Search

Showing posts with label lobster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobster. Show all posts

Jan 25, 2026

Bills before Maine's Marine Resources Committee in the first session of the 132nd Legislature

 Bills before the Marine Resources Committee  in the first session of the 132nd legislature.)

Committee Members list:Click on the above link and scroll halfway down the page. List will be on left size of page . 

Link to written public testimomy  submitted to the Committee, regarding the 40 bills below  Future testimony will be added there  as it comes in 

The Bills: 

1.LD 44(HP8)
An Act to Amend the Laws Pertaining to Elver Fishing
2.LD 64(HP28)
An Act to Eliminate the Cultchless American Oyster Growers License
3.LD 144(SP80)
An Act to Create a Limited Retail Seafood Harvester Certificate
4.LD 214(HP137)
An Act to Create a For-hire Charter Boat Operator License and to Require Individuals Recreationally Fishing for Halibut in Coastal Waters to Register with the Saltwater Recreational Fishing Registry
5.LD 325(HP225)
An Act Related to the Disbursement of Revenue Generated from the Harvesting of River Herring
6.LD 336(HP236)
An Act to Change the Waiting List System for Commercial Lobster and Crab Fishing Licenses
7.LD 475(SP215)
An Act to Protect Maine's Marine Resources
8.LD 489(HP318)
An Act to Provide for a Vessel Breakdown License Exception for Commercial Halibut Fishing License Holders
9.LD 553(SP208)
An Act to Assert State Sovereignty over Ocean Waters and Marine Resources up to 12 Nautical Miles off the State's Coast
10.LD 619(HP387)
An Act Related to Marine Resources and Maine's Working Waterfront
11.LD 687(SP304)
An Act to Assert State Ownership over Ocean Waters up to 12 Nautical Miles and Submerged Lands and Marine Resources up to 24 Nautical Miles off the State's Coast and to Direct the Attorney General to Study That Ownership
12.LD 816(HP523)
An Act Regarding the Emptying of Elver Fyke Nets
13.LD 851(HP537)
An Act to Establish a Senior Retiree Lobster License
14.LD 968(HP628)
Resolve, to Study Stakeholder Input Involving the Appointment of the Commissioner of Marine Resources
15.LD 1026(SP444)
An Act to Provide Mapping Services for Aquaculture Lease Siting
16.LD 1094(HP716)
An Act to Prohibit a Person from Obtaining an Elver Dealer's License for a Minimum of 5 Years in Cases of Repeat Violations of License Conditions
17.LD 1172(HP777)
An Act to Enact the Passamaquoddy Fisheries and Workforce Development Act
18.LD 1176(HP781)
An Act to Provide for the Sustainable Management of Marine Resources and Create a Noncommercial Northern Shrimp License
19.LD 1253(HP828)
An Act to Authorize the Commissioner of Marine Resources to Add Limited-access Area Fishing Days During the Scallop Season
20.LD 1279(HP854)
An Act to Require the Department of Marine Resources to Conduct Biotoxin Testing of Cultured Scallops
21.LD 1319(SP549)
An Act to Amend the Law Regarding the Suspension of Licenses Issued by the Department of Marine Resources for Failure to Comply with Reporting Requirements
22.LD 1341(SP556)
Resolve, Directing the Department of Marine Resources to Evaluate How to Effectively Allow 2 Licensed Individuals to Fish for Lobsters or Scallops from a Single Vessel
23.LD 1352(HP875)
An Act to Amend Provisions Regarding the Scallop Fishery License Apprentice Program, Licensing and Limited Access Areas
24.LD 1353(HP876)
An Act Regarding Required Landings in the Menhaden Fishery
25.LD 1503(HP987)
An Act to Create a Green Crab Only Wholesale Dealer License

=============================
26.LD 1561(HP1019)
Resolve, Regarding the Percentage of a Lobster and Crab Fishing Licensee's Lobster Traps That May Be Fished in a Lobster Management Zone Listed on the License as a Secondary Zone
27.LD 1595(HP1053)
An Act to Strengthen Working Waterfronts Against Nuisance Complaints Regarding Aquaculture
28.LD 1596(HP1054)
An Act to Support Maine's Sea Farmers
29.LD 1625(HP1079)
An Act Regarding the Preservation of Working Waterfronts
30.LD 1678(HP1113)
An Act to Allocate Commercial Menhaden Fishing Licenses for Island Communities
31.LD 1679(HP1114)
An Act to Allocate Scallop Dragging Licenses for Island Communities
32.LD 1708(HP1143)
An Act to Create the Commercial Fishing Safety Fund to Further Develop Training and Provide Equipment to Recover Ships and Other Watercraft and Persons in Distress or Lost at Sea
33.LD 1722(HP1149)
An Act to Simplify the Regulation of Aquaculture Leases
34.LD 1790(HP1201)
An Act Regarding Lobster Measurement
35.LD 1991(SP803)
An Act to Authorize an Educational Requirement for Seaweed Permit Holders
36.LD 2002(SP816)
An Act to Extend the Maine Lobster Marketing Collaborative to December 31, 2031
37.LD 2013(HP1343)
An Act to Authorize the Commissioner of Marine Resources to Adopt Emergency Rules to Protect Certain Marine Mammals in Exceptional Circumstances
38.LD 2024(HP1354)
An Act to Make Changes to Certain Licensing Laws Governing For-hire Charter Boat Operators, Lobster and Crab Fishing and Elver Dealers
39.LD 2025(HP1355)
An Act to Create a Limited-purpose License for Aquaculture Nursery and Husbandry Activities and to Clarify the Aquaculture Lease Amendment Process
40.LD 2031(HP1361)
An Act to Offer Military Veterans a 50 Percent Discount on the License Fee for a Commercial Shellfish License


