Portland Fish Exchange committee eyes repeating CARES-era rebates, seeks ways to attract lobster landings

The Portland Fish Exchange Committee met (date not specified) to review recent landing and revenue data and to discuss steps to reverse a downward trend in vessel landings, including pursuing recurring outside funding similar to the CARES Act rebates and exploring ways to accept lobsters at the exchange.

Robert (staff member) presented a packet of 10 years of landing and revenue data and urged the committee to use that information to make a targeted funding request. “We now have some hard data. We we can prove up some numbers with increased landings,” Robert said, describing the CARES-era period as a concrete example the committee could document.

Why it matters: Committee members said the CARES-era rebates produced a measurable rise in landings and that a repeatable, annual funding stream could both stabilize the exchange’s finances and help small owner‑operator boats. Members argued a one-time program is harder to sell to outside funders; a documented, repeatable result would strengthen future funding requests.

Discussion and evidence: Several speakers said the exchange saw a pronounced uptick in landings when CARES funding was in place. One participant summarized the effect bluntly: “We basically doubled up, went from about a million pounds to £2,000,000,” (quote used in meeting). Committee members asked staff to convert the raw packet into a concise one‑page graph and a short written analysis that ties CARES‑era funding to the observed increase in landings.

Members discussed two linked strategies. First, pursue external funding—foundations or a recurring allocation from the Fish Pier Authority or other agencies—to underwrite either direct rebates to fishermen or a predictable fee subsidy for a defined period. Second, pursue commercial and policy options to attract more boats, including limited acceptance of lobster landings at the exchange, working with dealers and with the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) to craft compromises that would not disrupt in‑state lobster markets.

On the question of lobsters, committee members noted legal and contractual constraints. A participant summarized state rules: trap‑caught lobster landings are governed by Maine law, and federal permits distinguish trap versus non‑trap (trawl/gillnet) gear. Committee members proposed a narrow, phased approach — for example, beginning with lobsters landed by gillnet or other fixed gear — as a way to test the market without breaching contract exclusivity or state rules. The committee also discussed practical steps dealers would use to move lobsters out of state if needed, and the potential for small fees for handling lobsters that would still generate revenue for the exchange.

Directions and next steps: Committee members agreed on several near‑term tasks: staff will extract CARES‑era funding totals, align the funding period to fishing seasons, and quantify the pounds of additional landings tied to that funding; staff will prepare a one‑page graphic and an ask framework for external funders; and staff or volunteers agreed to reach out to the Maine Lobstermen’s Association to explore a compromise for limited lobster landings. The committee also agreed to consider matching fund strategies (authority match plus foundation match) if pursued.

Ending: Members emphasized that the measures discussed would not immediately reverse all declines but that a documented, repeatable funding mechanism and a limited commercial strategy to attract additional boats offer practical first steps. The committee assigned Robert to compile the CARES‑era numbers and promised a focused follow‑up at the next subcommittee meeting.