Individual Fishing Quota Programs

[Hammer Bob]

There was an article in yesterday's SF Chronicle about the privatization of our marine resources specifically fish and shellfish. Congress is about to establish Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) for nearly every commercial fishery in our country. If not done properly the resources will suffer as well the individual fisherman and communities through loss of jobs. The establishment of (IFQ)has been a success in the E. Coast lobster industry but a dismal disaster in the surf clam fishery off NJ. If you are interested in voicing your opinion, via e-mail or letter, to your congressman now is the time to do it. The moratorium is set to expire on Sept. 30th. For more information use the link below.
http://www.conservefish.org/HotIssues.html

Thanks Hammer. I will write in and also post my opinion here. It's pretty simple. There are a finite number of fish and their ability to reproduce at a rate to sustain viable populations under the pressures of commercial and sport fisheries. When there is a continued deficit the fish populations will decline below any standards of acceptability (accept for selfish and dishonest commercial fishers). Same with inland sportfishing for native salmon/steelhead stocks. Before it gets to the point of no return it has to stop somewhere! Fortunately, we are taking steps to help inland stocks of native fish, although more needs to be done. As for the commercial depletion of ocean fish stocks it has long ago gotten to the point of need for further restrictions for many species in many areas. Thus there has been some put on them, but not enough because of the strong lobbying efforts of commercial fishing associations. It's time they be controlled properly. I get the strong impression that many of them (not all) just care about staying with their prefered (and must be enjoyed) profession regardless of the fish's future plight, as long as they get what they want while they are alive (similar to some - not all - in the timber industry). So I'm glad to see some people in government try to deal with the situations properly; as is being attempted by this HR 4046 bill. And when you consider what has been widely brought out in all media that this state's and country's economy and low unemployment rates are now such that many employers are having to recruit with greater incentives to get enough employees, how can commercial fishermen defend continuing to wipe out remaining fish stocks into endangerment or extinction while whinning about having their jobs taken away? You have heard before and will hear a defence from them again that they have done this for years or even generations and have a license to do this, and use that mentality to argue that they have a special right to mass-harvest fish more than the rest of us individuals do. That is as absurd of mentality to me as saying that since you commercial guys have taken WAY MORE than your share of this planet's fish so far it's long overdue for the rest of us to replace you, and have our rightful equal turn to wipe out the few fish that you have left behind. Rediculous! But you surely are going to hear this limp whinning mentality from them again. And many of them will lie about how many fish there are out there until the last one is gone. What is just as bothersome is that many elected to represent the majority interests of people and the future resources of our planet have gone along with their sob story lobbying! I haven't gained any admiration within ocean commercial fishers or non-Indian/Indian gillnetters for telling the real truth and I don't care. There is right and there is wrong. - RT - P.S. - When you members post your opinions to this, or on other issues, and would like to send it to appropriate places of influence (like Hammer provided here) you can save a lot of typing by just copying and pasting your posts over to the typing squares to be sent. Can edit it when appropriate. That's what I will do with this post to send it to some on the list of rep.s that Jen hs listed elsewhere on Ifish. I recommend sending your encouraging comments to Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio. Thanks.




[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-26-2000).]

[smilesforu]

I have friends who became instant rich folk because of IFQ's on ground fish in Alaska. the programs they use on these fish ifQ's are a really good thing in Alaska. Fishermen able to fish when the weather is good, not just when the government says they can (saved lives). Once they reach there quota no matter how long they fish...They are Done for the year. Their quota is adjusted according to how many fish are available to catch. If we can get the native americans on this we can purchase those ifq rights .

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[garyk]

Smilesforu --

Not arguing with anything you said about Alaska, however, the fundamental question here is -- do you want to privatize, that is create a private property right (that can be bought, sold, mortgaged and otherwise traded) out of what is a public resource?

Beyond 3 miles and out to 200 (I think I got this right although I'm weak on Fed. Marine law), those resources belong to not just Alaskans but to all Americans - they are held in trust by the Federal government.

To slightly turn your proposal to purchase Indian IFQ's -- what if you don't have enough money? What if some other deep pockets, oh perhaps oil-rich Ajerbijan or Kuwait, beat you (us) at the auction?

Holding resources in public-trust status is a very powerful benefit for us and future generations. It is not something to be traded away casually.