26.LD 1561(HP1019)
Resolve, Regarding the Percentage of a Lobster and Crab Fishing Licensee's Lobster Traps That May Be Fished in a Lobster Management Zone Listed on the License as a Secondary Zone
27.LD 1595(HP1053)
An Act to Strengthen Working Waterfronts Against Nuisance Complaints Regarding Aquaculture
28.LD 1596(HP1054)
An Act to Support Maine's Sea Farmers
29.LD 1625(HP1079)
An Act Regarding the Preservation of Working Waterfronts
30.LD 1678(HP1113)
An Act to Allocate Commercial Menhaden Fishing Licenses for Island Communities
31.LD 1679(HP1114)
An Act to Allocate Scallop Dragging Licenses for Island Communities
32.LD 1708(HP1143)
An Act to Create the  to Further Develop Training and Provide Equipment to Recover Ships and Other Watercraft and Persons in Distress or Lost at Sea
33.LD 1722(HP1149)
An Act to Simplify the Regulation of Aquaculture Leases
34.LD 1790(HP1201)
An Act Regarding Lobster Measurement
35.LD 1991(SP803)
An Act to Authorize an Educational Requirement for Seaweed Permit Holders
36.LD 2002(SP816)
An Act to Extend the Maine Lobster Marketing Collaborative to December 31, 2031
37.LD 2013(HP1343)
An Act to Authorize the Commissioner of Marine Resources to Adopt Emergency Rules to Protect Certain Marine Mammals in Exceptional Circumstances
38.LD 2024(HP1354)
An Act to Make Changes to Certain Licensing Laws Governing For-hire Charter Boat Operators, Lobster and Crab Fishing and Elver Dealers
39.LD 2025(HP1355)
An Act to Create a Limited-purpose License for Aquaculture Nursery and Husbandry Activities and to Clarify the Aquaculture Lease Amendment Process
40.LD 2031(HP1361)
An Act to Offer Military Veterans a 50 Percent Discount on the License Fee for a Commercial Shellfish License

END



Oct 5, 2019

How the lobstering "Wild East" was won. 1901 - 1908.

Below, read historic information  from Maine's fishery agency between 1901 and 1908 showing the rapid evolution of lobster conservation in Maine, when processing lobsters into canned food products stimulated a bottomless global market 

 They are from Maine Sea and Shore Fishery biennial reports between 1900 and 1908.   (Note: lobsters then were measured from tip of snout to fork of  tail, so the legal sizes mentioned in these reports are larger than today's carapace-only measure.)    Each excerpt has a link to the report it came from. 

(1.A) From: Maine Sea & Shore Fisheries 1901-1902 Ppg 26-27
"Lobsters...This fishery should have more than a passing notice. It is worthy of protection. It is a home industry. As each year rolls around more men, more boats, more traps, are being added to the business. It is unlike any other fishing. There is no salting, no curing, no waiting for a market, no anxiety about a market. They are staples, good as gold from Klondike mines.

"Prior to '95 we had many canning factories on our coast, whose only business was to can lobsters from April 15 to July 15 upwards of nine inches in length. The lobster business was almost annihilated. The can lobster filled almost every grocery store from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The people of the great West knew only canned lobster. Prior to '95 there had never been a live lobster shipped beyond the western border of New York state. 

"Lobsters had become scarce on our coast owing to the constant drain upon the small lobsters for factories. One of the methods of destruction in the canning days was the habit of carrying from three to five inches lobsters before the close time was off, crowding from 3,000 to 5,000 into space not large enough for 2,000, and on the 15th of April when the factories  (continued below figure)
"could secure them, more than half of the small fish were dead. It is said that one million were lost in this way each spring. We had but five wardens then and they were very poorly paid to look after the business. I have only shown a part of the willful destruction under the old law to compare with what has been done under the law of '95, when factories practically went out of business, never to return, I hope.

"The 10 and 1/2-inch law is the best for the protection of the young lobsters we have ever had. The fishermen claim that it is the salvation of the lobster industry, but it does not suit everyone - the violators or the summer tourists.

"The business has increased since '95. The number of men has increased four-fold ; the traps and gear have increased; the prices received have increased; pounds from four in '95 to twenty-three in 1902. Steam smacks have taken the place of sailing smacks; rapid transit and refrigerator cars are carrying our lobsters all over our country. 

Each year the demand is greater, and the question is - Can we ever supply the demand? Answer - Yes. Good liberal appropriations, great care and attention will increase the supply of lobsters and all will be benefited thereby.
-------------------------

"Now take the lobster law. There are certain clauses in our lobster law which make it very hard to enforce. The clause 'mutilated, uncooked lobster is prima facie evidence of their being short,' while mutilated cooked lobsters although short are all right. I have found in several instances mutilated cooked claws and tails of lobsters. If not less than the required length where were the bodies of these lobsters ?

"The lobster dealers may say it will hurt their business to make a law stopping the sale and transportation of lobster meat, but it should be done. What is the lobster meat that the dealers sell? It is nothing more or less than 'dead' lobster which they pick out of their cars every morning and boil and pick out the meat. Now this is no guessing, but something that I have seen for years. 

"Another way the dealers get rid of a good many dead lobsters is by selling them to the hawkers or peddlers, and they will take all they can get. In certain localities the fishermen will break the claws and tails from the bodies and throw the bodies away. At their homes someone will have the water hot and in a few minutes the claws and tails will be cooked, so the wardens cannot take them if they can get into their houses, which they can't do without a search warrant which is about impossible to get."  Letter from Warden George E. Cushman.
-------------------------

"Warden Isaac H. Snow states in his letter: "I would have the lobster law changed so that wardens can take mutilated lobsters cooked as well as uncooked."
-------------------------

Page 40 THE CANNING INDUSTRY.
"From the introduction of the lobster canning process at Eastport, about 1842, dates the beginning of the extensivecanning interests of the United States in all its branches. Lobster canning was first attempted in the United States at Eastport shortly after 1840, and was made successful in 1843, the method finally employed having been borrowed from Scotland, which country is said to have learned the process from France.

