Caught up in Catch Shares
Much has been made about the catch share issue in recent months. Catch shares are a poorly understood issue that has been made more complicated by an absolute avalanche of mistruths, half-truths, and outright lies swirling about it in fishing chatrooms and blogs across the country.
- Catch share programs have been used sporadically in commercial fisheries for decades. They were created to address a fundamental problem in some commercial fisheries – too many boats chasing too few fish, resulting in dangerous, wasteful derbies. If you have ever watched the early seasons of Deadliest Catch on The Discovery Channel, that was a derby fishery. The whistle blew, all the boats went to catch king crab no matter what the weather was, no one slept and they fished until someone, somewhere, calculated the quota had been caught and then the season ended. Some made a fortune, some went broke, and everyone fished in a manner to catch as much as possible as fast as possible regardless of the danger or bycatch involved. The fact that no one sleeps for 4 or 5 days at a time is the reason it’s called Deadliest Catch.
- Staying with the Deadliest Catch theme, catch shares took the whole quota for king crab and divided it up among boats based on their past catch history. Each boat’s percentage effectively became “theirs” to harvest, however and whenever they liked during the season. The Northwestern, the Cornelia Marie, the Wizard, the Time Bandit and others all now “own” shares of the king crab fishery.
- The goal of catch shares in that scenario is to eliminate the derbies and reduce bycatch. A by-product of catch shares is that inevitably, some boats will sell out or lease their share to other boats. The overall number of boats drops, until a relatively few big boats are left fishing. Ideally, the dangerous derbies are eliminated, bycatch is reduced and the economics improve. That is the catch share system in a purely commercial fishery.
- Some environmental groups, Environmental Defense Fund foremost among them, became enamored, somewhat naively, with the prospects of applying catch shares to all fisheries, including recreational ones, based on their use, implementation and success in purely commercial fisheries. The critical disconnect is that no one at EDF understood or appreciated the vast differences between recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries. In EDF’s mind, catch shares were a solution to all fisheries problems.
- Jumping back to catch shares, Dr. Jane Lubchenco was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2008. Dr. Lubchenco is a marine scientist with deep ties to EDF, including a stint on its board.
- Not long after that appointment, the Obama Administration created the Catch Share Policy Task Force, signaling a new focus to broadly impose catch share systems on federal fisheries, including those enjoyed by recreational anglers. Compounding the complexity of this issue is the fact that the Obama Administration is filled with people from places like San Francisco and Chicago who do not exactly understand or appreciate saltwater recreational angling.
- Promoted by a former board member of EDF – which doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling – in an Administration that doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling, the danger of a Catch Shares Policy Task Force was immediately clear. There was NOTHING to prevent catch shares from proceeding as a one-size-fits-all solution for the commercial and recreational sectors in every fishery.
- A coalition of marine industry and fishery conservation groups, recognizing the need to become involved in the process of shaping the new policy, engaged the Administration on the issue of catch shares. At the same time, the coalition engaged with environmental groups that were heavily promoting catch share systems, including Environmental Defense Fund. The goal of that engagement was to educate them on the problems catch shares present for recreational anglers and shape the policy so that at the very least it was not detrimental to recreational angling.
- That engagement is the source of a lot of confusion on the Internet. In the eyes of some conspiracy-theorist bloggers, by engaging the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares, the angling groups involved (CCA, CCC, TBF, IGFA, ASA, NMMA) were somehow “negotiating with the Devil,” “selling anglers out,” “getting on the EDF payroll,” etc. That line of thinking completely ignores the consequences of non-engagement. An outcome driven by an EDF-driven Catch Share Policy Task Force, in an Administration that has no interest in recreational angling, could only be bad for sport fishermen. The belief that anyone can achieve a favorable outcome merely by turning their back on this issue and “just saying No” is pure political fantasy.
- The coalition created a list of points to pursue in discussions with the administration, most of which are now included in the NOAA Catch Share Policy released in late 2010, such as:
- The coalition is and always has been firmly against catch shares for recreational anglers. The coalition does not believe they are an appropriate tool to manage recreational anglers under any circumstances.
- The coalition is firmly against separating the recreational sector into for-hire/charter and private boat designations.
- In mixed-use fisheries, those that have a quota for both recreational and commercial fishers, it may be determined that catch shares are an appropriate tool for the commercial sector. However, before implementing a commercial catch share system, the allocation must be redefined and updated using economic, social and conservation criteria.
- Once set, the new allocation must be reviewed periodically using those same criteria.
- In mixed-use fisheries that employ a catch share system for the commercial sector, the commercial shares must be made available for transfer to the recreational sector to allow for the growth of the recreational sector. The mechanism for transferring commercial shares could include state agencies, but is as yet undefined.
