These could be monitored on a regular basis in order to give us trends or indicators to allow for remedial actions.

II. Economics
The resource without the viability of economic survival of the fisherman, dealers, etc. must also be considered, so economics must be considered. The single most important factor to this is the uniformity of the gauges. All states, and hopefully Canada, must have a uniform gauge to make everything work. Different gauges in different areas disrupt the market so that no one has the ability to economically survive, or creates a dog-eat-dog scenario with different states establishing gauges to gain advantage over others to the detriment of the resource as a whole. Therefore, economic factors must be cranked into the indicators such as:

III. Workability and Enforceability
Any plan, to be effective, must be workable and enforceable. Therefore, as far as possible, traditional practices and readily available data should be utilized.

Proposal for Management Plan
1. Divide the offshore from inshore fishery:

A line could be drawn delineating the Boundary between the trip-boat and the day-boat fishery. The reasoning behind this is that management proposals between the two could differ substantially.

2. Extend the state management plans out to the offshore line:

The reasoning behind this is that fishermen are accustomed to working with state lines and most boats reaching the offshore line will have Loran. (It's important that the line be drawn along Loran bearing.) I realize in some cases the state lines between the three-mile limit and the offshore line may conflict but that could be worked out between the states.

3. Establish a committee to oversee the management of each zone. This will provide for each zone, whether it be a single state or a number of states, the authority to recommend to the Regional Director of Marine Fisheries that implementation of a remedial management plan go into effect.

4. Remedial measures would go into effect if indicators show that the stock in any zone is heading for trouble.

There are many acknowledged remedial methods that might be used to prevent an over-utilization of the resource such as:

Jim King, President, Long Island Sound Lobstermen's Association

I recently received the summary minutes for the February 14 meeting of the Lobster Plan Development Task Force and would like to convey some thoughts and ideas to you.

We are happy to see that regional distinctions in the resource are recognized and considered to be important. The lobster fishery in Long Island Sound reaches from the heavily populated urban areas of New York City to the rural farmlands of easternmost Long Island, as well as the state of Connecticut. We, therefore, see many differences in fishing methods, conditions and social attitudes. Since we also share a common resource with Connecticut and have reciprocal license privileges, there is steady interaction between both state's lobstermen. Uniformity between both state's lobster laws is important. I would suggest that Long Island Sound be considered as a definite lobster management sub-area with a bi-state lobster management advisory panel of qualified, credible industry leaders.

A definition of overfishing that would apply to the overall range of the lobster resource is impossible. There are simply too many variables and differences in stock structures. I have watched the average size of our Sound lobster decrease, but increase in population. 75-80 mm egg-bearing females are commonplace.

Based on mortality rates as an indicator, our Sound lobster fishery should have collapsed years ago. These unique animals seem to be highly adaptable to stressful conditions and heavy fishing pressure. Strong enforcement of our lobster conservation laws, protection of juveniles and egg-bearing females, is paramount if we are to be successful in managing this resource. There is no longer any room for the irresponsible in our fishery. Heavy fines and license suspensions or revocations for the more serious conservation law violations must be applied to those that choose to ignore the rules.

I have been a full-time lobsterman in the Sound since 1964 and have watched this fishery grow from a small, primarily part-time fishery into a year-round occupation and the most valuable single species resource in Long Island Sound. I have observed far too many changes in this time period to write about at this time. All I can say is that the resource appears to be in excellent health, despite the heavy fishing pressure upon it and the many water quality problems.

I personally feel the time has come for a limitation on the fishing effort but we must proceed cautiously and sensibly to ensure success for the future. To be quite frank, the lobstermen themselves are the real managers of this fishery. We are the ones in direct physical contact with the resource and its future lies in our hands, not in those of the bureaucrats.

Another subject that must be addressed, particularly in the inshore areas, is pollution abatement. A healthy lobster resource will be worthless if contaminated by heavy metals, PCB's, or other harmful substances.

I look forward to working closely with you and the other members of this Task Force. Lobstering for me has not only been a source of income, but a way of life that I cherish and am willing to fight for.

Robert S. Steneck, Associate Professor of Oceanography, University of Maine

If managers chose to take a scientific approach to lobster management, it seems to me the following points are relevant to determining when and if lobster stocks are overfished.

The urgency of all overfishing discussion to date has been to avoid a population collapse. Thus this question has been defined as a biological one and should be pursued as such.

The National Marine Fisheries Service's two definitions for overfishing of the American lobster require that we know "Fishing mortality rate (F)." For this, it is essential to know the total population size of lobsters in the domain of interest. I do not believe that is known. Trap-caught lobsters cannot adequately census lobster stocks with any degree of precision because of variations in trapability (see Miller 1989, 1990 for full discussion of this problem). Catch per unit effort may bear no resemblance to the population density in a given region. Also, knowledge of total population demography would be necessary to determine what is required to "rebuild...stocks." That is, rebuild assumes one knows to what level.

