Sunday, September 17, 2023

ILLEGAL FISHING: THE PUNISHMENT MUST FIT THE CRIME

 

Last week, here in New York, newspapers announced that the trial of a Long Island commercial fisherman, accused of illegally landing over 200,000 pounds of summer flounder, along with an unspecified amount of illegal black sea bass, had begun.

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. 

In 2015, another fisherman who landed a somewhat higher volume of illegal summer flounder, 290,000 pounds, was sentenced to seven months in jail and three years of supervised, post-release probation, and compelled to pay $603,400 in combined fines and forfeitures.

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.

One of the worst examples I’ve heard of occurred a couple of years ago, and was reported in the newsletter of a local sportsmen’s organization.

“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