For the successful introduction of the same into the United States we are indebted to Mr. Charles Mitchell, who at that time resided in Halifax, N. S., who learned his trade of John Moir & Son of Aberdeen, Scotland, the first Scotch firm, it is claimed, to put up hermetically sealed preparations of meat and fish.

"Mr. U. S. Treat, a native of Maine, appears to have been most active and influential in starting the enterprise and introducing canned goods into the markets of the United States. Mr. Treat, with a Mr. Noble of Calais, and a Mr. Holliday, a native of Scotland, started the business of manufacturing hermetically sealed goods in Eastport in 1842, experimenting with lobsters, salmon, and haddock. Their capital was limited, appliances crude, and many discouraging canning difficulties were encountered. The experiments were continued for two years with varying success and in secret, no outsiders being allowed to enter their bathing room.

"In 1843 they secured the services of Mr. Charles Mitchell, who moved to Eastport. After Mr. Mitchell's arrival in Eastport no further difficulty was experienced in the bathing or other..."

end Page 40
-------------------------

Page 41
"preparations of the lobsters, and a desirable grade of goods was put up, but found no sale, as such preparations were unknown in our markets. Mr. Treat visited our large cities with samples, but was unable to make sales except on consignment. In 1846 Mr. Treat purchased the island between Eastport and Lubec, which has ever since been known as Treat's Island. In 1854 to 1856 we find him shipping canned lobsters to California. In 1850 there were but three canneries in the United States. In 1856 J. Winslow Jones of Portland commenced canning. In 1843 a one-pound can of lobster sold for five cents, three and one-half pounds, live weight, were required to make a one pound can. No lobsters weighing less than two pounds were then used for canning.

"Concerning the period from 1850 to 1880 sufficient information has not been collected to furnish a connected history of the progress of lobster canning.

"In 1880 there were twenty-three canneries on the coast of Maine, and over forty in the British provinces controlled by United States capital. The combined cash capital invested in the twenty-three factories in Maine was $289,834.

"In addition to the cannery buildings, the several Portland firms which were operating canneries had factories in that city for the manufacture of tin cans and wooden cases, and also warehouses for the storage of the finished product.

"Of the twenty-three , canneries in this State in 1880 ten prepared lobsters only, six, lobsters and mackerel, one,lobsters and clams, six, lobsters, mackerel and clams, and one of the last also put up salmon, fish chowder, and clam chowder.

"In 1879 the factory at Southwest Harbor began to put up lobsters in the shell for export trade. They were boiled, the tail bent under the body, and then packed in cylindrical tin cans twelve and fourteen inches long, put into the cans dry, bathed afterwards and vented in the usual manner. These lobsters were used chiefly for garnishing dishes for the table. In 1879 Mr. J. W. Jones estimated the average weight of lobsters taken for all purposes in Maine 1 ½ pounds; N. S., 2 pounds; Bay of Chaleurs, 2 ½ and Magdaline Islands, 3 pounds.
In 1879 one small steamer was used for collecting lobsters for the factory at Castine. The smacks of that time had an average
Page 41
-------------------------

valuation of about three hundred and fifty dollars ($350). The price obtained by the fishermen in 1880 average about one dollar per hundred (count) for canning lobsters. It is reckoned in 1880 that 9,494,284 pounds oflobsters were used at the Maine canneries, valued at $94,943, from the fishermen, and the number of men supplying the same was not far from 1,200, and nearly, if not quite all of these, were also interested in selling to market smacks, which yielded much greater profits.

From the 9,494,284 pounds of live lobster used by the canneries 2,000,000 pounds of canned lobsters, valued at $238,000 were put up on the coast of Maine. No account of the total production of canned lobsters on the coast of Maine during past years is at hand for comparison with those of 1880, but the fact of a very great falling off in the production from year to year is well known, and can be proved by the statistics of small sections. It is stated that the total production of 1880 was greatly exceeded, in ten years previous to that date, by that of a few canneries alone.
-----------------------------------
"Until 1842 lobsters were not in sufficient number at Eastport to induce people to fish for them. The canning oflobsters having commenced at Eastport in that year, smacks were sent to the western part of our State for their supplies. In 1855 they first began to fish extensively for lobsters about Eastport.
-------------------------

"In searching for information in relation to the production of our State, I find that the first report of the Fish Commissioners of Maine was made in 1867, the year that I first set foot on Maine soil. From that time forward to 1884 the lobster is never mentioned in any report of the State Commissioners, notwithstanding the canning industry was going on at that time. Salmon and fresh water fish seemed to have had most of the attention of the Commissioners during that period.
-------------------------
"There seems to be no way to compare the production of today with that of the seventies and eighties, for, during the canning period from 1855 to 1890, the U. S. Fish Commission's Report is the only source from which any reliable information is obtainable. In that year, 1880, there were sold to smacks and canners in Maine 14,234,182 pounds of lobsters. At that time they say only lobsters weighing 2 pounds were used for canning. We will figure them as weighing 2 pounds each, which will make the catch of that year 7,117,026 in count, and these were caught by the use of 104,456 pots, which shows an average catch to each pot of 68 lobsters. Thus it is shown at that time our production was far ahead of today. From about that date the catch decreased very rapidly until in 1895, when as I have said elsewhere, laws were enacted to stop the wholesale slaughter which was being made by our canneries, for at that time they were canning those nine inches long, and even smaller.
-------------------------

The canning business, which received the blow given by the legislature of 1895 when it repealed the nine-inch law died in that year, and with the death of the canning industry the lobster business of the State commenced to revive. I consider that in 1893 the business was at its lowest ebb, and since that date, according to statistics, the lobster supply has steadily but slowly increased."

