fishery takes place from September through January. The Zone 2 fishery occurs from September through March. Each of those timeframes is divided into “early season” and “late season,” and hand-harvesters and draggers must choose between them. Fishermen in Zone 1 are allowed 10 harvesting days; those in Zone 2 are allowed 45 days. Department of Marine Resources

At a meeting of the Sea Urchin Zone Council in January, some Zone 1 harvesters said they should be able to fish more than the 10 days they have been assigned each year since 2004.

The harvesters said that scientists and managers with the Department of Marine Resources have compiled the data they need to see that the resource can sustain more fishing.

Expressing anger, they said the DMR has nevertheless ignored the data, to the detriment of their ability to make a living.

But DMR scientist Margaret Hunter said that the diver surveys of the resource and data collection from fishermen have failed to yield enough evidence that the resource could sustain a higher fishing effort.

“There is,” responded James Campbell, a Zone 1 diver. “There’s only 25 of us. It’s a no-brainer. Do you rely specifically on scientific information, or do you ever hear us? I’m a fisherman. Jesus Christ, I just want to go to work.”

The coast of Maine is divided into two management zones for the urchin fishery. The division line between Zone 1 and Zone 2 occurs in Penobscot Bay. Along the western half of the coast, York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Lincoln, and part of Knox counties make up Zone 1. To the east, Hancock, Washington, and part of Knox counties make up Zone 2.

Fishermen in Zone 1 are allowed 10 harvesting days; those in Zone 2 are allowed 45 days.

The Zone 1 fishery takes place from September through January. The Zone 2 fishery occurs from September through March. Each of those timeframes is divided into “early season” and “late season,” and hand-harvesters and draggers must choose between them.

According to Hunter, there has been no significant long-term improvement in stock conditions in either zone since 2004.

But fishermen said they have observed that urchins are doing well in some spots. They said they wanted those observations incorporated in the DMR’s assessment of the resource – potentially in the interest of allowing fishermen more harvesting days.

In 2010-2011, landings dropped to their lowest total in 25 years, with 2.3 million pounds statewide. Of that, Hunter said, Zone 2 took by far the most, at more than 2.1 million pounds, with Hancock County taking 800,000 pounds and Washington County 1.3 million pounds. Harvesters in Zone 1 took 184,000 pounds.

Currently, 373 harvesters have licenses, according to preliminary data as of Jan. 3, 2012. Many divers are reaching the upper limit of age and their ability to dive, Hunter said.

According to the DMR, attempts to understand the causes for the decline have been complicated by an urchin die-off in the midcoast area during 1999-2001, possibly due to a parasitic infection triggered by unusually warm water temperatures. In the early 2000s, a boom in populations of crabs, which eat urchins, has also hindered urchin recovery.

Urchin abundance has been consistently lower in Zone 1 than Zone 2 since 2001, according to the DMR.

The survey divides the state’s coastline into nine regions. Each year, 11 dive sites have been chosen randomly in each region. In addition, five fixed (sentinel) dive sites in each region have been visited each year, and two fixed dive sites recommended by industry members in each region have also been visited. A video camera survey conducted in deeper sites during 2001-2004 was discontinued in 2005 because of problems with the camera cable, and the lack of sea urchins found at the deeper sites in the six westernmost regions.

The survey, he said, involves hand-picking among organisms in 1-meter-square areas as measured by sampling frames called “quadrats.” Over the past decade, he said, surveyors have hand-picked through 25 acres.

“When you look at the state as whole, it’s nothing,” Russell said of the acreage. “But we look at trends. We have sentinel sites we look at every year, and random sites. Some random sites have been phenomenal. Some places you’d think would be good, are not. We have to do enough quadrats in an area to be able say, with some level of confidence, there are about this many urchins in this area.”

Russell said that, although fishermen may find plenty of urchins on particular patches, the survey provides a broader look of the resource as a whole.

“We have to have a data stream here. We need a picture of what’s on the bottom from year to year,” he said. “We have to make sure that’s a source of data that’s not based on fishing practices.”

Marcus Jones, who has assisted with the dive survey for the past four years, said that, as a harvester, he was previously skeptical of the survey’s value.

“I was one of those guys going, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s never been urchins there. Why are you diving there?’” Jones said.

