Praise for fishery changes comes from the inside

The congratulations that rained down on the fishery's rule makers' decision last week to privatize the bounty of the sea into negotiable "catch shares" for permitholders were, in essence, self-congratulations by those close to the process.

But their sentiment was not universally shared, with one member of the New England Fishery Management Council openly saying the final product of last week's landmark meetings gives preferential treatment to a group of Cape Cod fishermen, even as fishermen in Gloucester and elsewhere remain wary of the new system.

For the most part, the congratulators were:

Federal fishery overseers who'd conditioned the conversion decision from the legislating industry related New England Fishery Management Council with years of water torture cutbacks in days at sea and catch limits;

ENGOs, the think globally, act locally environmental lobbies, who'd allied long ago with the overseers behind the unproved claim that catch shares save fish; and,

Subsectors of the fishing industry tied to the ENGOs that were the biggest winners in the Portland actions and the rewrite of the defining elements on which the industry functioned. The catch-share format will be largely built upon fishermen who join business cooperatives known as sectors

The congratulators reacted to the decisions in Portland, Maine, with variations to the theme that came to define the deliberationsâö one largely presented by the Pew Environment Group and its proxy, a small fishing cooperative in mid-Maine.

"For the first time, the council has voted to manage the groundfish industry with scientifically based annual catch limits that will put an end to overfishing through the use of a hard total allowable catch," Peter Baker, Pew's New England fisheries campaign manager, said in a prepared statement. "Implemented correctly, this action could end overfishing, rebuild fish stocks and allow the ... groundfisherman to regain profitability."

Similar hurrahs were heard from Jim Balsiger, the acting federal administrator for fisheries, and the two industry subgroups that came away from Portland with the most — the Mid-Coast Fisherman's Association, of Port Clyde, Maine, and the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association.

Glen Libby, the chairman of the Maine association, which has become financed by Pew, wrote opinion columns backing the change. Indeed, his piece, headlined "It's time to do things differently," was at the top of a stapled package of similarly themed articles anonymously assembled and left on the table at the door of the meeting room at the high rise Holiday Inn in Portland.

Pew's Baker and his minions kept silent during the Portland deliberations, but Libby spoke often.

The session ended with the announcement that Libby had been given a seat on the council by Jane Lubchenco, the chief fisheries administrator and new head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Cape Cod hook fishermen, who had organized the first two experimental New England sectors with financial support from Pew — they have had mixed results — came away with a guaranteed, near permanent preferential catch share, which was voted by the council.

The largesse of the council was largely unexplained in the fierce debate that preceded the near unanimous vote, but the mechanics of it were clear.

While overall permits will be rated for catch share based on the catch history from 1996-2006, the Cape Cod hookers were granted a tighter window — 1996 through 2001 — as the basis for the rating. The years chosen for the rating for the Cape Cod hook fishermen were the most fruitful for the permitholders inside that decade.

Council member and New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel objected to the special treatment.

He cited National Standard 4 of the Magnuson Act, which requires that decisions are "fair and equitable to all fishermen" and that federal policies are "carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges."

"It's inherently unfair to have one group get more and one group get less."

Goethel was the sole vote against Amendment 16, which codifies the new system that effect next May.

Gloucester fisherman Paul Cohan was also dubious of the outcome and the impact the catch-share plan will have on the fishery's future.

"If they call this 'co-operative management,' it's obvious they're not including fishermen in that cozy catch phrase," Cohan wrote in a letter to the Times. "While we languish on death row for the next 10 months, the arguments will begin, the gangs will form, and the rivalries will be cemented, as we grapple with each other over the few inadequate crumbs with which we have been benevolently provided as sustenance."

Richard Gaines can be reached at rgaines@gloucestertimes.com.

Fishing Industry Stories

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us