"Our protective laws at the present time, if observed, are adequate; the transportation facilities ample, and the business generally, appears to be in a healthy condition among the dealers. If it is not so with the fishermen then they have only themselves to blame. The laws were enacted at their instigation, and wholly for their benefit, and it lies wholly with them, whether or not they are observed, for if they never save anything but a legal lobster the law never can be violated, no smacksman will be able to purchase one, no dealer can buy or sell one, no person can get any but a legal lobster to eat. 

"In short, unless the fishermen for whom the short lobster law was enacted, save short lobsters nobody in our State can violate it unless by importing from some other state or country. It would seem to anyone not familiar with fishermen and their movements that this would be a simple solution of the whole problem, when by observance of the laws by them ( for whose benefit the law was made, and who know as well as you or I that every violation made by a fisherman is an injury to his own business as well as to his brother fisherman's) that to observe the law would be the only thing he would do.

-------------------------

"Many years ago one of the leading industries connected with the fisheries were the canning factories. These flourished at a time when lobsters were very plentiful, and the regular market price was one cent a pound to the factories and three cents apiece for large lobsters for private use. The fishing season then extended from March to rough weather in the fall, no fishing being done during the winter months. 

"These factories preferred small lobsters, and it would be impossible to estimate the enormous number of young lobsters used by them even in a single season.These factories were the first cause of a large decrease in the annual catch. A law was finally passed making the legal length for canning the same as for ordinary use and it was hoped that the decrease would cease: but the closing of the factories did not stop the destruction of small lobsters. neither did it give the proper protection to the seed-bearing lobster.
The fishermen still continue to..."
-------------------------

"use the small lobster, even using them for cunner trap bait and hen-food. They also continued, after it became illegal to do so, to rub the seed from the spawn of female lobster, and sell them to the lobster buyers with the other market lobsters. These practices were not only common, but the usual methods of most fishermen. Is it any wonder that the catch became smaller and smaller each year until corrective measures were taken? 

"Finally our legislature passed a law making it illegal to have in possession any lobster below a prescribed length, ten and one-half inches, now three and three-fourths inches body measure; and made a general appropriation for the Department of Sea and Shore fisheries, which provided funds, for a warden service to enforce the law.  

"Their experience from using lobsters of that size has been that they are practically exterminating the species. At a meeting recently held in Boston. which was attended by commissioners and representatives of the several states, it was unanimously..."


"...agreed that the Maine legal length, method of measurement, etc., are the best to adopt."
END

Dec 3, 2015

Lobster larvae: global warming could have bigger impact on their survival than ocean acidification

Gulf of Maine water warming: bigger danger to lobster larvae than ocean acidification?
On November 23, 2015   at an Ocean Acidification gathering of scientists, NGOs and state and municipal officials, held in Augusta Maine, meeting co-host Susie Arnold of the Island Institute, read a several  reports from researchers who couldn't attend that day. 
Among them, a report by Jes Waller a UMaine marine biology graduate student . Waller compared the effects on maine lobsters of increased acidification of seawater with the effects of increased tsewater tempersure. Here's the report  read by Susie Arnold  
The word from Bigelow Lab: Lobster larvae may be  affected more by ocean warming than by ocean acidification. Jes Waller, a UMaine grad student doing her research at Bigelow, compared the impacts of water warming and acidication on larval lobsters in the lab. 
This according to an update from her that was read out to the participants at the recent ocean acidification meeting in Augusta. Listen to that reading a 2min 37sec mp3 
Waller extrapolated environmental conditions out to the year 2100, apparently by increasing the amount of acid-forming carbon dioxide in some of the larvae's environment to 750ppm, and increasing water temperature to 66 degrees in others. 
Findings: 
(1) Boosted acidification DID NOT appear to affect the lobster larvae's metabolism nor their behavior.
(2) Elevated water temperature DID affect them.Their respiration sped up, their motions increased , and their development through life stages sped up. (They have 3 larval stages, and one postlarval stage before becoming juvenile then adult lobsters.)
Waller's paper will be published soon, but it suggests that what appears to prove lethal to these superhungry larvae is that the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water and  abundance of their tiny prey doesn't increase along with their needs. Not enough for their increased respiratory and food demands  So they strangle and starve.
A legislator raised the question: does elevated acidity have impacts on lobster larvae's prey? 
No one knew. Food for the little ones include animals like water fleas , zooplankton copepods, crustacean larvae, eggs of about any fish or shellfish; and on the salad side: diatoms, dinoflagellates & filamentous algae.

Which of those are acid-sensitive and which are warming sensitive - and which are both?

Mar 24, 2014

Dulse et Decorum est. A Lobster's Lament

Dulse Et Decorum Est
A Lobster's Lament.  (with apologies to W.O)

Bent double, like old bait under totes
Knock-kneed, scuttling like crabs, we cursed through sludge,
Till beyond the dangling dredger's clutch, we turned our carapaces
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Lobsters crawled, asleep. Many had lost a  claw, a stalked eye
But limped on, ichor-shod. All went lame; half blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the distant roaring sigh
Of dredged up sediments dropping from above.

SPOILS! Spoils! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of stumbling,
but there is no 'scape. No fitted human masks. No just in time.

Someone, then two, then more were  clattering loud and stumbling
And floundering like shrimp in evil steam.
Dim, through the muddy clouds and dimming thick gray light
As under a gray sea, we saw them: drowning!

In all my salted dreams, before my helpless sight,
They plunge at me, guttering, clawing. Drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
around the foul pile some evil skygod flung upon them,
And watch the antennae writhing in the mud above their heads
Their thrashing claws, like preachers peddling sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling at the muck-corrupted gills,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile mercury salting innocent claws and tails,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To larvae ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro industria mori.

May 8, 2013

Has the Army Corps of Engineers declared war on Penobscot Bay lobsters?

"Big Diggah" dredge plan for Searsport could elevate mercury in bay lobsters to warning label level, putting sales of the tasty crustacean at risk.

