Individual Fishing Quota’s – Background

Individual Fishing Quota’s – Background

Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ), also known as Catch Shares, have now become the bureaucracy’s single most effective tool for the elimination of small boat fishermen. Fishery managers set an annual poundage quota for a given species, and then divvy it up to individual fishermen, based on their past catch history. Fishermen may then work until they reach their allocation limit, at which point they must quit fishing.

For many years, stock protection was mainly facilitated by the use of size limits, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions. With those tools, fishery managers could easily regulate all fisheries, and effectively provide – what was supposed to be their only goal – stock protection. Not satisfied with such a limited mission, however, the fishing bureaucracy moved to expand their scope with a new goal – effort limitation.

Effort limitation opened up a new world for the bureaucracy, by allowing them to enter the realm of controlling a fisherman’s business and his life. In the early stages, fishery managers reduced effort with license reductions, limited entry, and income requirements, all of which slid fishery management into the area of business management. When the Lobster Trap Certificate Program (LTCP) was initiated, fishery bureaucrats gave up the pretense, and came out in the open with their desire to regulate businesses.

The LTCP became the Keys fishermen’s first taste of individual allocation, when fishery managers doled out lobster traps based on a fisherman’s personal catch history. In every study that had been done, our lobster industry was declared to be one of the healthiest fisheries in the nation. Effective rules had long been in place, and the industry had been stable and productive for many years. Frustrated over their inability to find reasonable justification for new restrictions, fishery managers turned to a Duke University professor, who came up with the brilliant conclusion, that our industry was overcapitalized.

Claiming that we were expending too much time and money to catch the lobster, fishery bureaucrats moved forward with a program to make us more efficient. The irony of the most inefficient body in America – our federal government – teaching businessmen to be more efficient, apparently went completely over the heads of humorless bureaucrats. Maintaining that fishermen could catch the same amount (they actually claimed we would catch more) with less traps, regulators moved forward with the LTCP and a systematic reduction in the number of traps that each fisherman had been allocated.

Using a monitoring statistic called Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), managers assured fishermen that they would catch the same amount of lobster with half the traps. As with every promise ever made by the bureaucracy, this one didn’t work either. CPUE remained static, and a fisherman with half the traps he once had, caught half the lobster he once did. With the industry trap number now halved, catch has also fallen by half, and fishery managers are desperately searching for any reason other than trap reduction to explain the drop in production.

The LTCP gives us a perfect example of what happens when government tries to control individual business decisions. If the fishing bureaucracy was interested in healthy and productive fisheries, they would recognize that efficiency comes at the boat level, and they should stick to running their own business, which is stock management. But, since the main mission of all bureaucracy today is the accumulation of power, in no case are they going to give up control once they have it.

Meanwhile, federal fishery managers were moving swiftly forward with annual species quotas. Quickly recognizing the power that quotas gave them over fishermen, they moved into the ultimate phase of fishery control – allocating the allowable catch to individual fishermen. Moving slowly at first, bureaucrats patiently initiated IFQ’s in several targeted fisheries through clever manipulation of the fishermen. Now however, using the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as an excuse, they are aiming to forcefully implement IFQ’s in every fishery.

Fishery managers are interpreting the MSA as requiring them to set quotas in all fisheries, and their method of choice is with IFQ’s. Fishermen are assured by confident bureaucrats, that when they no longer have to deal with the ‘gold rush mentality’ of open competition for quotas, commercial fishing becomes as smooth as a country waltz….No more need to hurry out and get your fair share before the quota is filled….Catch your share when the price is high, and no longer be at the mercy of the fish houses….No longer need to risk your life by going when the weather is bad….Don’t have enough pounds? – buy more, they’re transferable….Ready to retire? Sell your shares and have an instant pension….Wow! Won’t everyone want to be a commercial fisherman now?

It matters not to the bureaucrats, that their quota interpretation takes great liberty with both the wording and the intention, of the MSA. It matters not that thousands of fishermen will lose their livelihoods, and it matters not that IFQ’s will mean the end of traditional, small boat fisheries. It doesn’t even matter that it places a limit on every fisherman’s income, and freezes out young people from ever entering the fisheries. It only matters that IFQ’s are now declared to be effective resource management, and will make life tidier and easier for fishery managers.

Once bureaucratic fishery managers set their sights on an agenda like IFQ’s, they will do and say anything to reach their goal. As one may well imagine, individual quotas garner little support among competitive, hard working fishermen. They are constantly working in a hostile environment to improve both their methods and catch volume, and have no fear of competing with other fishermen for a fixed quota. It would be hard to think of anything more contradictory to the spirit of American capitalism than the competition stifling IFQ’s.

However, as with all other fishery regulations, commercial fishermen are essentially shut out of the rule making on IFQ’s. Fishery managers instituted the first IFQ fisheries by rigging the elections so that ¾ of the fishermen – almost all of whom would have voted against it – were not allowed to vote. As in the case of Grouper IFQ’s, only those with 8,000 lbs or more of annual catch, were allowed to vote. Then surprise! Surprise! After the perfunctory vote, IFQ’s were implemented, and fishery managers proudly announced another successful joint effort between government and industry.

In truth, public hearings and advisory boards – the only input venues for fishermen – are mere tokenism, and useful only for the bureaucracy to fulfill the hollow requirements of public input. The rule making rests squarely within the offices of fishery managers, and their interpretations and agenda are always accepted. The state and federal council members are political appointees who actually have the final vote on everything, but they are primarily made up of college professors, recreational fishermen, environmental advocates, and assorted bureaucrats, who simply rubber stamp the staff’s recommendations.

Commercial fishermen are rarely represented on the councils, and the few that have been appointed, are usually ones who have only a tenuous connection to commercial fishing and show a willingness to go along and get along with the bureaucrats. Yet, we are expected to believe that good fishery law can emanate from people who know nothing about commercial fishing. One can only wonder how many school teachers and firemen are making the rules for the State Board of Medical Examiners, and whether accountants and electricians are drawing up the legal guidelines for the National Bar Association.

Bureaucrats do not – can not – understand the life of a commercial fisherman. Even as fishermen cannot understand the complexities of the bureaucratic system without actually working in it, fishery managers cannot possibly understand fishing without spending years trying to scratch out a living from the sea. Yet bureaucrats proceed as if they are professional fishermen, and their laptops computers can direct the perfect rules for fishery management.

If our small boat fishery in the Keys is to survive, IFQ’s must be stopped. Total catch will soon end up in the hands of a few large producers, and our young people will be permanently excluded from the fisheries. Once IFQ’s are implemented, it will be too late to turn back, and the face of our traditional fishery in the Keys will change forever. Hopefully, the recent ‘March on Washington’ is a sign that fishermen everywhere – both commercial and recreational – have had enough of bureaucrats controlling their lives. But for Keys fishermen, if they are ever to fight a battle to the end, it should be over IFQ’s, and it must be now!

Next: IFQ’s – The Reality

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Individual Fishing Quota’s – Background”

  1. Do you plan to keep this site updated? I sure hope so… its great!

  2. mary beth de poutiloff says:

    Thanks. I couldn’t agree more.

    My family has been scallop fishing out of our small boat for 20 yrs. Amendment 11 for federal scallops cut the permits from over 2900 (600 landed scallops) to 329. At the same time catch shares (ITQ’s) have left few of us viable. My family can only fish 4 days this year. I only know 1 boat that got enough quota. Many are like us & only have between 2-9 days.

    Scallops are NOT overfished. They are at the second highest level since
    recording. Some closed area scallops are dying of old age.

    Groups like EDF (environmental defense fund) are against fishing unless
    you are a corporation buying catch shares through wall street. Why would a green group promote huge corporate fishing fleets? They don’t care about the fish or the workers-money is there only concern.

    Catch shares are bad for the resource (high grading, price dumping & black market selling) fishermen & the communities. Just say NO CATCH SHARES.

  3. fishersofmen says:

    We need to watch for the divide and conquer strategy – NOAA/EDF types have been shopping their IFQ ideas at every RFMC. Fishermen need to unite and realize that an IFQ in one region is a threat to all. Mary Beth de Poutiloff’s problems in New England should matter to Gulf fishermen, and vice versa.

    EDF just paid for a bunch of fishermen to go lobby on the Hill and ask for catch shares – this tactic is not fair to the majority of small-scale fishermen who will be shut out of the fishery. But the large-scale guys who receive the windfall of quota will be tempted to promote a system that is the equivalent of government-sponsored corporate welfare.

    It’s the wal-mart-ization of the oceans…oh yeah, and EDF receives money from Wal-Mart, so the expression should be taken literally.

    Pete – keep writing, because we’re reading.

  4. Frank Tinnel says:

    I must say that in general I am really delighted with this blog.It’s good to see someone very happy about what they do. Thanks!

  5. Lindsay Carr says:

    Hey, I’ve read loads of your posts and have really enjoyed them 🙂 Would you like to maybe swap blogroll links?

  6. Kirby Morse says:

    this is great ive bookmarked this one hehe

  7. Good post, however only some of the points were actually treated really good, I think digging deep for the topic to make it more informative will really help, will be looking forward for more informative post than this. Will suggest some points which are to the best of my knowledge. This might help you bringing more information for all of us.

    • Peter Bacle says:

      Like most people in our industry, I have little time for research or digging too deep on any one issue. I am trying to present a point of view from the perspective of a fisherman, using only the common information that’s presented to them by the fishery regulators. Every issue that I touch on, grows in complexity as I write, and it becomes increasingly clear why the average fisherman doesn’t have a clue about what’s really going on with fishery management.

  8. Peter Bacle says:

    Thanks. I try to write at least one a week.

  9. Penny says:

    Really nice read thanks, I have added this to my Mixx bookmarks.

Leave a Reply

Security Code: