By: Hank Soule, Portland Fish Exchange

Good morning. I am Hank Soule, the manager of the Portland Fish Exchange. The Exchange handles about 90% of Maine’s groundfish catch.

The Exchange conceived LD170 as a way to stem the loss of groundfish from Maine vessels to other states, principally Massachusetts. Since 2005, the number of trips by Maine vessels landing elsewhere, and value of those trips, has tripled. Maine is caught in a double-squeeze: Federally mandated reductions in fishing effort which reduce landings overall, and state policies which encourage vessels to take their business elsewhere.

I won’t dwell on the decline in landings. It’s been well documented, both recently in the press, and more extensively in 2004’s Groundfish Task Force Report which you’ll find in your briefing book under Tab 4.

Others will speak about the hundreds of jobs and amount of economic activity which Maine’s lobster bycatch prohibition costs the state.

I would like to spend my time addressing some of the mythology surrounding LD170. All we have asked is that this Committee approach this issue with an open mind, and I know how difficult that can be in this highly charged environment. But what has long been assumed to be fact may not be.

Make no mistake: The number one reason Maine vessels have departed for Massachusetts is lobster landings. Lobsters can add up to 20% to a groundfish vessels’ trip revenue. You’ll hear from a number of people today who will corroborate that fact.

You may hear that the ‘real’ reason Maine vessels land elsewhere is that groundfish prices are higher in Massachusetts. That’s just not true. Under Tab 1 you’ll find a summary of landings and price information from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Year after year, Maine boats catching fish off Maine’s coast get more for their catch in Maine. But it’s not enough to offset the value of bycatch lobster.

You may hear that the ‘real’ reason Maine vessels land elsewhere is that fuel prices are less expensive in Massachusetts. Maine does charge a sales tax on diesel fuel which can push our prices up. But the value of fuel tax savings is a fraction of the value of lobster landings. We have a bill in the pipeline to repeal the sales tax on diesel fuel charged to groundfish boats, but that’s a different LD for a different day.

You may hear that the ‘real’ reason Maine vessels land elsewhere is that they save a day of steaming time. The federal government disagrees. In Amendment 13, steaming time cost for Maine vessels working offshore were calculated to be less than 5%.

You may hear that LD170 promotes ‘trawling for lobsters.’ This just isn’t the case. Lobsters are a routine bycatch in the multispecies fishery. Lobster bycatch in non-trap fisheries has been recorded for over 50 years by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The most recent federal fisheries observer data shows that lobsters are caught 3 out of every 4 tows in offshore waters. These lobsters are being caught anyway.

Maine’s bycatch prohibition does nothing to control fishing mortality. That’s what the federal lobster fishery management plan is for, and bycatch mortality is controlled through the existing bycatch landings cap.

You may hear that trawling ‘bulldozes’ and damages lobsters severely. You’ll find a discussion of damage caused to lobster by trawl gear under Tab 6. It includes federal fishery observer data that shows a very low discard rate for lobsters because of damage, and a very extensive Connecticut study on the effects of trawl gear on lobster which will probably surprise you as much as it did me. Again, all we ask is you read this with an open mind.

You may hear that bycatch lobsters will ‘harm Maine’s brand and depress prices.’ Massachusetts has not experienced any apparent ill effect from permitting bycatch landings – their lobster prices have always been higher than Maine’s. But if this is the primary concern, Maine can certainly require that bycatch lobster be sealed and shipped out of state – just like Canadian oversized lobster.

You may hear that LD170 will increase highgrading, or discarding lower-value lobsters to retain higher value ones. Actually, much of the lobster fishery management plan is based on discarding – mandatory discarding of undersized lobsters, and in Maine mandatory discarding of oversize lobsters. LD170 will not encourage highgrading any more than existing Maine law does for the directed trap fishery.

You may hear that eggs released by the offshore lobster stock in Area 3 seed the Maine coast with lobster larvae. Under Tab 7 you’ll find a discussion of larval lobster drift within the Gulf of Maine, and three scientific papers which are a bit of a tedious read but again, may surprise you. The amount of larvae from Area 3 that may reach the Maine coast is trivial compared to other sources.

You may hear that lobsters will not crawl into a lobster trap in the wintertime when groundfishing is most active. The DMR’s own website shows that Maine lobstermen catch more lobsters in the winter months than the New England bycatch fisheries do in a year.

Today you will hear these and many other reasons that LD170 will purportedly destroy Maine’s lobster industry. You’ll hear a lot of ‘might’s,’ ‘could’s,’ and ‘likelihoods.’ What we have tried to provide you in this briefing book are some facts. All we ask for is your open mind.

Maine has lost most of our urchin and virtually all of our scallop fisheries over the last several years. Atlantic salmon harvests are falling. The herring and groundfish industries are both heading south – literally.

Somehow Maine has got to level the playing field with Massachusetts if the groundfish sector is going to compete. LD170 is a step in that direction, and costs the Maine taxpayer nothing. Thank you for your consideration.