New commercial fishing regulations considered........

Contact: Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-841-0295

Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act Considered

Senate Worked With Environmental Defense, Fishermen and Community Leaders

(December 15, 2005 - Washington, DC) Today, the Senate considered changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which governs all fishery management activities within the federal 200-mile limit through eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. The bill contains several important conservation reforms, including limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), key management tools that can make our fisheries more sustainable and profitable. Although the original legislation introduced last month contained provisions that hampered the LAPP process and limited their effectiveness, Environmental Defense successfully joined with fishermen and community leaders to amend these provisions, and new language was included in the bill today.

"The Commerce Committee's action takes the country a step closer to a new era for ocean stewardship in which conservation can make good business sense for fishermen," said Environmental Defense Oceans Program Director David Festa. "This will lead to economically viable fishing communities, better recreational opportunities and supplies of fresh seafood. Environmental Defense commends the Senate for working actively with fishermen and the conservation community to craft a workable solution."

LAPPs - catch shares - have proven to be environmentally and economically effective in New Zealand, British Columbia and Alaska. Under this system, fishermen are allocated shares of the annual catch, which they can buy and sell with other fishermen. Unlike government mandates limiting fishermen's flexibility, catch shares allow fishermen to work year-round when market and weather conditions are most advantageous. Catch shares help fishermen cut costs, improve the quality of their fish, maximize dockside prices and prevent the waste of millions of fish each year that must be discarded. Just as shares of a company become more valuable if the company is well-managed, fishermen's shares gain value when fish populations increase through a well managed fishery. The fishermen now have a financial interest in conservation measures that protect the ocean.

At the same time, the bill includes important design features that affect whether a system of catch shares will be fair, equitable and promote good stewardship of our nation's fisheries. These features include methods for determining who gets initial allocations of catch shares, how shares can be traded and the nature of conservation and other safeguards.

"The recent U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended catch shares as a key management tool. And, in September, the Administration explicitly called for doubling the existing number of these programs," said Environmental Defense Oceans Program Deputy Director Johanna Thomas. "Clearly there is broad political support for these programs."

There is stakeholder support as well. Environmental Defense is working with several fishing groups in New England to support their efforts to develop fishing cooperatives, working in California to promote working waterfronts and in the Pacific to develop a quota system for groundfish. We are also working closely with fishermen, government officials and other partners in the Gulf of Mexico to design fishing quota systems for red snapper and reef fish, shrimp and other key fisheries. Gulf snapper fisherman Captain Donald Waters acknowledges that "we need quota programs to save the fish and our livelihoods, which are jeopardized by overfishing caused by out-of-date regulations." Recent hurricanes have only highlighted the need for better fisheries management to improve the Gulf's struggling fisheries.

Fishermen in these fisheries strongly support catch share programs, but in its original form, the Senate bill placed unnecessary obstacles to establishing these programs by creating onerous, bureaucratic hurdles. The earlier bill called for a 50% vote by permit holders to discuss enacting a catch share program, and an additional 2/3 majority vote of permit holders in New England and the Gulf of Mexico before finalizing a plan.

Environmental Defense quickly coordinated a strong response by community leaders and fishermen to reach an agreement with the Senate Commerce Committee on how to move forward with these innovative tools. The committee passed an amended bill today that allows for flexibility in starting catch share programs, allowing catch share programs to be launched through the council process or by a majority petition by the fishermen in the fishery. For New England and Gulf fisheries, the final referendum will apply only to individual fishing quota programs and still require a super majority vote.

With the approval of the Senate bill by the Commerce Committee, the bill will head to the Senate floor next year. The House has yet to offer a bill.

"Catch shares are one of the only management tools that benefit both fish and fishermen. They expand the economic benefits of the fisheries, preserve maritime heritage and protect the environment," said Environmental Defense Ocean Policy Specialist Amanda Leland. "When the Senate votes on this early next year, it is an opportunity for Congress to do the right thing by making sure these key management tools can be put to work." ###

Many moons ago when the feds started restricting fishing most of the Owner/Operators were forced out of business and the only way to recoup any loss was to sell the license, the boat too since the license is attached to the boat. Back then if the boat was a POS it still had value because of the license, but, and here's the kicker, The license could only be transfered to another boat of equal or less tonnage. BTW, I'm surprised you would trash anyone who works as a roofer, short order cook, etc... Most of the guy's I know in the industry are just Commercial (or used to be) Fishermen trying to make ends meet. , Try a trip on an ol' Halibut Schooner. You know what I mean:) UD

When I was a kid, I lived in Ballard for several years. A lot of the 30-40 foot gill netters at Fishermen's Terminal could provide a decent, middle class living for two or three families back then. I went to school with kids whose parents were buying a home, driving a new car every few years, and enjoying a few luxuries. Ask a lot of them what their Dad did for a living and the answer would be "fisherman". As you know, most of the smaller boats (those that are still left) spend the majority of the year at the dock and an increasing number never seem to go fishing at all. Same with small businesses of all sorts, I suppose, but farmers, fishermen, loggers, and others dependent on natural resources are taking it most directly on the chin.

K

I wish my cost was that low. :-)

Then there is enforcement. They can have all the ruling and systems they want, if you don't enforce the rules, it's not going to help. The larger commercials have the advantage here too. Recently, four guys down in Greenwich were caught and fined for selling stripers by the DEP - the charge of over quota and commercial selling without a license was issued with a guilty plea and a $10,000 fine. Some commercial outfit was caught in 2004 for the same thing, out of season/over quota, $10,000 to a $20,000,000 company. They can pay those fines forever because the cost benefit ratio is favorable to them.

If the system doesn't include loss of license and boats for even simple violations, the system/policy/regulations won't work. Not to mention actual enforcement - like cops and CG actually doing enforcement work. We need more "sea cops" and DEP officers before enforcement is going to be possible.

Right now, we're seeing some heavily financed groups buying boats and I would guess licenses right and left. There is heavy pressure on the regulators to force the recreational's completely out of the system with the issuance of a restrictive saltwater license and now, the Massachusetts legislature is getting into the MPA business which, strangely, means no fishing around the Islands - Martha's and the Nantucket (there is a lot of political commentary in that one, but I'll pass) specifically, but several areas within Massachusetts Bay as well (more political commentary).

One last thing - Russian, Laotian and Vietnamese groups are over fishing areas and doing it right under the noses of the regulators because they fly below the radar. I've seen Russian immigrants with 24/26/28 foot Grady's loaded with cod, stripers, flat fish - you name it and all being sold right at the dock to other immigrants - all out of season, all illegal.

Not a cop in site. And if you do call it in, you life is literally in danger.

the answer is enforcement and lots of it - then it might work.

Otherwise, it's just another legislative and regulatory joke.

Later,

Tom

We can't rely on the "free market" approach to regulate fishing, because by the time the market begins weeding out the oversupply of commercial fishermen the resource is depleted. Nobody is "manufacturing" fish. This is, admittedly, something of a socialist system- but the management of publicly held natural resources happens to be a specific area where socialism works reasonably well. (There are other areas where it does not). By apportioning the resource among current licensees, there is still something of a free market force at work- those who want to catch a greater number of fish are free to purchase the right to do so from licensees who choose not to fish.

If we can manage the resouce for future abundance, rather than simply for the maximum short term profit, stocks may grow to the point where additional commercial licenses could be granted.

The sportfishing thing is a tough call. Per fish caught, there is a lot higher economic benefit from sport fishing than there is from commercial fishing. (How many commercial fishermen would spend $1,000-$5,000 per fish, as some recreational fishermen manage to do?). However, the sport fishing fleet is ridiculously inefficient......(that can be good when dealing with spawning stocks where escapement is important)....and from the perspective of maximizing food yield per ton of fish caught the commercial fishermen should get priority.

If I were the fish Czar, I'd get the best available estimates of the stocks available, subtract the number needed to escape capture in order to sustain or increase the species, and apportion the rest between sport fishermen and commercial fishermen- maybe 20% sport and 80% commercial. As Czar, I'd let anybody who could show up in a boat and who had a license participate in the sport fishery (the season would end when the predetermined number of fish had been caught); but I would lean toward putting a freeze on the number of commercial licenses in circulation and apportioning the resource so that people weren't forced to fish wastefully or in unsafe conditions.

<chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote in message