Searsport. A federal plan to dredge a gigantic expansion of  the shipping basin off Searsport, Maine would not only be a taxpayer boondoggle; it could also resuspend so much methylmercury into Penobscot Bay's water column that lobsters and other shellfish harvested as far away as North Haven could be tainted to levels triggering mercury advisories. The dredge spoils  disrupt clams and disrupt and other filterfeeders on the bay floor for years.   

That according to critics of the project who have urged the US Army Corps of Engineers to limit its effort in Searsport Harbor to maintenance dredging of the Mack Point dock and approaches, while dropping its economically improbable, and ecologically dangerous expansion dredging plan. 

The Searsport Harbor Improvement Project would dig out up to a million tons of sediment from the floor of Searsport Harbor from two locations: the Mack Point terminals and approaches, plus an immense bite out of the shoal separating Mack Point from Sears Island.

The Friends of Penobscot Bay letter to the Corps of Engineers warned that contaminants in the sediments to be dredged would be resuspended at levels that could raise methylmercury in lobster tails and claws to levels requiring issuance of a public health advisory

The group cites the 2008 Penobscot River Mercury Study ordered by Federal judge Gene Carter to determine how much mercury the now defunct HoltraChem company had leaked or spilled into the tidal Penobscot River in Orrington.   

The study examined samples of sediment, fish and shellfish taken from the waters off the Holtrachem site, downriver, and throughout the upper bay to Vinalhaven. It found  high levels of the potent neurotoxin methylmercury (MeHg) were in the sediments closest to the holtrachem plant, tapering off downstream until reaching the upper bay, where the level of methylmercury rose again, tapering off to background levels in Vinalhaven

According to the report: "At the eight upper estuary sites (see map Figure 36), of 67 lobster sampled, 25% exceeded the MDEP criterion of 200 ng/g w.w. MeHg and 6% exceeded the USEPA criterion of 300 ng/g. This was calculated from the mean of total Hg in claws and tails (from individual total Hg concentration in claws assuming tail muscle was 53% higher in total Hg) and that 75% of the total Hg in both tissues was MeHg."

The Friends of Penobscot Bay warned the Corps that 
"some of the most elevated  levels of mercury in lobster claws was in samples taken less than a mile away from the area proposed for improvement dredging. If more mercury were resuspended as a result of dredging, then the contaminated lobster zone – in that location already well above EPA toxicity limits – could spread to a far greater part of the bay"

The group warned  of economic disaster to the region if public health laws mandate posting a 
 mercury advisory on Penobscot Bay lobsters and processed lobster products.

Thanks But No Tank's letter  to the Army Corps of Engineers challenges the Corps' claim that dredging is required to accommodate deep draft vessels presently using the existing terminals at the port. TBNT's attorney Steve Henchman wrote that this claim "is expressly contradicted by all of the Corps’ prior representations about Mack Point and the port of`Searsport, published in the 2012 EA regarding the proposed DCP Searsport LLC LPG marine import terminal at Mack Point."

"In that 2012 EA," the group attorney Steve Hinchman wrote, "the Corps concluded that "no dredging” would be required to accommodate the 4 to 8 ocean-going, deep draft LPG tankers that the DCP facility would have been serviced by annually — ships with an anticipated draft of up to 39.7 feet"

TBNT called this "proof that the assertions of need for the proposed "improvement" dredging in the April 5, 2013, Feasibility Study, and draft EA, FONSI and CWA letter are arbitrary and capricious — unsupported even by the Corps’ own prior, recent findings about the
safety and adequacy of this port area — without any dredging — for a significant increase in large, ocean-going, deep draft tanker trafiic."

"Despite having thirteen years to conduct a thorough assessment of the alleged need to deepen the channel and pier area of Mack Point," Hinchman wrote, "the cursory and out-dated analysis on which the Corps’ April 5th Feasibility Study and draft EA, FONSI and Clean Water Act (CWA) letter, is based fails to adequately consider the potentially significant environmental damage that the direct and indirect, primary and secondary consequences of the proposed "improvement dredging" would wreak on the fragile environment of Upper Penobscot Bay, and the Bay as a whole from the dumping of almost a million cubic yards of dredge spoils that potentially contain significant contaminants (including mercury. "

Down East Lobstermens Association also wrote to the Corps of Engineers in opposition to the dredge expansion project.   DELA regularly samples the area for pollutants They warned of the complexity of the water circulation at the top of the bay and called for a public hearing and environmental impact study to learn the extent  of  methylmercury contamination of bottom dwelling species that the project would bring, and how badly the fine sediments resuspended en mass into the bay water column would suffocate bay plankton and clamsn and other filterfeeders... According to the group, dredging in the region in the past  depressed lobster fishering in the upper bay for nearly a decade.

"Everyone hopes that the Army Corps of Engineers will drop its "dig it and they will come"  expansion plan  fantasy," said Huber.  They must not throw Penobscot Bay's lobster fishery under the bus." for a completely unnecessary expansion dredging project could taint the bay's lobsters with  enough of this dangerous neurotopxin compound to require lobster processors  to add mercury advisory labels to their product packaging when made from Penobscot Bay lobsters." Friends of Penobscot Bay's spokesperson Ron Huber said. 

BACKGROUND INFO  (Courtesy TBNT)

37,000 cubic yards of dredge materials would be removed as maintenance dredging.
This would maintain the current federally authorized 35’ depth of the existing channel, tum around and pier areas.  
892,000 cy of dredge spoils have to be removed  for the "improvement" project

An additional  31,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils would be removed from the pier area. 

The existing entrance channel and turning basin would be deepened from 35’ to a depth of 40 
The entrance channel would be widened from its current 500’ at the narrowest point to 650’, 
A maneuvering area would be created in Long Cove adjacent to the east berth along the State Pier.

The rectangular maneuvering area would be  875’ on the west side and 1,066’ on the east side 
A width of 400’. This area would also be deepened to 40’ MLLW.