- The coalition’s engagement effectively changed the Catch Share Policy from one that was initially poised to work against recreational anglers, to a tool that may be used to address the persistent allocation problems that have short-changed anglers for decades. Would this be the case if the coalition had not engaged? Absolutely not. We would certainly have a catch share policy, but there would be very little in it that might work FOR anglers.
- Ideally, applying the current catch share policy in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, for example, could result in a 70% or 80% recreational share, with the potential to shift more commercial quota to the recreational side if economic, conservation and social factors determine it is warranted. Unfortunately, the policy does not apply to Gulf red snapper since a catch share system was implemented for that fishery in 2006. The outdated allocation for Gulf red snapper remains a stubborn problem seeking a solution. However, CCA is currently pursuing reallocation and transferability of commercial red snapper shares at the Gulf Council.
Steve Moore says:February 17, 2011 at 3:21 pmPlease explain the relationship of PEW and Sun Oil.Please show me how fisherman have changed their habits on Deadliest Catch since IFQs were implemented. Please explain to me why EDF went to an investor group and advised them to buy up catch shares as fast as they could with the chances of 400% profits on these investments. Please tell me why Jane Lubchenco insist on reducing the fleet with IFQs when her lead biologist (retired) comes out and says that there are no overfished species being overfished in the US. James Bond? I think not. These threats are real and they have the ability to change fishing completely as we currently know it. So sad for my children and Grandchildren if they choose to make their living harvesting the ocean. It seems to me that the writer of this article needs to do his research before accusing us of being nuts. Steve Moore FV Rose Mar Los Osos, CaTed Venker says:February 17, 2011 at 3:48 pmThanks for your message. It was not my goal to defend or explain EDF’s fascination with catch shares. And I do not intend to defend or explain Dr. Lubchenco’s focus on catch shares. And I certainly do not intend to debate whether or not they actually work for commercial fisheries. The point of that article was simply to explain how and why Coastal Conservation Association and other groups found it necessary to engage this Administration and EDF to prevent catch shares from being a disaster for recreational fisheries. There have been many rumors circulating online trying to skew our position on catch shares as a result of that engagement.CCA is opposed to catch shares and is currently engaged in the only lawsuit in the entire country over catch shares, in which we are taking on the federal government and the Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf of Mexico grouper catch share program.However, we are living with an Administration that is trying to impose them broadly and so we engaged to prevent that from impacting the recreational sector.Liz says:February 17, 2011 at 4:15 pmGreat read! Thank you for taking the time to put the words together for such a detailed elucidation of a complicated concept. I am worried that the conspiracy theorist won’t be able to wrap his brain around it though.Marc Thrift says:February 17, 2011 at 9:57 pmIf CCA is so adamantly adverse to catch shares then what was your article ‘Gulf council begins to act on call for reallocation’ (Feb 11) pointing to? What was the intent of Chester Brewer’s (chairman of CCA’s National Government Relations Committee) comments in saying “…Crafting forward-looking allocations for these fisheries based on current and future economic, social and conservation criterion is the foundation of sensible management.”Are allocations not the same thing as catch shares in their effect? It seems a lot like saying one is against the color green whilst also stating that the resultant color from mixing Yellow and Blue is the only true way forward.Ted Venker says:February 18, 2011 at 8:53 amCCA is indeed adverse to catch shares – we are the only group in the country currently engaged in a lawsuit against a catch share program, and are opposed not only by the federal government but also by Environmental Defense Fund.It is important to note that catch shares and allocation are not the same thing. Catch shares are a privatization of a public resource, for which the individual recipients of those shares pay nothing. Allocation is a division of the resource among user groups. CCA wants to see every fishery allocated according to economic, social and conservation criteria.Based on a study we commissioned, Gulf grouper, for example, should be allocated nearly entirely to the recreational sector. How about that for a change?Steve Moore says:February 18, 2011 at 7:18 pmTed, twice now you have mentioned that you are the only group with a lawsuit objecting to catch shares. This is incorrect. There is a group in Mass. who has filed a lawsuit regarding catch shares and a group in California who have done the same. Both of these lawsuits seriously question the legality of the catch share programs forced upon their fisherman in their respective areas. Steve MooreTed Venker says:February 22, 2011 at 3:43 pmI stand corrected. There are indeed at least two other lawsuits against catch shares in play. I should have clarified that CCA is the only recreational group to sue over catch shares.borehead 007 says:August 16, 2011 at 5:07 am“The only thing missing is a good 007 character to save the day.”I cannot claim I can save the day, but I fight Catch Shares everyday on newsvine.com.I cover fishery issues and welcome you, and your members to join me to inform your fellow citizens of YOUR issues. Is newsvine effective?http://bore-head007.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/29/7197991-foia-response-shows-noaa-coast-guard-judges-reacting-to-bore-head007-blog-postsYou tell me! Regards, BH