COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 35 Number 4
December 2007
RI Area 2 lobster case goes to federal court
PROVIDENCE, RI – The Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance (RIFA), a new group representing a number of Rhode Island fishermen, is now pursuing two lawsuits against the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and its director, Michael Sullivan – one challenging the state’s Area 2 lobster effort control plan and the other questioning DEM’s handling of a request for public records.
The alliance suffered a setback on Nov. 5 when US District Court for the District of Rhode Island Chief Judge Mary Lisi granted a DEM motion to try the lobster case in federal court.
At the heart of RIFA’s lobster complaint, which was filed in June before the state’s Superior Court, are allegations of unconstitutional regulatory practices in the management of the Rhode Island lobster fishery and charges that Sullivan has acted beyond the scope of his legislative grant of authority.
Specifically, the complaint states that DEM developed regulations to implement a licensing program, providing for limited lobster trap allocations for Lobster Conservation and Management Area 2 waters based on lobstermen’s landings between 2001 and 2003. The licensing program was intended to bring Rhode Island into compliance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) interstate lobster fishery management plan.
Members of RIFA named in the suit held valid Rhode Island lobster commercial fishing licenses but had little or no landings during those years. When they renewed their licenses intending to fish for lobster in 2007, they were denied trap tags because, in many cases, they did not fish for lobster during the qualification period set by DEM.
In a motion presented to the Superior Court, DEM argued that either the case should be tried in a federal court where ASMFC could be brought in as a “necessary or indispensable party,” or the RIFA complaint should be dismissed.
RIFA vehemently objected to the motion with alliance attorney Robert Caron arguing that the case should be tried in a state, not a federal, court.
Initial complaint
According to RIFA President Rich Fuka, alliance members filed suit last spring claiming the Area 2 lobster effort control regulations denied them access to an open fishery and set unreasonable limits on those who did not participate or reduce their effort during the years 2001-2003. They further alleged that the regulations violated the state constitution and were forcing license holders out of the industry.
Explained Caron, “In effect, those who fished for lobster with their licenses during those control date years are now being rewarded for having exercised effort on the resource.”
Additionally, RIFA members and others who are part of the Rhode Island fishing community fear that the effort control regulations are setting a dangerous precedent that could eventually result in the privatization of the industry.
According to Fuka, this is because the new regulation closes access to the fishery by denying the issuance of new licenses, but at the same time allows the sale of lobster businesses by the license holders that include the sale of the licenses, making the value of licenses increase dramatically.
Fuka predicted that privatization would seriously affect everyone from the fishermen to the consumer and leave industry prey to big business and even foreign control.
“If privatization occurs, consumers wishing to eat fresh fish and lobsters will end up paying exorbitant prices or they will have to go out and catch fish and lobsters for themselves,” Fuka said. “The product of our fisheries could very well be open to the highest bidder.”
DEM’s response
DEM spokesman Bob Ballou said he couldn’t comment on an ongoing lawsuit.
However, he did say that DEM’s regulatory program was designed to meet the mandates of ASMFC’s interstate lobster fishery management plan in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Ballou added that the regulations were written with the intent to reduce the fishing effort. He also said the fishery would be reopened when it recovers, although the number of licenses issued would be limited and the effort would be controlled so that the fishery didn’t end up with the same depleted stock condition again.
Fuka responded that DEM had not defined the parameters of “recovery” or specified “how open” the fishery would be once it recovers.
“In other words, we see no end in sight because nobody has told us what the end is,” he said. “Recovery is a very gray area without a definition.”
Public records
The public records lawsuit is separate from the effort control suit. According to RIFA attorney Caron, on or about Dec. 26, 2006, Todd Landers, a member and representative of RIFA, asked the DEM licensing division for a complete list of current Rhode Island licensed commercial fishermen and dealers.
Specifically, Landers requested: license holder categories; names; addresses; and all other lawfully obtainable information on file regarding licenses. Landers requested that the data be made available to him in a downloadable electronic format.
DEM responded to his request by providing a list in paper format, consisting of only the names of license holders without addresses.
Margaret McGrath of DEM’s licensing division later telephoned Landers regarding his request and told him that the agency’s legal counsel had said a complete list could not be provided.
On Jan. 18, 2007, Fuka put Landers’ request in writing in a letter addressed to Sullivan and asked for a review of the decision. On Feb. 8, which was past the 10-day response time allowed under state regulations, Sullivan responded to RIFA’s formal request by saying the paper list provided to Landers complied with the request.
RIFA disagreed and, on Feb. 27, asked the court to compel DEM to produce the requested list, including addresses, which the alliance argued was a matter of public record that RIFA was entitled to access.
Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Gilbert Indeglia ruled that he would not order DEM to give RIFA the addresses even though, according to Caron, DEM conceded during oral arguments that it had twice released the requested list in the past.
The case is presently being appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