END

Apr 28, 2013

Maine could be first state to require warning labels on genetically eng'rd lobsters & other seafood

Recently New England's marine biotech community has been trumpeting genetic engineering of Seafood. NOAA recently reported on  experiments by Connecticut Seagrant  creating transgenic fish and crustaceans

On April 24, 2013 the Maine legislature's Marine Resources committee heard  LD 898 An Act To Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms. (Listen to bill testimony below) Sponsored by Rep Ralph Chapman, LD 898's summary reads:

"This bill requires clear and conspicuous labeling of marine organisms offered for sale that are produced using genetic engineering. Failure to provide the required labeling is a civil violation subject to enforcement by the Commissioner of Marine Resources."

LD 898 is a less known companion to LD 718 An Act To Protect Maine Food Consumers' Right To Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock that was heard on April 23rd by the Maine legislature's Agriculture Conservation and Forestry Committee. But it deserves a great deal of attention from the same people that support LD 718. If they do, the committee  will give it some serious attention. Promoting this bill nationwide may be helpful.

Here is the bill and its introduction and testimony from the 4/24/13 public hearing


LD 898 An Act To Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms  Sponsored by Rep Ralph Chapman  In particular labeling of retail sold GE'd seafood species

TESTIMONY ON LD 898


Bill Opponent Testimony

Jan 13, 2013

Maine Lobsters visit DCP Midstream headquarters in Downtown Denver.

Coloradans spoke out Saturday out in downtown Denver in the plaza before DCP Midstream's 25th floor headquarters in the Republic Plaza skyscraper..  
 Click Here for photogalleries of these Lobsters at the DCP HQ and elsewhere in Denver.  beseeching DCP Midstream's new leader Wouter van Kempen to drop the company's  controversial plan to build the east coast's biggest LPG gas tank in this scenic backwater, heart of the Maine lobsterfishing industry
Their crimson colors ("we're steamed!" t'was muttered) stood out nicely from on high. About this issue: here and here  




Jan 11, 2013

Colorado capital besieged by giant lobsters over mega gas tank flap

For immediate release 

Contact
Ron Huber Penobscot Bay Watch 207-593-2744

On Saturday at noon, a crustacean delegation "steamed" by Denver firm's megatank plan for "Nation's lobster basket" will bring its protest to  DCP Midstream Headquarters.

Denver  A coterie of angry human-sized lobsters has been making the rounds of the Colorado's state capital, massing in preparation for a demonstration January 12th Saturday at  noon outside the headquarters of gas giant DCP Midstream, in front of the Republic Plaza Building.   These follow recent protests in Maine  See media coverage here and here  More details here and here  and here.

The lobsters, dispatched by a Maine fishery conservation group, are calling on Wouter van Kempen, the new  President and CEO of DCP Midstream, to disavow his predecessor Tom O'Connor's "DCP Searsport" plan to install  a 22 and a half million gallon megatank on the shore of Penobscot Bay, to import Liquified Petroleum gas.


"Penobscot Bay is America's  Lobster Basket" said Ron Huber executive director of Penobscot Bay Watch, who organized the crustacean delegation from Maine.

 "That's because we've got clean waters and one of the world's most carefully managed, most self-policed fisheries," he said.  "We are also blessed by a landscape of such scenic magnificence that more than a million visitors pour up and down US Route 1 along the western bay coast to camp, to hike, to sightsee, to  fish, hunt and ski, shedding millions of dollars into the decentralized local economies as they do so.

"But DCP could be the straw that finally breaks the lobsters' back," Huber said. "And degrades the  scenic assets of the upper bay with its monstrous, outsized gas dome plan.
Lobster Power!
He noted that the company proposes to  flatten an irreplaceable coastal forest on the shore of Long Cove in Searsport, Maine to build its operation. While the natural  runoff of that forest nurtures upper Penobscot Bay, Huber said, the petroleum tainted stormwater from  DCP's  proposed twenty acres of impervious tank and terminal surfaces  would do just the opposite.

"Every little bit hurts"  said Huber.   "Some of the most important animals in our bay can swim through the eye of a needle. It doesn't take much pollution to kill them, and yet because they are the babyfood for the cod, scallops mussels and lobsters of our bay, when they die, so do those bigger animals."

He said that waste discharges from the industrial  facilities DCP's mammoth tank could attract to the upper bay  to exploit its gas, would set efforts back for decades.

"We've been fighting hard to clean up the bay" Huber said. The seafood business is showing it the rise of the scenic and creative economies here show it. DCP's tank farm would  taint the bay and foul the view-shed for more than a dozen scenic tourism dependent  towns."
Inline image 4The lobsters and their defenders find the economics to be the most puzzling part of DCP's plan for their bay.  The gas that DCP would import will cost consumers about a dollar a gallon more than the domestic and Canadian natural gas that Mainers are laready awash in.

"There's no market!" Huber said.  Maybe five years ago when little Searsport somehow caught Tom O'Connors' eye.
But that time is gone, and Tom is gone.Time for the DCP Searsport plan to be gone, too."

END
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special thanks to Tina Braxton,  Colorado facilitator for the event!



Penobscot Bay Watch
"People who Care About Maine's Biggest Bay"

Nov 21, 2012

Lobster Processing: why Maine BANNED it in 1895.

York Island lobster fleet 1894
Maine celebrated when the state legislature banned  lobster  processing in 1895.  Huh?
Why?  Because thanks to the new national railroads, postal services and telegraphy, the national & international market for processed Maine lobster meat exploded out of control in the 1890s and threatened to drive lobsters into commercial extinction.  

A hundred and twenty years later, and processing is back.  The processed lobster meat may be frozen or refrigerated today, not canned, but the same impossible enforcement problems faced by Maine's 19th century marine wardens will apply today, as more and more processors open up, and as market demand exceeds production.

 Read below excerpts from Maine Sea  and Shore Fisheries  Reports from between 1901 and 1908 describing what happened, and why the Maine legislature and Governor acted and shut all lobster processors in the state down 
(Note: back then, lobsters were measured from tip of snout to fork of the tail, so the legal sizes mentioned in these reports are larger than today's carapace-only measure.)
"Lobsters....This fishery should have more than a passing notice. It is worthy of protection. It is a home industry. As each year rolls around more men, more boats, more traps, are being added to the business. It is unlike any other fishing. There is no salting, no curing, no waiting for a market, no anxiety about a market. They are staple goods as gold from Klondike mines.

"Prior to '95 we had many canning factories on our coast, whose only business was to can lobsters from April 15 to July 15 upwards of nine inches in length. The lobster business was almost annihilated. The can lobster filled almost every grocery store from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The people of the great West knew only canned lobster. Prior to '95 there had never been a live lobster shipped beyond the western border of New York state. 

"Lobsters had become scarce on our coast owing to the constant drain upon the small lobsters for factories. One of the methods of destruction in the canning days was the habit of carrying from three to five inches lobsters before the close time was off, crowding from 3,000 to 5,000 into space not large enough for 2,000, and on the 15th of April when the factories
-------------------------
"could secure them, more than half of the small fish were dead. It is said that one million were lost in this way each spring. We had but five wardens then and they were very poorly paid to look after the business. I have only shown a part of the willful destruction under the old law to compare with what has been done under the law of '95, when factories practicallywent out of business, never to return, I hope.

"The 10 and 1/2-inch law is the best for the protection of the young lobsters we have ever had. The fishermen claim that it is the salvation of the lobster industry, but it does not suit everyone - the violators or the summer tourists.

"The business has increased since '95. The number of men has increased four-fold ; the traps and gear have increased; the prices received have increased; pounds from four in '95 to twenty-three in 1902. Steam smacks have taken the place of sailing smacks; rapid transit and refrigerator cars are carrying our lobsters all over our country. 

Each year the demand is greater, and the question is - Can we ever supply the demand? Answer - Yes. Good liberal appropriations, great care and attention will increase the supply of lobsters and all will be benefited thereby.
-------------------------

"Now take the lobster law. There are certain clauses in our lobster law which make it very hard to enforce. The clause 'mutilated, uncooked lobsteris prima facie evidence of their being short,' while mutilated cooked lobsters although short are all right. I have found in several instances mutilated cooked claws and tails of lobsters. If not less than the required length where were the bodies of these lobsters ?

"The lobster dealers may say it will hurt their business to make a law stopping the sale and transportation of lobster meat, but it should be done. What is the lobster meat that the dealers sell? It is nothing more or less than 'dead' lobster which they pick out of their cars every morning and boil and pick out the meat. Now this is no guessing, but something that I have seen for years. 

"Another way the dealers get rid of a good many dead lobsters is by selling them to the hawkers or peddlers, and they will take all they can get. In certain localities the fishermen will break the claws and tails from the bodies and throw the bodies away. At their homes someone will have the water hot and in a few minutes the claws and tails will be cooked, so the wardens cannot take them if they can get into their houses, which they can't do without a search warrant which is about impossible to get."  Letter from Warden George E. Cushman.
-------------------------


"Warden Isaac H. Snow states in his letter: "I would have the lobster law changed so that wardens can take mutilated lobsters cooked as well as uncooked."
-------------------------


 Page 40 THE CANNING INDUSTRY.
"From the introduction of the lobster canning process at Eastport, about 1842, dates the beginning of the extensivecanning interests of the United States in all its branches. Lobster canning was first attempted in the United States at Eastport shortly after 1840, and was made successful in 1843, the method finally employed having been borrowed from Scotland, which country is said to have learned the process from France.
For the successful introduction of the same into the United States we are indebted to Mr. Charles Mitchell, who at that time resided in Halifax, N. S., who learned his trade of John Moir & Son of Aberdeen, Scotland, the first Scotch firm, it is claimed, to put up hermetically sealed preparations of meat and fish.

"Mr. U. S. Treat, a native of Maine, appears to have been most active and influential in starting the enterprise and introducing canned goods into the markets of the United States. Mr. Treat, with a Mr. Noble of Calais, and a Mr. Holliday, a native of Scotland, started the business of manufacturing hermetically sealed goods in Eastport in 1842, experimenting with lobsters, salmon, and haddock. Their capital was limited, appliances crude, and many discouraging canning difficulties were encountered. The experiments were continued for two years with varying success and in secret, no outsiders being allowed to enter their bathing room.

"In 1843 they secured the services of Mr. Charles Mitchell, who moved to Eastport. After Mr. Mitchell's arrival in Eastport no further difficulty was experienced in the bathing or other
Page 40
-------------------------

"preparations of the lobsters, and a desirable grade of goods was put up, but found no sale, as such preparations were unknown in our markets. Mr. Treat visited our large cities with samples, but was unable to make sales except on consignment. In 1846 Mr. Treat purchased the island between Eastport and Lubec, which has ever since been known as Treat's Island. In 1854 to 1856 we find him shipping canned lobsters to California. In 1850 there were but three canneries in the United States. In 1856 J. Winslow Jones of Portland commenced canning. In 1843 a one-pound can of lobster sold for five cents, three and one-half pounds, live weight, were required to make a one pound can. No lobsters weighing less than two pounds were then used for canning.

"Concerning the period from 1850 to 1880 sufficient information has not been collected to furnish a connected history of the progress of lobster canning.

"In 1880 there were twenty-three canneries on the coast of Maine, and over forty in the British provinces controlled by United States capital. The combined cash capital invested in the twenty-three factories in Maine was $289,834.

"In addition to the cannery buildings, the several Portland firms which were operating canneries had factories in that city for the manufacture of tin cans and wooden cases, and also warehouses for the storage of the finished product.