Jones said that, when he began to help with the survey, he began to understand the reasoning behind the selection of sampling sites. And, he said, the lack of urchins, on sites where they might have been expected, has been striking.

“If the urchins were plentiful, they would be everywhere,” Jones said. “We find urchins in some spots, but where are they everywhere else?”

At this point, said Jones, the survey is mostly providing a picture of the future of the resource. That’s because tiny urchins are now showing up at many sampling sites, he said. In addition, he said, samplers are starting to see more of the bigger urchins – 3 inches or more – that are important for spawning. Previously, he said, scientists were concerned that all larger urchins were being harvested.

But some fishermen said the DMR has failed to use any of the positive information coming from the survey toward the benefit of harvesters.

Preney said he did not have anything against the survey, and he also promoted the use of harvester logbooks in an effort to show fishery managers that a higher rate of catch would be viable, particularly with the low number of divers now remaining in the zone.

DMR marine resource coordinator Trisha DeGraaf said the DMR wanted to know how to make the survey “better for you. How can we take that survey and make it serve you by helping you guys get more days? But we’re not going to just hand out more days. We want it to be based on science. The governor has stated he wants all fisheries to be sustainably managed and he wants to make science-based decisions.”

Preney said the DMR has been acting contrary to those goals – by neglecting the science, a situation which has cost fishermen extra fishing days.

At its April 2011 meeting, the SUZC unanimously voted to recommend a 2011-2012 season for Zone 1 of 20 days. But the DMR went to public hearing with a proposal for 10 days.

“So the issue is, the advice of this council was completely disregarded by the DMR,” said SUZC chairman Bill Sutter.

Several fishermen said that fishing alone was not to blame for the continued lack of urchins. They said that crabs, which predate on urchins, are also responsible, as well as warming sea temperatures and paramoeba invasions which have been shown to cause mass urchin mortality.

But Russell said that fishing is also part of the equation.

“You can’t ignore the fact that you have a multi-million-pound fishery,” Russell said.

Russell said of the urchins, “If they’re gone they’re gone. It doesn’t matter if nature took them or if you took them. This is a count.”

“I’m happy enough with the survey,” said Preney. But, he said, “I think it’s woefully understating the biomass. With the numbers you’ve got, it argues our case. I believe Maggie Hunter is most responsible for shooting down our 10 extra days for next year.”

Addressing Hunter, Preney said, “You’ve never publically refuted the data in my claim. Given that same information for 2011, would you again try to stop us from getting more days?”

“The number of days is based in part on the status of the resource,” responded Hunter. “We have not seen evidence – and we do rely heavily on the survey – that the status of the resource in Zone 1 has improved. Until we see significant improvement – and I’m not talking about one year where the survey goes up; it’s going to have to be something where the survey is sustained over several years – as a scientist, I cannot recommend increasing fishing effort unless the status of the stock improves, and we haven’t seen any evidence of improvement.”

Hunter said that, if the DMR had not had the survey to go by, the agency might have closed the fishery all together.

A number of fishermen expressed anger with Hunter’s statements, and Sutter gaveled them down several times.

“The survey data says we’re catching 1.2 percent of the urchins on the bottom,” said Preney. “What more improvement are you looking for?”

“Why don’t we get more than 1.2 percent?” said another man. “If you’ve given us 1.2 percent, why not more? Why don’t we get at least 2 or 2 _ percent? That would give us 20 days at least.”

Preney said that a take of up to 4 or 5 percent would be sustainable for the biomass, and would provide six extra fishing days.

SUZC member Ingrid Bengis said the issues that surround the number of fishing days are complicated.

“It’s not the scientists against the fishermen. It’s not the fishermen against the scientists,” said Bengis. “And that’s the way it’s lining up. There’s anger. There’s hostility. It doesn’t accomplish anything.”

The harvesters’ information about urchin abundance, Hunter added that, essentially, the DMR is working with three different pictures of the fishery – harvester, dealer and dockside observer reports.

“You have three different pictures of what’s happening, and it doesn’t mean it’s all garbage. It means I have to present all three to you,” Hunter told the gathering.

“That doesn’t mean it’s not valid or viable. It’s just means it’s complicated,” said Bengis.