Do we know that the assumptions are correct? For example, in the narrative following the two definitions, the statement is made: "This increase in recruitment is due, in part, to favorable environmental conditions." I suspect that may be true, but I know of no data to support it. However, the narrative continues: "Based on this, the current calculations indicate that egg production per recruit is at about 3 to 5% of maximum." That statement is based on the assumption of unspecified environmental control of recruitment and further assumes knowledge of some maximum egg production (again requiring knowledge of the entire population size).

The conclusion is then reached that "when environmental conditions change, it is more likely that a higher level of egg production will be necessary to prevent recruitment decline or failure." There is no support for this based on recently published, peer-reviewed literature (e.g. Wahle and Steneck,1991). Although unspecified environmental conditions may or may not affect larval recruitment success, a deleterious change in those conditions does not necessarily translate to a reduction in or failure of larval recruitment.

The 45-year stability in lobster catch argues strongly against strong environmental control in lobster recruitment. To speculate otherwise implies that we have had 45 years of environmental stability (a point which would receive little support from most marine scientists). Current literature suggests that although the recent increase is not well understood, stasis in lobster landings is probably due to limited nursery grounds (Wahle and Steneck 1991).

There is reason to question mortality estimates. Most are based on size-frequency analyses of trap-caught lobsters. This approach is undermined by observations of Karnofsky and Price (1989) and others who suggest that as high as 40% of the harvestable lobsters may never go in traps.

Size-frequency techniques are also sensitive to even short-distance migrations if lobsters leave a region where they are likely to be trapped. Similar concern over the accuracy of mortality estimates would be raised for mark and recapture studies involving trap-caught lobsters. Standardized trawl surveys have also been shown to be inaccurate. Uzmann et al (1977) compared in situ and trawl sampling techniques and concluded that trawl data is highly suspect and represented no more than 1/3 of the observed lobster population density.

Trawl efficiency varies greatly depending upon bottom type. I have observed, with equal trawl effort, high lobster catches on featureless bottoms and low catches on complex boulder-strewn bottoms, although in situ censuses yield opposite population densities. The problem is that if an important determination relies on a single estimate (e.g. Fishing Mortality "F"), then the veracity of that estimate should be impeccable.

I submit that if this proposed definition of overfishing were to be considered with the level of rigor applied to NSF proposals, it would not fare well. Although the information sought is laudable, the essential elements lack an empirical base. Without such a foundation, this definition cannot be realistically applied today.

An Alternate Perspective
A simpler definition of overfishing should be based on demographic parameters directly. This is analogous to methods used for fish and game. Lobsters are among the easiest marine organisms to census. Direct measures of numbers per unit area avoid all the trap-related questions raised by others (e.g., Miller 1990).

The question should be, is there a significant decline in harvestable lobster densities (i.e. number per unit area), reproductive phase lobsters, lobster larvae, or newly settled lobsters on the benthos? A new definition would require an agreement as to what a "significant" decline is, but this would not be difficult.

This approach has the advantage that it is based on quantifiable and repeatable data and involves techniques used in peer-reviewed publications. The data are very easy to generate and an empirical base already exists. It does not involve a chain of assumptions for which data are absent or equivocal. The specific data needed to monitor for overfishing would include:

a) Direct counting of early benthic phase lobsters in nursery grounds. This would be the simplest and most cost-effective parameter to measure to determine if the populations are going to decline for any reason (i.e. from overfishing, disease, pollution or whatever).

b) Direct counting of adolescent phase lobsters (including just harvestable sizes). This would be another cost effective way to track population densities.

c) Direct counting of reproductive phase lobsters. This is more difficult because they predominate in deeper water but recent work with submersibles has been promising. Constant monitoring of V-notch lobsters would be another means of assessing the stability of reproductive phase lobsters.

d) Direct counting of larval lobsters is least conclusive for reasons identified by Fogarty and Idoine (1986) but obviously a complete larval failure from a catastrophic pollution spill, for example, would be disastrous to lobster stocks, although it would have nothing to do with overfishing.

As of May 16,1991, the NEFMC revised the definition of overfishing to read: The American lobster resource is considered to be overfished when based on information concerning the status of the resource throughout its range, it is harvested at a fishing mortality rate (F) and minimum size combination that results in a calculated egg production per recruit of less than 10% of a non-fished population. The Council voted to put on hold a description of the current status of the lobster resource compared to the 10% threshold, until the overfishing working group completes a comprehensive evaluation of the whole lobster resource. A rebuilding program and schedule was also put on hold.