[smilesforu]

The Ifq's have some very stringent requirements that have to be met before they can be purchased or filled. We don't have control of the resources that are considered public-trust right now. Commercial licenses have to be bought already where there is are limited licenses of available, so there is little change in the control of ownership. Ifq's just make the quantity of harvest a more manageable situation. Instead of everybody getting a free for all. They go on past performance of the fishermen to decide what the ifq is for them. They then allow them to continue on that percentage basis of harvest. The only people ifq really hurts are the new commercial fishermen who don't have a history of good fishing behind them, and the fishermen who weren't very sucessful in the past accountablity period. Ifq's allow for a sound management practice to fisheries that have been wide open in the past. As a sportsman and a person who wants to see better regulation of commercial fishing I believe these to be a good thing.

On the down side of ifq's is if the fisheries misproject on the high side of the availablity of the species it can have a heavy impact of over fishing. So it is important to be conservative towards the future in projections ;-) IMHO
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[garyk]

smilesforu -- I do appreciate your very thoughtful post on this topic and others on this board.

Allocations, whether cattle grazing on public lands or fishing for the public's fish is a complex topic.

My position - and believe me I'm all for conservative management of fisheries - is that I question whether creating that 'private property right' is the best way to go. A 'right' once granted, is typically very difficult to reduce or revoke. Maybe IFQ's language avoids the 'takings' issue but that's where you can end up with, with rights'.

Gary, I posted my opinion on what I've read previously to Hammers post and by a review skimming of the HR 4046 bill proposal link in his post. If I understand it correctly, any commercially licensed ocean fishers will be subject to an individual quota based on fisheries biologist's determination of the health/numbers of fish available for harvest within proper limits to preserve the resourse. Did I miss something about a "property right"? What does it mean and can you expound on the negative ramifications? Thanks much Gary (garyk). - I agree with your posts Marty and am optimistic that the bios won't overestimate stocks given the conservation climate and given their history of coho estimates in recent years. They try their best science to be accurate and try to properly err on the conservation side. I am optimistic of that; as long as they aren't exposed to "lobby" money . - RT

[smilesforu]

I agree rights are tough to get back once they have been created. My opinion is that those rights have already been created by issuing a license and putting a moratorium on further new licenses. This is just a change in how the licenses already given out are managed.

[Hammer Bob]

Smilesforu, I can understand some of your points but others I believe are in error. The goal and ideals of the IFG's are to promote conservative fishing methods and prevent the destruction of habitat. As the IFG are currently being written there is not the stringent rules regarding byout they are basically bought and sold to the highest bidder. The majority of the surf clam industry in NJ is now owned by a large acccounting firm and a national bank. The number of boats in this industry did drop from 133 to 48 but the remaining boats increased their catch 3-fold! I believe that this type of corporate ownership will not promote conservation measures and reduce overexplotation.

Congress recognized the problems with a poorly planned IFG program and set out in 1996 allowing four years to work out the flaws in the program. Now the moratorium is ending and very little has been done to correct the situation.The purpose of my post was to get individuals involved and contacting their congressman to extend the moratorium until such time as the problems with the system have been fixed.

[Cohodependent]

I was livingin Alaska when they started the IFQ programs up there. It was great for the Boat owners, but not too good for the crew members. Most got pay reductions down to just above the min. wage. The crew with the most experience were replaced with crews with little ot no experience who would work for nearly nothing. If you were not a boat owner you could not obtain an IFQ. Crew shares were abolished. The small buisness types were pushed out of it, with no way to compete with the large coprerations from down south for the purchase price of an IFQ.
Andrew

[smilesforu]

Excellent point Andrew forgot about that part of the deal. I also had friends and family that should have gotten ifq's from working on these boats. There should have been a compensation for the workers besides just the owners. The Owners didn't share the new wealth with those that helped them get it.
Hammer
The ifq in alaska make you be present to fish for your quota if you own the ifq's. So you can't rent the quota out unless your standing on the boat. That simple rule should keep the ownership in the hands of the smaller working folks.

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[Hammer Bob]

Marty, that's interesting the article in the paper indicated that the IFQ's were pretty much a failure in the halibut and sable fish sector. I will have to look into this and find out to the best of my ability what is going on. My greatest fear is that if corporate ownership occurs as it did in the surf clam industry our resources are toast. With the deadline approaching I am really concerned as to what direction this will all take.

[smilesforu]

If corporate ownership is involved that leads to nothing but big business. I don't agree with any part of giving corporations control or the ability to purchase other ifq's. Some corporations already own fishing licenses so they will should be grandfathered in to keep what they have but not to increase it.
There are ads for people owning the ifq's to come aboard the bigger ships and let them catch the ifq's for the owner and pay them 35% for drinking coffee. This is a example of one of the loop holes.

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[This message has been edited by smilesforu (edited 09-27-2000).]