March 23, 2016 — This week, catch share management has come under fire on both the East and West Coasts, as articles in the New Bedford Standard-Times and Seafood News criticize key facets of regional catch share programs.

In New England, Massachusetts State Rep. Bill Straus writes about the side-effects of implementing catch shares in the New England groundfish fishery, calling the subsequent fleet consolidation “a government-created near monopoly.”

In Sacramento, Seafood News details how low quotas for critical “choke species” are preventing some boats from fishing for the entirety of 2016.

For nearly a decade, the Environmental Defense Fund’s ocean policy has been “to ensure that the world’s fisheries are restored back to health through the advancement and implementation of a transformational fisheries management approach known as catch shares.” In May 2009, while serving as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the vice-chair of EDF’s board of trustees, enacted a national policy encouraging the consideration and use of catch shares.  Regarding its trustees, EDF notes on its website that “Fortune magazine called them one the most influential boards in the country.”

Excerpts from the two articles are provided below:

State Rep. Bill Straus: Impact of the Federal Fisheries Arrests in New Bedford

No one who supported the catch shares idea in 2009 can honestly say this concentration and its results are a surprise. The statements challenging this bad idea back then came locally from Dr. Brian Rothschild at UMass Dartmouth and many others; I added a cautionary word as well on the pages of this newspaper on June 24, 2009. It is frankly depressing to re-read this portion of what I said then about the coming catch shares program:

“Amendment 16 will send many fishermen and smaller ports to the sidelines; in other words, they will lose their jobs. There will be winners and losers, and the advocates of Amendment 16 have done little or nothing to point out that the system that is chosen for allocating catch shares will determine who will thrive in the new world of federal regulation and who will be abandoned.

“Amendment 16 will result in a concentration within the fleets of all ports; to think otherwise would be naive.”

In the coming weeks and months, more information on the way the industry runs will no doubt come to light and whether, as I believe, the catch shares system played a role in allowing the port economy to shift as it has. A discussion needs to start and soon for two reasons. First, the federal government at some point will no doubt have to consider whether serious permit holder violations have occurred such that revocation and some new system of permit availability for groundfish participants should be created. That is a major question, and it’s never too soon to get going on whether catch shares’ day (if there ever should have been one) has come and gone.

West Coast Catch Share Program Failure Keeps Vessel Off Fishing Grounds For 2016

Criticism that the West Coast catch shares program is underperforming came to the forefront recently at the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting in Sacramento.

West Coast trawlers have been operating in fear of a “disaster tow” or “lightning strike” of a choke species since the beginning of the individual quota program in 2011. And for the F/V Seeker, a disaster tow of 47,000 pounds of canary rockfish – a species at the time listed as overfished — in November 2015 will prevent it from fishing for all of 2016.

The Seeker’s misfortune is an extreme example of the program’s failure, particularly for those fishing in the non-whiting sector.

Jeff Lackey, who manages the vessel, testified to the PFMC the vessel is in a bind and already has made plans to fish in Alaska for most of 2016 and return to fishing off the West Coast in 2017. The Seeker fishes in both the non-whiting shoreside sector and in the whiting mothership sector.

The Seeker is a victim of several features of the current regulatory system in the West Coast individual quota program.

First, current vessel limits prohibit the Seeker from acquiring enough quota to solve its deficit.

Second, canary rockfish was listed as overfished for more than a decade but an assessment accepted by the council in 2015 shows canary rockfish has been rebuilt.

And third, the PFMC’s management process operates on a two-year cycle, with no way to change annual catch limits (ACLs) mid-cycle.

“[The F/V Seeker] is not the only one,” Pete Leipzig, director of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association, told the Council. Other trawlers have come up against vessel limits for other species that have prevented them from fishing for some time, but none have been confronted with the extremity of the Seeker’s situation.

The vessel limits were designed to prevent consolidation of the fleet. Bycatch of choke species have prevented many vessels from capturing target fish. Fear of a disaster tow — one so extreme that a quota pound deficit cannot be covered in the existing fishing year — has limited trading of quota as fishermen hoard these species to cover their fishing operations for the year.

The Seeker is a member of the Newport, OR based Midwater Trawlers Cooperative. The organization proposed a solution to the Seeker’s problem: use an alternative compliance option that was eliminated during the development of the catch shares program. It would have been available for overly restrictive events, such as the Seeker’s, but still hold fishermen accountable. The council opted not to move forward with examining that option at this time.

This is the new reality of the West Coast individual quota program: rebuilding species will be encountered more frequently and fishermen could be held to conservative annual catch limits for a year or more if they experience an infrequent disaster tow and have insufficient quota to cover their deficit.

“As the regulations are currently written, any vessel that experiences the same situation would likely have to sit out of the shoreside trawl program for several years … This seems overly punitive and raises equity concerns,” Heather Mann, executive director of the MTC, wrote in a public comment letter to the council.