Dispute over clam digging spurs proposal

A proposal to limit the number of non-resident clam diggers to 10% of the resident number in Perry and Pembroke led to a very heated meeting of the shellfish committee for the two towns on May 12. The proposal would have meant that almost 50 non-residents who had commercial licenses to dig in those town last year would not be able to get one this year and about 70 non-resident holders of different types of shellfish licenses would have been affected. The two towns are the only towns in the state with municipal shellfish ordinances that do not restrict the number of non-resident diggers by some means.
About 50 to 60 clam diggers, with many from Pleasant Point along with diggers from Calais, Robbinston, Dennysville, Eastport and Edmunds, attended to see if they would still be able to get a municipal license. The meeting was acrimonious at times, with "screaming, yelling and cursing," as one participant noted, and accusations of putting people out of work and charges of racism.
Karen Raye, who is the chair of the Perry Select Board and co-chairs the committee, comments, "It was obvious there were people there because the price of clams is up and they can make more money. But they have to keep in mind the conservation of the resource."
Although there were accusations of racism concerning the proposal to limit the number of non-resident diggers, Raye says, "This is not a Pleasant Point issue. There was discussion about limiting the number of non-residents, and they could be from any town." She notes that currently there are more non-resident diggers from other towns than from Pleasant Point. Also, she says Pembroke and Perry had initially reached out to Pleasant Point and Eastport to see if they would like to be part of the joint ordinance when it was set up, but they had each opted not to participate.
The 10% non-resident proposal ended up not being acted on. However, other measures to help conserve the resource were approved. Also, a proposal was made to see if Pleasant Point would join with Pembroke and Perry under the joint ordinance. Both Pembroke and Perry would have to vote at their annual town meetings in August in favor having Pleasant Point join, and the Sipayik Tribal Council also would have to approve the action. Pembroke Head Selectman Milan Jamieson, who co-chairs the committee with Raye, notes that Perry and Pembroke each put up $1,000 to hire a shellfish warden when they joined together, and he believes Pleasant Point would need to do the same. Since the meeting, Raye has reached out to tribal officials to see if Pleasant Point would like to be included under the joint ordinance. The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) encourages towns to work together with regional approaches to clam management.
Concerning the reasons for wanting to enact restrictions on the harvesting of clams, Jamieson says, "If they keep piling diggers in here, there ain't going to be a thing. In about a year they'll all be crying because there won't be anything to dig. In my opinion, they just want to dig, dig, dig."
Among the restrictions approved was the raising of the shellfish license fees, with the resident commercial license going from $100 to $250 and the non-resident commercial from $200 to $375. Other fees for senior, junior and recreational licenses also were increased. It was noted that anyone who has not paid a municipal fine will not be able to obtain a municipal shellfish license.
Also, Heidi Leighton, the DMR's area biologist, recommended that a conservation closure be placed on Gleason's Cove in Perry, since the area was hit hard by clammers after it was reopened by the DMR last month. The committee then voted to close the area from June 1 to December 1 for conservation reasons.
Tim Sheehan of Gulf of Maine Inc., which buys clams from many of the diggers, notes that one of the proposals made at the meeting was to raise the license fee for non-residents to $1,000, which he says was aimed at eliminating the part-time diggers, "so you can't go to work digging clams unless you have money." He says people use clam digging as a stepping stone to move into other jobs and if the price for a license is too high that stepping stone will be lost. "Why put up barriers to work?" he asks. Instead of increasing the fees for student diggers, the committee should have reduced them to encourage them to work, he argues.
Sheehan says he stands to lose about half of his diggers if the 10% non-resident restriction were to be approved. Gulf of Maine "will shut down on shellfish" if that happens. "We're trying to empower diggers."
He maintains that the clam resource is not in danger, noting that he's buying 1,000 to 5,000 pounds of clams a day. "I wouldn't want the clams all dug out," he points out. Instead he is promoting the reseeding of flats and the trapping of the green crab predator.
While some argue that the 10% non-resident ratio helps protect the resource, Sheehan disagrees. "It's to protect a few privileged people who have licenses," he says. To protect the resource one needs to know how many clams there are on the flats, yet no surveys have been done. He says older diggers tell him that the more the flats are turned over by diggers, the better it is for the clam resource. "The sky isn't falling on clams."
However, Leighton noted during the meeting that she had heard much discussion about how much money diggers could make but not any about the impact on the resource. She pointed out that the clam resource cannot sustain an unlimited amount of harvesting and that 200 clammers digging in two towns are too many. At present, Perry and Pembroke do not have any limits on the number of harvesters, either resident or non-resident, so when the price of clams is up diggers from all along the coast will come to harvest. Since the resource is limited, in order for those living in the area who depend on making a living from clamming to be able to continue to do so, some restrictions need to be in place.
Unlike with some other fisheries, municipalities have the tools to set restrictions on clamdigging in order to avoid a gold-rush mentality. Among the ways that towns can limit harvesting to conserve the resource are: raising license fees, limiting harvest amounts, imposing conservation closures of areas, limiting days and times for harvesting and restricting the number of resident or non-resident licenses. By state law, towns are required to sell at least 10% of their licenses to non-residents.
Another meeting of the shellfish committee was scheduled for May 25.