The allegations follow a pattern that we’ve seen on Long
Island before. A fishermen knowingly
harvests too many fish, often summer flounder, files false landings reports
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and then connives with the operator
of a fish dock/landings facility to conceal the illegal landings.
The New York Times noted that the wholesale value of the
illegal landings was about $888,000. The
retail value at fish markets and, particularly, restaurants would have been
substantially higher.
So the question becomes, how should the fisherman pay for
his crime, in which he stole over 100 tons of a regulated natural resource not
only from the public at large, but from the future? As
I noted in a recent post, the summer flounder stock isn’t exactly thriving right
now.
Granted, the fisherman has not yet been convicted, and the
presumption of innocence guaranteed by the United States Constitution still
applies. However, it’s only human to
speculate, and given that his alleged partners in crime, Bryan and Asa Gosman,
owners of the sprawling restaurant/fish market/fishing dock operation on the
west side of Montauk Inlet, and Bob Gosman, Inc., a fish wholesaler, have
already cut deals with federal prosecutors, and could very well testify on the
government’s behalf, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that his guilt will
eventually be proved.
The wholesaler, Bob Gosman, Inc., has already been assessed,
and has paid, a $50,000 fine, which doesn’t sound like much more than a slap on
the wrist, considering the value of the illegal fish that it handled. Bryan and Asa Gosman have not yet been
sentenced, and it can only be hoped that the court will be less lenient with them,
for even though they didn’t actually catch the over-limit flounder, they
provided the willing and eager market into which they were sold. According to the Times, they even
acted as lookout at times, standing by to warn the fishermen of the presence of
law enforcement personnel when the illegal flounder were landed.
The fisherman faces serious penalties, including jail time
and the forfeiture of the money received for the illegal fish. It is not impossible that, should the
National Marine Fisheries Service begin an administrative action separate from
the current prosecution, he could even lose his permit to fish for summer
flounder, a loss that would force him out of the fishery.
Previous cases have demonstrated that at least some courts
have little tolerance for large-scale illegal fishing.
Like the fisherman in the current prosecution, the
individual convicted in 2015 conspired with the operator of a fish dock to hide
his illegal landings. That
fish dock operator, who served a similar function as the Gosmans did in the
current prosecution, was sentenced to four months in jail and three years of
supervised probation; fined $6,000; required to make a $15,000 “community
service payment” to the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, which
operates a federal Sea Grant program intended to protect summer flounder habitat; and forfeit $510,000 as restitution for
the illegal landings.
In that case, the fish dock laundered 246,376 pounds of
illegal summer flounder, worth $510,000.
We can only hope that those found guilty in the current
matter face similar fates.
And they very well might for, once the jury returns a guilty
verdict, or the accused agrees to a guilty plea, the federal courts on Long
Island have proven very intolerant of those who knowingly abuse fisheries
resources.
Unfortunately, the state courts have not demonstrated the
same attitudes, particularly on the South Fork of Long Island, where fishing
remains an important part of the local economy.
There, poachers often escape with only the lightest slap on the wrist,
which does nothing to deter further illegal activity.
“On 11/7, ECOs Ike
Bobseine, Landon Simmons and Taylor Della Rocco took the 31’ Safeboat to patrol
the Atlantic Ocean. After several compliant recreational vessel
checks, the crew observed a vessel in the Atlantic Ocean south of
Montauk. On board, 2 persons were hauling up a gill net, both
commercially permitted fishermen. On board, in a cooler,
were 11 tagged striped bass, all using allocation tags issued to another
fisherman, who was not on board. They had, also, an additional 82
unused striped bass tags. An additional 5 untagged striped bass were
found, hidden, on board, which were all under the 26” minimum size for
commercially harvested striped bass.
“The captain admitted that
he was out of striped bass tags for the year, and knew that it was illegal to
fish using someone else’s tags…The fishermen were each charged with a
misdemeanor, for the illegal commercialization of fish, plus a separate violation
for possessing undersized fish and illegal use of tags. In
total, each fisherman faced penalties of up to $800 for the 16
illegal fish and an additional penalty of $5,000, based on the current market
value of the fish. The current market value of the fish
illegally on board the vessel was $388.02…
“On 1/5, in East Hampton
Town Court, the captain pled to a violation, with a $100 fine and a
$75 surcharge; all other charges were dismissed. [emphasis
added]”
That’s not an uncommon outcome in East Hampton and
Southampton town courts, where the poachers are often respected members of the
community, whose families often can trace their presence in town back to
colonial times. When the prosecutor and
the judge grew up in the area, were elected by the town’s residents, and feel
little need to enforce conservation laws, the nominal fines handed out for
illegal fishing become little more than a cost of doing business, and not a
deterrent at all.
A very different problem, but the same result, prevails in
more urbanized parts of the state, where district attorneys and judges spend
much of their time dealing with criminals accused of robbery, rape, assault,
homicide, and serious larceny and drug charges.
Hardened by such day-to-day fare, such persons often see natural
resources crimes, no matter how serious, as less important, and less deserving
of prosecutorial and judicial time.
I just learned last week that conservation officers were
told by one judge not to bring any charges against anglers who fail to
obtain the required salt water registration before going fishing; the
out-of-sorts jurist reportedly declared,
“I don’t want to see any more of these in my court—it’s a
waste of time.”
Such attitudes do wonders for lawbreakers’ morale, but can’t
be particularly encouraging for conservation officers, who spend long, and
often uncomfortable, hours building a case, only to have it belittled by a
judge or D.A. who is far more interested in non-resource matters.
It is well past time for states, including New York, to
adopt something much closer to the federal model, where forfeiture of poachers’
ill-gotten gains is required in addition to any fine, and jail
time becomes a real possibility for chronic offenders.
In addition, administrative actions focused on the suspension or revocation of the licenses and/or permits needed to fish, in response to repeat or particularly egregious offenses, would go a long way to weed out the bad apples.
While even a large fine may be an ineffective
deterrent if the rewards of illegal fishing are large enough, a permit
revocation that forces a fisherman off the water will, if nothing else, prevent
repeat offenses, and provide other fishermen with a good reason to obey the
law.
But so long as fishermen face only minor consequences for
violating fisheries laws, violators will continue to thrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment