So, you think you might be willing to sit on a federal or state advisory board? You believe that you have a wealth of acquired knowledge that could be used to make good fishery law. You feel that ‘they’ just need someone in there who can explain what it is really like trying to make a living from the sea. You might even feel that you can give the fishery managers a unique perspective, and once they understand, things will be different. Or maybe you are just plain frustrated with trying to defend your livelihood in 3 minutes at public fishery hearings.
Four years ago, while still trying to give the benefit of the doubt to well-meaning bureaucrats, I reluctantly agreed to serve on the Lobster Advisory Board for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. The LAB was to review all the laws for the State of Florida regarding lobster – both commercial and recreational – and was made up of a broad range of members from government, user groups, and non-governmental organizations.
It was obvious from the beginning that the framework was controlled by the FWC, and that their goal was to get our approval for their own agenda. Nevertheless, for two and a half years, we studiously poured over the science and economics, while tip-toeing around the politics. Every request of staff was met with cooperation, and even the most controversial issues were discussed respectfully among the members. Each issue was hashed to death, and at the end, it took a 75% vote, to make a recommendation to the FWC commissioners for final approval.
From the first meeting, it was apparent that the most important issue for the staff was to continue reducing the allowable number of lobster traps. Each meeting concentrated on a different issue, but trap reduction was discussed at every one. The committee was not favoring further reductions, but the staff threw in a new wrinkle at each meeting to continue the debate, and hoped to wear down the board members through their persistence.
When the final votes were cast, the FWC staff managed to get approval for all of their agenda except for the big one. Against the vehement wishes of staff, the LAB voted to recommend no further lobster trap reductions. The State of Florida had already cut the number of traps by over 50% in 13 years, and though production dropped along with it (unlike fishermen were promised), the FWC staff fought with tooth and nail to continue the reductions. However, after studying every aspect of trap reduction, at every meeting for 2½ years, over 75% of the LAB still voted to discontinue the reductions.
At the final public hearing in Key Largo, lobster fishermen showed up in force, to support the trap reduction stoppage. However, unbeknownst to the fishermen, the FWC had called a special meeting in Dania, and fortuitously ended up with an environmental group to support their desire for further trap reduction. Pouring out of chartered buses wearing SAVE THE BABY LOBSTER t-shirts, they packed the meeting, and even used little children to denounce our rotten industry. According to their endless speeches, we were guilty of everything from killing off the ‘baby’ lobster, to destroying the entire marine environment.
The FWC commissioners, without one word of discussion on the LAB’s formal recommendation to stop trap reduction, postponed action for a year so the staff could form a new advisory board. The staff hastily put together a new LAB with more compliant members, and the following year the FWC quickly acted on their new, and unsurprising recommendation, to continue trap reductions.
The lesson for fishermen is clear and simple; advisory boards are a waste of time. At one time a fisherman could expect his input to have some effect on the outcome, but today the full agenda of the bureaucracy is always enacted, and advisory boards serve only to satisfy the letter of the law. Regulators were actually once interested in learning about commercial fishing, but today confidently feel that they already know all that is important to making effective fishery law.
Fishery managers also understand that as our industry shrinks, and the bureaucracy has ever more control over those remaining, there is an increasing reluctance by fishermen to speak out too forcefully, lest they quickly become targeted again on the next issue. In other words, the more power they acquire, the less opposition they have.
Sadly, it is too late for us to work within the system. It is their ball, and they make all the rules. They let us play, as long as we understand that they always win. There is no possibility of us beating them at their own game, and if our industry is to continue with even a shred of individualism left, we must change the rules. The only way to do that is to elect new leaders, who are willing to reign in the power of the bureaucracy, and return it to the people.
It is a tough assignment. Maybe even a hopeless assignment, but it’s our only chance. Commercial fishing will not be exempted from the socialized society Washington is trying to implement, and the 2010 congressional elections will be the most important ever, for both our country and our industry. If we are to survive with the freedom to operate our own businesses, and with our dignity intact, we must all work to see that the change happens.
Advisory Boards
Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 Posted in Commentary, Industry
So, you think you might be willing to sit on a federal or state advisory board? You believe that you have a wealth of acquired knowledge that could be used to make good fishery law. You feel that ‘they’ just need someone in there who can explain what it is really like trying to make a living from the sea. You might even feel that you can give the fishery managers a unique perspective, and once they understand, things will be different. Or maybe you are just plain frustrated with trying to defend your livelihood in 3 minutes at public fishery hearings.
Four years ago, while still trying to give the benefit of the doubt to well-meaning bureaucrats, I reluctantly agreed to serve on the Lobster Advisory Board for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. The LAB was to review all the laws for the State of Florida regarding lobster – both commercial and recreational – and was made up of a broad range of members from government, user groups, and non-governmental organizations.
It was obvious from the beginning that the framework was controlled by the FWC, and that their goal was to get our approval for their own agenda. Nevertheless, for two and a half years, we studiously poured over the science and economics, while tip-toeing around the politics. Every request of staff was met with cooperation, and even the most controversial issues were discussed respectfully among the members. Each issue was hashed to death, and at the end, it took a 75% vote, to make a recommendation to the FWC commissioners for final approval.
From the first meeting, it was apparent that the most important issue for the staff was to continue reducing the allowable number of lobster traps. Each meeting concentrated on a different issue, but trap reduction was discussed at every one. The committee was not favoring further reductions, but the staff threw in a new wrinkle at each meeting to continue the debate, and hoped to wear down the board members through their persistence.
When the final votes were cast, the FWC staff managed to get approval for all of their agenda except for the big one. Against the vehement wishes of staff, the LAB voted to recommend no further lobster trap reductions. The State of Florida had already cut the number of traps by over 50% in 13 years, and though production dropped along with it (unlike fishermen were promised), the FWC staff fought with tooth and nail to continue the reductions. However, after studying every aspect of trap reduction, at every meeting for 2½ years, over 75% of the LAB still voted to discontinue the reductions.
At the final public hearing in Key Largo, lobster fishermen showed up in force, to support the trap reduction stoppage. However, unbeknownst to the fishermen, the FWC had called a special meeting in Dania, and fortuitously ended up with an environmental group to support their desire for further trap reduction. Pouring out of chartered buses wearing SAVE THE BABY LOBSTER t-shirts, they packed the meeting, and even used little children to denounce our rotten industry. According to their endless speeches, we were guilty of everything from killing off the ‘baby’ lobster, to destroying the entire marine environment.
The FWC commissioners, without one word of discussion on the LAB’s formal recommendation to stop trap reduction, postponed action for a year so the staff could form a new advisory board. The staff hastily put together a new LAB with more compliant members, and the following year the FWC quickly acted on their new, and unsurprising recommendation, to continue trap reductions.
The lesson for fishermen is clear and simple; advisory boards are a waste of time. At one time a fisherman could expect his input to have some effect on the outcome, but today the full agenda of the bureaucracy is always enacted, and advisory boards serve only to satisfy the letter of the law. Regulators were actually once interested in learning about commercial fishing, but today confidently feel that they already know all that is important to making effective fishery law.
Fishery managers also understand that as our industry shrinks, and the bureaucracy has ever more control over those remaining, there is an increasing reluctance by fishermen to speak out too forcefully, lest they quickly become targeted again on the next issue. In other words, the more power they acquire, the less opposition they have.
Sadly, it is too late for us to work within the system. It is their ball, and they make all the rules. They let us play, as long as we understand that they always win. There is no possibility of us beating them at their own game, and if our industry is to continue with even a shred of individualism left, we must change the rules. The only way to do that is to elect new leaders, who are willing to reign in the power of the bureaucracy, and return it to the people.
It is a tough assignment. Maybe even a hopeless assignment, but it’s our only chance. Commercial fishing will not be exempted from the socialized society Washington is trying to implement, and the 2010 congressional elections will be the most important ever, for both our country and our industry. If we are to survive with the freedom to operate our own businesses, and with our dignity intact, we must all work to see that the change happens.