Every aspect of management is on the table; the Council and
Commission want to hear from as many people as possible before beginning what
could be a major amendment to the fishery management plan.
In the past—really, for the entire first decade of this new
century—summer flounder managers endured a firestorm of complaints and
criticisms after they imposed strict regulations on both commercial and
recreational fishermen in an ultimately successful effort to fully rebuild the
stock.
Along the way, both federal fisheries managers and federal
fisheries laws were subject to constant attacks leveled by commercial fishermen, tackle dealers and
for-hire operators in New York and New Jersey (although folks in some other
states, most particularly Virginia, also took part in the vituperation).
I sat on the Mid-Atlantic Council for part of that time, and
recall the theatrics too well.
There were the orchestrated complaints from the party boat
captains, who came back year after year to warn us that they were going to go
out of business that season—if they held out so long—if legally mandated
restrictions were ever imposed.
There was the self-appointed Long Island “celebrity” with
his own TV show, who showed up in the hall before one Council meeting with film
crew in tow, shining his lights and his cameras on anyone who might be willing
to complain about the way summer flounder were managed (folks without
complaints were neither wanted nor recorded), and got very upset when the
Council chairman wouldn’t allow him inside to turn the meeting itself into a
media circus.
There was the Huntington, New York party boat captain who
was escorted out of a Philadelphia meeting by security guards, just for being
himself…
Well, you get the idea.
Mention “summer flounder” back then and there were always a
few hundred people ready to tell you where the feds had gone wrong and how the
fishery should really be managed.
But something strange happened between then and now.
Federal managers—and federal law—turned out to be right.
Summer flounder were fully recovered, and anglers who once
fought for the “right” to kill 14-inch fish—fluke so small that you could
literally hold them up to the sun and count the bones through their skin—started
regularly catching fish so large that each
fillet was more than 14 inches long.
Regulations, which once grew steadily more restrictive as
the stock struggled to rebuild, began to ease, with legal fish getting smaller
and bag limits getting larger.
It wasn’t like the old days, when you could take home a
pailful of see-through fluke, but even so anglers in southern states were
seeing so many fish that, even under the new relaxed rules, they couldn’t land
their entire quota. As a result, some of
their “unused” fish were transferred up north, so that those states could ease
their regulations, too.
The bitter complaints of the decade before pretty much went
away by the time the scoping hearings began this fall.
About the only folks who had much to say were the die-hards
who would never accept the need for conservation, and the fishermen—commercial
and recreational alike—who, rightly or wrongly, sought a bigger piece of the
pie.
To some extent, here in New York, it was the same old story, with fishermen
complaining that the science was faulty and led to in regulations that were far
too restrictive.
But they also seemed to have a legitimate complaint, when
they claimed that the state didn’t get a fair share of the quota. Neighboring Rhode
Island is awarded 15.68% of the landings, while its other neighbor, New Jersey
(Connecticut, which borders Long Island Sound, has a much smaller fishing
industry) is given 16.72%; compared to that, New York’s 7.65% does seem too
small.
Of course, the raw percentages only tell part of the story;
they don’t reveal why New York’s
commercial fishermen get fewer fish.
That dates back a few years, to the days before Rudolph
Giuliani made his mark on Manhattan and the Fulton Fish Market was still a
“family” business.
Unlike fishermen in
other states, those in New York didn’t weigh out their catches right at the
dock and sell them to local fish houses.
Instead, they just boxed them up and shipped them off to Fulton.
That was OK, as far as it went. The fish got to the market, and the fishermen
got paid.
It was how they
got paid that produced all the problems.
Because the boys down at Fulton weren’t all that fond of
keeping good records that might show up at inconvenient times—say, in the midst
of a federal probe (you may recall that Giuliani actually did subpoena such
records one day, and probably would have gotten them, too, if the building that they were stored in hadn’t caught fire at just the wrong time.)
So instead of regularly mailing mail the
fishermen weighout slips, accompanied by a check for the fish that were bought,
they often just sent out a thick wad of cash.
That served the families’ recordkeeping needs pretty well,
and the fishermen liked it too, particularly when it came time to fill out
their tax returns.
But when the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council decided
to divvy up summer flounder among the states, and used catch history as the
criteria, it posed a bit of a problem for New York’s commercials, because the
catch records just weren’t there.
As a result, they got shortchanged on the quota.
