Since the implementation of the Sector Management type of Catch Shares in New England, the majority of Gloucester and New Bedford vessels are tied to the dock, with crews unemployed, and lease payments that do not cover anywhere near the value of their enterprises. MA fishermen in Gloucester and New Bedford, and their political leaders, have been saying a true emergency exists.
The situation is like ten guys in a bar, 9 who are unemployed, and one pulling down $1 million per year. A bureaucrat looks at the bar and says things are great; the average income is $100,000 per year. But in fact, the 9 guys who are unemployed are ready to kill anyone who says they are doing fine. They are not. It is only the million-dollar guy who is doing okay.
————————
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS (news commentary) by John Sackton – Oct 11, 2010 – 'When I read what you wrote Friday , I nearly threw up', said Daniel Bubb, owner of two gill netters in Gloucester.
'We are desperately seeking aid, not as a handout, but just because we want to keep fishing. And when Gov. Patrick and others are fighting to get Locke to help us, you say 'it's hard for Gov. Patrick to be crying emergency when groundfish revenues in Mass. are up 25%.'
'Nothing could be farther from the truth' said Bubb.
He's right.
Although the overall revenues are up most of the vessels are not fishing; they are tied up in port or limping along on small allocations. The increase in revenues is from the fact that bigger boats, especially out of state boats, have been landing in Gloucester – so to say port revenues increased is a slap in the face to the vessels tied up and unable to fish, desperately trying to hang on to the only livelihood many have ever known.
The same is true in New Bedford. There, 68% of the New Bedford fleet is not fishing, says Jim Kendall, an active industry participant from New Bedford.
So when the majority of Gloucester and New Bedford vessels are tied to the dock, with crews unemployed, and lease payments that do not cover anywhere near the value of their enterprises, Massachusetts fishermen in Gloucester and New Bedford, and their political leaders, have been saying a true emergency exists.
At stake is the survival of traditional fishing in a number of New England ports.
So, it is clear that in our article , as Jim Kendall says, 'what you are reporting may be true enough, but you don't go far enough and report that approximately 68% of the NB fleet is not fishing! These landings that are coming in are from only 32% of the NB fleet, plus whatever other boats are landing in NB.'
'Does that seem to you like it's a success? Perhaps it would if you are one of those fishermen on the 32% side of the issue, but if you were on the 68% losers side, you would be reporting something totally different. This can only be described as a sin of omission as I have tried to stress this fact to you several times previously.'
The situation is like ten guys in a bar, 9 who are unemployed, and one pulling down $1 million per year. A bureaucrat looks at the bar and says things are great; the average income is $100,000 per year. But in fact, the 9 guys who are unemployed are ready to kill anyone who says they are doing fine. They are not. It is only the million-dollar guy who is doing okay.
Something of a similar situation exists in New England. That is why those who have been cut out of this catch share system are so mad, and also why they need help, despite the fact that there are some who are winners in the region.
It is a truism is that every allocation decision creates winners and losers. The subtext is that the losers just have to buck up and accept the new system, like they would if their business went under or could not make it. But in this case, the business failures are due to government action – not poor decision making on the part of the small boat owners.
How did we get to this point where the facts on the ground – widespread frustration and fury on the part of fishermen who feel cheated and abused by NMFS – contradict the optimistic bureaucrats who say the system is working because values and revenues are up.
The problem is the way in which the New England system created winners and losers had a fatal flaw.
The fatal flaw was that not all permits were treated equally. Prior to the catch share system, there were about 1200 to 1400 active permits, all with various days at sea allocations; and about 700 vessels were using these permits either as owners or leasing, to land fish.
The days at sea system, designed by NMFS and the council, treated all permits equally. When first allocated, each permit was assigned the same number of days at sea – although over time through consolidation various permits came to represent different amounts of days at sea – the fact was that basically each permit was treated equally.
When the council adopted the catch share system, they voted to use only fishing history – i. e. the allocations were to be made 100% on the landings history associated with a permit, not the days at sea. Suddenly, two permits each with 30 days at sea were worth wildly different amounts. The one with little history was inexpensive, the one with substantial catch history was not.
As small boats in New England struggled to stay afloat in the years leading up to catch shares they bought or leased more permits – and since the days at sea permits appeared equal – i. e. one 30 day permit gave you as much fishing time as another 30 day permit, the smaller boat owners naturally gravitated towards the least expensive permits.
Meanwhile larger vessels and fleets with access to capital were snapping up the more expensive, and more valuable, permits with history. They gave them no short term benefit – only a long term potential payoff based on the new allocation system.
The upshot was, as Daniel Bubb says, that in the year before catch shares he was landing over 200,000 lbs of cod – as a day boat operator from Gloucester. He was subject to the trip limit of 800 lbs per day, but had enough days at sea to fish most of the year.
After the catch allocation was put in place, his two vessels were allocated 9,200 lbs and 11,000 lbs of cod.
He went from a fishery that employed several crew to one that couldn't fish. On one boat, his 'allocation is 30,000 lbs, and every species is a choke species.'
To be cut from 200,000 lbs to less than 30,000 lbs seems extremely unfair – and this situation was repeated throughout the groundfish fleets in both New Bedford and Gloucester. This was a far greater cut than needed to rebuild stocks.
As Bubb says, if NMFS had simply said last year you caught 250,000 lbs and this year we are cutting that to 100,000, but you can fish in the most efficient way – he would have been jumping up and down with relief.
The council had an option of considering vessel fishing power or days at sea permits as well as history, and it could have looked more closely at the impact and consequences of devaluing the existing currency which was days at sea.
But that did not happen. One reason was that so much fury was directed at the change to the catch share system itself that the people most hurt by it were not willing or in the mood to try and make it work.
Now the system is in crisis, due to the fact that traditional small boat fishing in Gloucester and New Bedford is under extreme threat. Most politicians and even those who advocate catch shares, don't want to be held responsible for the death of a 400 year old fishing tradition at the same time as regional fishing stocks rebound.
But to save it, the reality has to be faced: the initial allocations set up an unacceptable system of winners and losers, and one of the most important aims of government aid or intervention is to stabilize the fleets most severely hurt – which are the smaller day boat fleets in Gloucester, New Bedford, and other small ports up and down the coast.
The proposed solutions – increasing allocations of yellowtail or other species, are not enough to do the job, because the benefits will flow primarily to the winners in the allocation system.
The reality of the suffering of these fleets is a wake up call, and I for one will not write again about catch shares, which when properly designed are still in my opnion are the best long term fishing solution, without acknowledging the inequities that have put the New England fisheries into crisis and the need to correct them.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com