The editor and publisher of an influential daily Internet report on the fishing industry has issued a mea culpa and acknowledged that looking more deeply into the newly minted groundfish catch share system in New England reveals a potentially "fatal flaw."
The failing that John Sackton concedes he had previously missed finding was "hyper-consolidation" of the industry, as the New England fishery was converted in May to the catch-shares market in which fishermen are essentially encouraged to buy, sell or trade their "share" of a total allowable catch with other fishermen, or larger companies and outside investors.
While landings were reported down a bit, Sackton's earlier analysis was encouraged by government figures showing that catching less produced higher revenues, which in Massachusetts were up 24.5 percent in the four months, May through August, 2010 over the same period in 2009.
"The situation is like 10 guys in a bar, nine who are unemployed, and one pulling down $1 million per year," Sackton wrote in Monday's report, noting he had been called out by Gloucester gillnetter Daniel Bubb, who told Sackton his uncritical endorsement of the catch share results made him nauseous.
"A bureaucrat looks at the bar and says things are great; the average income is $100,000 a year," Sackton continued on Monday. "But in fact, the nine 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 OK.
"How did we get to this point where the facts o the ground — widespread frustration and fury on the part of fishermen who feel cheated and abused by (the National Marine Fisheries Service) — contradict the optimistic bureaucrats who say the system is working because values and revenues are up."
Sackton's rhetorical question brought his answer — the New England Fishery Management Council, the arm of NOAA that interprets research and formulates policy somewhat like a legislature had created the fatal flaw in the catch share system by its vote to allocate shares in the catch based on landing histories on permits.
The flaw in the approach is that, until the vote by the council in June 2009, permits — the currency of the industry — were written in days at sea, regulating fishermen's effort, rather than output and catch allowed. People who had acceded to informal policy and avoided the prized groundfish were left holding permits with little groundfish history.
"There was a change in the currency," Sackton told the Times. "In the council process, no one looked at this and said what the consequences of this are. There wasn't a good understanding of the ramifications."
The shift in currency made a few winners and many losers — fishermen who held permits with little landings history.
In the meantime, the creation of a commodities market meant that deeper pockets could buy out the weaker operators and, as Lubchenco had planned, consolidate the industry into a smaller number of wealthier hands.
Read the complete story from the Gloucester Daily Times.