They probably could have reconstructed the records, but that
might have required new tax returns, too…
So they had some grounds to complain.
They’ve long sat high in the catbird’s seat,
enjoying some of the highest recreational and commercial quotas on the coast;
now, like spoiled four-year-olds, they get upset at the thought of sharing with
others.
Greg DiDomenico, executive director of the Garden State
Seafood Association, noted that
“We have a likelihood of getting picked to death. A lot of people are somewhat jealous of the
quotas we have. Massachusetts is looking
in the southern direction for numerous fish, including this one.”
Jim Lovgren, a long-time commercial fishermen who I often spoke
with back when I sat on the Council put it more tersely, although he named a
different adversary, saying
“New York is out to steal your fish.”
Of course, there’s some of the old “the science is bad and
the law is no good” rhetoric still being spouted down there too, although, in New
Jersey, it usually comes from the recreational side.
Ray Bogan, an attorney who frequently represents the
for-hire industry (yes, he’s part of the same extended family that owns all of
those party boats) made the same sort of noises that he’s been making for nearly
two decades, calling federal fisheries law “onerous and punitive legislation,” and
saying
“The only two things that we can verify from the current
management system is a rebuilt stock and the destruction of the traditional
fishery.”
Of course, we wouldn’t have “a rebuilt stock” without “the current
management system,” and it’s pretty easy to argue that “the destruction of the
traditional fishery” that depleted the summer flounder stock in the first place
isn’t a bad thing.
Still, it’s nice to see that nothing has changed since the days
when I sat on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, and he used to
threaten to “hold [us] accountable” if we voted for management measures that the
staff biologists told us were good, but the party boat folks didn’t like.
Because people like Bogan and some of his clan might have
complained about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
and whined about how Magnuson-mandated fluke regulations were going to put them
out of business, but it’s hard to deny that those regulations allowed the
population to fully rebuild. Today,
we’re all reaping the benefits.
Anglers are generally happy and bringing enough fish home to
keep most of them satisfied, although a few hungries still gave over their
shoulder at days gone forever and mourn that they used to kill more.
The for-hire boats are carrying well.
And the commercial boats are landing fish and making good
money, even if the New York folks want a bigger share of the catch, and their
counterparts in New Jersey are afraid that they’ll get it.
With things going that well, we shouldn’t be surprised that
the scoping hearings didn’t create more of a stir.
Summer flounder are one of the best-managed stocks on the
coast, thanks to the Magnuson Act and managers who didn’t wilt under fire and
had the courage to make the tough calls.
If other managers, and other management councils, follow
their example, pretty soon folks will have a hard time complaining about other stocks, too…
Charlie...just a short emailing explaining my quote.
ReplyDeleteOne of our members brought the ASMFC Fisheries Focus August/September 2014 edition to my attention, specifically an article entitled "ASMFC Uses New Climate Analysis Tools to Evaluate Changes in Fish Stocks".
The article states the following:
"To define the methods for possibly adjusting state-by-state allocations, the MSC crafted several fishery reallocation options. To determine the applicability of each option, the Committee distributed a survey to ASMFC Commissioners. The MSC then developed specific reallocation recommendations based on Commissioner responses. The Commissioners found the “Historical/Current Combination” reallocation option to be the most pragmatic. The option was outlined as “using the historical allocation for 50% of the quota, and reallocating the remaining 50% of quota based on the current distribution of biomass.” The MSC recommends that specific percentages should be set for each species (black sea bass, scup, and summer flounder). The MSC also noted that the historical “fixed” and “adjusted” percentages used in the survey on allocation options were only suggested as 50:50, and that other combinations for historical/current percentages could be decided by individual Management Boards in consultation with their Technical Committees. The Historical/Current Combination reallocation option will address distributional changes for a stock that is expanding in range, increasing in abundance, or both. This reallocation option may also provide management flexibility in terms of adjusting to changes in the distribution of stocks, as well as providing for a more gradual change in adjusted allocations for states, because states keep some portion of their historical allocation."
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my public comments and said that numerous states would like to change state allocations and they have a very good opportunity to do that via the ASMFC.
Greg DiDomenico
Garden State Seafood Association
http://www.gardenstateseafood.org/
Allocation--more properly, reallocation--is always a sticky issue. But the bottom line is that if all we have to worry about is allocating/reallocating a recovered stock, management can be deemed a success.
Delete