What infuriates many in the industry is that the environmentalists can very clearly articulate how fish stocks need to be conserved. But they fail to raise a question over what happens to the 600 vessels marginalized by the new catch share allocations. They go to Congress and lobby, but say not a word about vessels being disenfranchised.
What is behind the huge political uproar in New England over fish allocations and catch shares: a battle to save the small boat fleet. Until this is resolved, either by eliminating the smaller vessels, or by NMFS and the government providing meaningful economic opportunity, the region will continue to see a full scale fish war.
Just as British Columbia has been ground zero for a ten year fight over salmon farms, so New England is rapidly becoming the focus of a national fight over the right of small boats to exist in the fishery.
Other fishing regions have seen the same turmoil – expressed in different ways. In Alaska, it was a battle between inshore and offshore; in Canada it was a battle between traditional vessels and those with temporary permits. In the Gulf, it is a battle to retain economic value for domestic small scale shrimp fisheries.
Lets look at some facts about the New England fleet, based on a recent study of NMFS data by the Cap Log group:
In 2007, there were about 2700 fishing permits. However, only 818 vessels landed more than 1 pound of groundfish.
Of the vessels landing more than 1 lb., only 507 landed more than 5,000 lbs. in a year, earning between zero and $3000 per year net.
But the New England fleet has consolidated dramatically, so those 311 vessels that landed between 1 lb. and 5000 lbs. of groundfish are the survivors – who have somehow kept fishing, possibly on other species, but who have still retained permits, and who have a right to expect that as fish stocks recover, they will see gains in their catches.
But the allocation system has cut them out completely. First, one should question the record keeping by NMFS – it is not economically feasible to run a boat and land such small amounts, so either other fish were being landed and not counted, or the boats were primarily fishing other species. NMFS owes it to these fishermen to get accurate histories on what was actually being caught by these vessels — even if the catches were not reported.
This group of 311 vessels are among those most angry over the allocations and sector system. They would appear to have neither the fish nor money to join a sector. But this doesn't compute, because according to NMFS, about 98% of active vessels which includes this group, have joined sectors. If so, how are they doing it if they have only caught a few hundred pounds of groundfish by NMFS records.
Out of the next group – the 507 vessels that caught more than 5,000 lbs., 287 of them, or 57%, caught less than 75,000 lbs for the whole year. These vessels are clearly part time vessels, making day boat trips for a few weeks per year- under the fishing days system that gave them only around 30 days a year to fish.
Once again, most of these vessels probably had very low allocations due to the fact their fishing history was so constricted. They also are angry over the new system.
Finally, there are about 220 vessel landing over 75,000 lbs. per year, and 128 of these land over 150,000 lbs. per year. These are the full time vessels, most of whom have purchased other permits and stacked permits to be able to fish at this level. This group of boats, representing less than 20% of the active vessels, is catching 80% or more of the total landings, and this group has been the most benefitted by the current allocations.
Even though allocations may be low for some of these boats, they have the ability to lease additional quota, and they have enough quota to be the most viable members of the sectors – i. e. the ones who actually get to fish.
The reason New England is in such an uproar is that the new allocations and catch share system disenfranchised about 600 vessels, out of a fleet (in 2007) of 818 active vessels.
Politically, this will not stand. This is what is driving Mayor Lang in New Bedford, and Mayor Kirk in Gloucester (Massachusetts accounts for about 70% of New England landings), and it is driving the congressional delegation.
What infuriates many in the industry about the environmental movement is that the environmentalists, including groups such as Pew, EDF and others, can very clearly articulate how fish stocks need to be conserved and quotas need to be in place to protect stocks from overfishing. But they fail to raise a question over what happens to the 600 vessels marginalized by the new catch share allocations. They go to Congress and lobby hard for strict catch limits, but say not a word about 600 vessels being disenfranchised in New England.
I agree that sustainable fishing is only possible on groundfish when there are real quotas on landings, but also that healthy fish stocks are there to support the commercial industry, and that the health of the industry is just as critical as what happens to the fish stocks.
So long as these vessel owners (and I get letters from a lot of them) are deemed expendable, they will be furious and fight back. And I believe they will win. No consensus on sustainable fisheries management in New England is possible without addressing the financial and social concerns of the 600 vessels who are disenfranchised.
There are many ways to do this. For example, in Canada when fish stocks have increased or new fisheries have developed, the government has issued the new quota increases to a targeted group of fishing enterprises. A similar idea could be explored in New England – that as stocks are rebuilt, 100% or 80% or some figure goes to a targeted group of disenfranchised vessels.
Alaska made a specific negotiated allocation of pollock between inshore and offshore interests. That ended the pollock wars.
In order for some stability to happen in New England, the group of disenfranchised vessels has to be identified and categorized. Is the goal to keep some small groundfish boats in Maine? To make sure the auction in Gloucester remains viable for day boat fish? All of these questions need to be addressed openly by discussing allocations. Maybe Gloucester cannot support all its day boats. But it should be able to support half of them.
When other fleet reduction programs have been put in place, there have often been industry funded and government funded buyouts, to financially compensate those who are leaving the fishery. Such a program is noticeably absent in New England – largely because previous buyout programs were so ineffective. They simply paid to reduce the number of permits, not actual fishing effort. But if the fleet is going to be matched economically with the available fish, there has to be a seriously designed buyout program to reduce capacity.
All of these ideas revolve around one goal: maintaining a viable small boat fleet in New England. Until the current parties in these battles can articulate this goal, the fights over science, the arrogance of NMFS enforcement, the limits of Magnuson, the growth of permit banks — all will not address the problem that 600 vessels have been disenfranchised, and they deserve to have a real program to address this fact.
The New England Congressional Delegation is right that the future of the New England fishing industry is at stake. What they have not yet been able to do, is to articulate their end point. They are reacting, and so they oppose the new sector program, they demand more fish be allocated, and they point out the flaws in NMFS science. All of these, while important in the short term, are bandaids. The real question they have to ask is how to preserve a small boat fleet, and have an economically viable offshore fleet, given the fish stocks that exist.
When I was in New Bedford last fall with a friend from Alaska, he marveled at the sight of hundreds of fishing vessels tied up in a city – with roads, transportation, population a stone's throw from the dock. Used to traveling thousands of mile to fish in remote areas of Alaska and deliver to plants that flew in workers from thousands of miles away, he could not believe the opportunity sitting in front of these boats. He is right. It is rare to have a rich fishing ground on the doorstep of a major population area such as the Northeast, and it should be worth a lot both to the fishermen themselves, and to the region as a whole. That is a legacy worth preserving – and should be a goal of the industry, the environmentalists, public stakeholders, and the government.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com