Emergency action needed if you oppose catch shares

[sokinwet]

"HAs anyone of the experts on this thread read the national catch share policy document by NOAA. Can you explain the difference between the terms "allocation", "limited access privilege program (LAPP)", and "individual fishing quota IFQ." I will state that they all are very different management tools that have different pros and cons. The one thing they all have in common is they all are a variation of the term "catch share". Anyone got any opinions on which might be ok to consider in any fishery here in New England."

Not an "expert" (not a sex therapist either ..but I know when I'm getting screwed) but I'll take a crack at this for those who really want an understanding of how some see this issue. BP, it's interesting that you mention american capitalism because I see the current management direction as the exact opposite and I'm not the type that sees the "socialist boogeyman" behind every action taken for the public good.

Limited Access Privilege is strictly defined under Magnus/Stevens and there are a number of conditions and administrative requirements that must be met for a LAP to be granted. Under MS "cooperative groups of fisherman " can APPLY for and pay for this privilege. Generally the groups would be those with a significant catch history. Members of a LAP program would have an IFQ based on their catch history; the major benefit to them is control over their days at sea as well as an allocation of the TAC and some market control. There are a number of anti-trust provisions and protections for the fishing communities and small boat fisherman required under LAP; additionally a percentage (25%?) of the administrative fees collected are supposed to be dedicated to allowing small boats to work towards LAP participation and to assist new entries in the fishery. The current NE groundfish Sector management plan is an LAPP however there seem to be major provisions of MS that are ignored. 1st the Sector plan was imposed by NOAA; many fisherman either did not want to or could not join a sector. Those with the largest catch history "had" to join a sector or be relegated to the common pool. Impact on fishing communities is ignored and the assistance available to small boat fisherman, especially hook fisherman, is a boot out the door.

Here's a few things to consider. The NE groundfishery is almost entirely "closed access"; I believe the only open access permit available being a Handgear B permit. This means no additional effort coming into the fishery. If the TAC remains the same how is consolidation of the fleet a conservation measure rather than just a redistribution of the economic gain to a select few at the expense of others? Doesn't it in fact seem to reward those who currently "take" the most with a bigger share? There is a lot of data available on how sector management has led to "fleet consolidation" (read loss of fishing jobs) and control of quota by "off the water" entities. I personally prefer to support an iconic NE industry over some corporate group who's making their money by selling quota back to fisherman at a profit or paying the guy on the water $10 an hr. to fish out of what used to be "his" boat. Do a search on EDF's David Festa and check out the presentation to the Miliken Institute regarding the economic opportunities for investors....if there were any fisherman at that presentation they were the kind that hold their reels upside down!

Those who support limited government spending might find the GAO's report on administrative costs of LAPP's interesting. We are paying big $$ to administer these programs (NOAA enforcement, CG operations, etc.); your tax dollars at work...putting the local fisherman out of a job. Another interesting point...the current NOAA budget request eliminates funding for fisheries research and data collection and increases funding to implement sector management. Does this make sense?

I know a lot of guys on SB.com are concerned about "the fish" but if you think that people pushing this agenda are concerned about your rights to fish you need to check what their affiliations are. Also check out the RFA's position on catch shares.

[MakoMike]

BP, Catch shares have NOTHING to do with the health of the fishery or overfishing.

Using the current terms where ABC = the allowable biological catch
ACL = annual catch limits and AM = accountability measures. The way the system works is that the Scientific and statistical committee (SSC) of the fishery management council responsible for that species set the ABC for the year, then the SSC takes various factors into account to come up with the ACL which is the actual amount fishermen are allowed to catch. If either the commercial or recreational sector exceeds their share of the ACL the AMs kick in and subsequent year's ACL for that sector will be reduced. In species subject to a rebuilding plan, like New England groundfish) the ABC and ACLs are well below the overfishing threshold. Notice that so far I haven't mentioned catch shares. As I said before catch shares have nothing to do with species rebuilding or overfishing.

With catch shares, as are currently implemented in the New England commercial groundfish fishery, fishermen can elect to join a sector, or fish in the common pool. However, the NEFMC made it very clear that any vessels fishing in the common pool would have much less of the quota allocated to them than those fishing in sectors. A sector is an association of vessels that are permitted in the fishery and have a history of landing fish in the fishery. Each sector gets an allocation of the ACL based on their combined history of landings. Any boat in that sector can land any or all of the ACL allocated to that sector. What has happened, due to the simple economics of the situtation, is that the big boats in each sector have landed the lions share of the ACL allocated to that sector and the small boats have stayed tied to the dock and been paid by the big boats for their share in the sector.

The boats that opted to fish in the common pool and not join a sector have had their trip limits reduced time and time again, to the point where it is only marginally profitable for them to sail.

Yes, this system makes fishing more economically efficient, but it does it by involuntarily forcing small boats out of the fishery. It's like the government giving Walmart incentives for setting up new stores in every neighborhood and forcing the Mom & Pop stores out of business. Economically it is more efficient, but it puts people on unemployment and takes away the freedom of choice for the small businessman.

Note that the Groundfish fishery has been a limited access fishery for years and there have been no new entries into the fishery except for a few handgear B fishermen who are allowed to catch between 50 and 100 pounds of cod per trip. Effectively an immaterial percentage of the fishery.

Now as for outside influences and other reasons to oppose catch shares. One of the biggest reasons IMHO is that NOAA/NMFS is diverting money that should be going into fishery science into promoting catch shares. The proposed budget takes about 50 million dollars away from scientific research ans uses it to devise and promote catch shares. Is that the way any fisherman wants the money spent? So in that sense catch shares is bad for each and every fishery. Secondly, the folks that have been pushing for these catch shares, in particular the Environmental Defense Fund, PEW, the Packard foundation, et. al.have been getting together to plan how they can buy into corporate fishing entities and control the catch shares either for profit or to achieve their other objectives, in short what can be seen as a plot to control all commercial fishing and perhaps all fishing.

While catch shares are a hot topic in New England right now, mainly because of the damage they are doing to our fishing fleet, other fishery management councils are proposing to take it even further to impose catch shares on the charter/party fleet as well as on individual fishermen. You can read all about it on the websites for the South Atlantic Fishery management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management council.

Having said all of that, I'll just add the fact that WE WONthe Jones amendment passed by an large margin in the House!