"Of the twenty-three , canneries in this State in 1880 ten prepared lobsters only, six, lobsters and mackerel, one,lobsters and clams, six, lobsters, mackerel and clams, and one of the last also put up salmon, fish chowder, and clam chowder.

"In 1879 the factory at Southwest Harbor began to put up lobsters in the shell for export trade. They were boiled, the tail bent under the body, and then packed in cylindrical tin cans twelve and fourteen inches long, put into the cans dry, bathed afterwards and vented in the usual manner. These lobsters were used chiefly for garnishing dishes for the table. In 1879 Mr. J. W. Jones estimated the average weight of lobsters taken for all purposes in Maine 1 ½ pounds; N. S., 2 pounds; Bay of Chaleurs, 2 ½ and Magdaline Islands, 3 pounds.
In 1879 one small steamer was used for collecting lobsters for the factory at Castine. The smacks of that time had an average
Page 41
-------------------------

valuation of about three hundred and fifty dollars ($350). The price obtained by the fishermen in 1880 average about one dollar per hundred (count) for canning lobsters. It is reckoned in 1880 that 9,494,284 pounds oflobsters were used at the Maine canneries, valued at $94,943, from the fishermen, and the number of men supplying the same was not far from 1,200, and nearly, if not quite all of these, were also interested in selling to market smacks, which yielded much greater profits.

From the 9,494,284 pounds of live lobster used by the canneries 2,000,000 pounds of canned lobsters, valued at $238,000 were put up on the coast of Maine. No account of the total production of canned lobsters on the coast of Maine during past years is at hand for comparison with those of 1880, but the fact of a very great falling off in the production from year to year is well known, and can be proved by the statistics of small sections. It is stated that the total production of 1880 was greatly exceeded, in ten years previous to that date, by that of a few canneries alone.
-----------------------------------
"Until 1842 lobsters were not in sufficient number at Eastport to induce people to fish for them. The canning oflobsters having commenced at Eastport in that year, smacks were sent to the western part of our State for their supplies. In 1855 they first began to fish extensively for lobsters about Eastport.
-------------------------

"In searching for information in relation to the production of our State, I find that the first report of the Fish Commissioners of Maine was made in 1867, the year that I first set foot on Maine soil. From that time forward to 1884 the lobster is never mentioned in any report of the State Commissioners, notwithstanding the canning industry was going on at that time. Salmon and fresh water fish seemed to have had most of the attention of the Commissioners during that period.
-------------------------
"There seems to be no way to compare the production of today with that of the seventies and eighties, for, during the canning period from 1855 to 1890, the U. S. Fish Commission's Report is the only source from which any reliable information is obtainable. In that year, 1880, there were sold to smacks and canners in Maine 14,234,182 pounds of lobsters. At that time they say only lobsters weighing 2 pounds were used for canning. We will figure them as weighing 2 pounds each, which will make the catch of that year 7,117,026 in count, and these were caught by the use of 104,456 pots, which shows an average catch to each pot of 68 lobsters. Thus it is shown at that time our production was far ahead of today. From about that date the catch decreased very rapidly until in 1895, when as I have said elsewhere, laws were enacted to stop the wholesale slaughter which was being made by our canneries, for at that time they were canning those nine inches long, and even smaller.
-------------------------

The canning business, which received the blow given by the legislature of 1895 when it repealed the nine-inch law died in that year, and with the death of the canning industry the lobster business of the State commenced to revive. I consider that in 1893 the business was at its lowest ebb, and since that date, according to statistics, thelobster supply has steadily but slowly increased.

"Our protective laws at the present time, if observed, are adequate; the transportation facilities ample, and the business generally, appears to be in a healthy condition among the dealers. If it is not so with the fishermen then they have only themselves to blame. The laws were enacted at their instigation, and wholly for their benefit, and it lies wholly with them, whether or not they are observed, for if they never save anything but a legal lobster the law never can be violated, no smacksman will be able to purchase one, no dealer can buy or sell one, no person can get any but a legal lobster to eat. 

"In short, unless the fishermen for whom the short lobster law was enacted, save short lobsters nobody in our State can violate it unless by importing from some other state or country. It would seem to anyone not familiar with fishermen and their movements that this would be a simple solution of the whole problem, when by observance of the laws by them ( for whose benefit the law was made, and who know as well as you or I that every violation made by a fisherman is an injury to his own business as well as to his brother fisherman's) that to observe the law would be the only thing he would do.

-------------------------

"Many years ago one of the leading industries connected with the fisheries were the canning factories. These flourished at a time when lobsters were very plentiful, and the regular market price was one cent a pound to the factories and three cents apiece for large lobsters for private use. The fishing season then extended from March to rough weather in the fall, no fishing being done during the winter months. 

"These factories preferred small lobsters, and it would be impossible to estimate the enormous number of young lobsters used by them even in a single season.These factories were the first cause of a large decrease in the annual catch. A law was finally passed making the legal length for canning the same as for ordinary use and it was hoped that the decrease would cease: but the closing of the factories did not stop the destruction of small lobsters. neither did it give the proper protection to the seed-bearing lobster.
The fishermen still continue to
-------------------------
"use the small lobster, even using them for cunner trap bait and hen-food. They also continued, after it became illegal to do so, to rub the seed from the spawn of female lobster, and sell them to the lobster buyers with the other market lobsters. These practices were not only common, but the usual methods of most fishermen. Is it any wonder that the catch became smaller and smaller each year until corrective measures were taken? 

"Finally our legislature passed a law making it illegal to have in possession any lobster below a prescribed length, ten and one-half inches, now three and three-fourths inches body measure; and made a general appropriation for the Department of Sea and Shore fisheries, which provided funds, for a warden service to enforce the law.  

"Their experience from using lobsters of that size has been that they are practically exterminating the speciesAt a meeting recently held in Boston. which was attended by commissioners and representatives of the several states, it was unanimously

"agreed that the Maine legal length, method of measurement, etc., are the best to adopt."