The debates and mud slinging between recreational and commercial fishermen is something that borders on a Hatfield and McCoy type feud. Recreational fishermen place blame on the commercial fleet for diminishing fish stocks, reduced bag and increased size limits along with shortened seasons. Inevitably the commercial sector will fire back at the recreational community with similar finger pointing. Their claim traditionally hinges on a sentiment that outcry from conservationists and sportfishermen has curtailed both seasons and quotas, adversely affecting their income.
The reality, however, is this collective distaste over biased regulations comes from a centralized source for which neither party is ultimately responsible. All seasons, size limits and quotas are established by the National Marine Fisheries Service and their system of fishery allocations. That system is widely criticized for being antiquated, unbalanced and, therefore, detrimentally restrictive. As a response to the upheaval over fisheries regulations, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently published a report titled Marine Fishery Allocation Issues: Findings, Discussion and Options. The report’s intent is simple: provide an overview on how fisheries quotas have been historically divided between recreational and commercial fishermen while outlining parameters and options on how to ameliorate the current allocation process.
This new development embodies much hope but is sure to spark a great deal of reasonable doubt and controversy in lieu of the hollow promises offered by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Any fishermen familiar with that particular set of regulations knows it was enacted with the purpose of providing a “fair and equitable” distribution of harvestable fish quotas between the recreational and commercial sector while simultaneously rehabilitating fish stocks.
%pullstart%The intent of this report was simple; provide an overview on how fisheries quotas have been historically divided between recreational and commercial fishermen while outlining parameters and options on how to ameliorate the current allocation process.%pullend%Many recreational fishermen, however, admonish the Magnuson-Stevens Act for showing suspicious favoritism toward the commercial fleet. There have been many instances where this argument has been difficult to refute. Take for example the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. There, 51 percent of the annual harvest is allocated toward a commercial fleet comprised of merely 300 boats whereas the remaining 49 percent, apportioned for recreational anglers, must be divided among hundreds of thousands of boats. These are some boldly disproportionate figures. In the Northeast, anglers have debated very similar numbers regarding the ever popular and financially indispensable fluke fishery that sits center stage at fisheries management meetings nearly every year.
Truth be told, all fishermen have a vested interest in fishery allocations and proper management of the marine ecosystem. Commercial fishermen want robust quotas simply to survive and provide for their families as operating costs go up. Likewise charter and party boat captains want to fill their boats with fares so they can do the same. The “Average Joe” recreational fisherman, meanwhile, wants to justify money spent on his hobby by being able to bring home some fillets for the table. Without adequate, informed and well intentioned oversight from the National Marine Fisheries Service all fishermen suffer and the health and future our precious marine resources is put in jeopardy. For this reason we must be optimistic on the far reaching benefits that could be afforded by revisiting current allocations and the valuable content found in the recent National Marine Fisheries Service report.
Mike Nussman, President and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association, furthers this notion saying the following. “This report provides valuable insights and suggestions that NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils should act upon, including the need for formalized guidance on issues to consider when making allocation decisions. This must be the next step, and NMFS must take the lead, working with Councils and stakeholders, to develop this guidance.”
On the whole, revising fisheries management regulations and allocations is an inherently difficult process and requires due diligence from all. We as fishermen must exercise patience but also make sure our needs and concerns are being heard. At the same time regulators must rely on solid, updated science while also considering data provided by fishermen who are on the water everyday and possess a heightened consciousness of what’s actually going on in their respective fisheries. Working together should never collapse into a battle of opinions and egos but serve as an amicable means of ensuring the continued health and success of the fishing industry.
To read Marine Fishery Allocation Issues: Findings, Discussion, and Options in its entirety click on the following link: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/01/docs/lapointe_allocation_report_final.pdf.
