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 33 Number 9
May 2006
NE council rejects herring permit splitting
MYSTIC, CT - By a hair’s breadth vote, the New England Fishery Management Council confirmed that it will not allow “permit splitting” in the Atlantic herring fishery. This means a vessel owner cannot “split off” a vessel’s limited-access permits and only retain its open-access herring history for future use.
The decision is significant in that it is likely to impact several major participants in the herring business who have spent millions of dollars to upgrade vessels and small pelagics plants in anticipation of a strong future in the fishery.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) asked the council to spell out its position on this issue because it is pivotal to the council’s proposed limited-access program in Amendment 1 to the federal herring plan. NMFS is currently reviewing the amendment.
During the council’s April 4-5 meeting here, George Darcy, NMFS’s assistant regional administrator for sustainable fisheries, explained the need for clarification.
Many fishermen, he said, have been calling the NMFS Northeast Regional Office asking whether they could retain a vessel’s herring history while selling off, for example, the limited-access groundfish and scallop permits, which have to stay bundled together as a “package” because of their limited-access status.
“We’ve been getting a lot of ‘what if’ questions,” said Darcy. “We try very hard to not give anything that constitutes business advice, but to help the people who are struggling with those issues, we issued two letters to permit holders. The first was on Feb. 17 and the other on March 28.”
The letters, if anything, generated more questions, which led NMFS to ask the council to air the issue in public and settle it.
Open-access history
Although the council does not allow permit splitting in limited-access fisheries, the herring situation is more complicated because vessel owners are attempting to retain history from what is still an open-access fishery. The fishery won’t be converted to limited access until Amendment 1 is implemented in early 2007.
Further complicating matters, several vessel owners say they received informal “guidance” from NMFS staffers indicating they could, indeed, retain a vessel’s herring history because of the fishery’s open-access status – even if they sold off their other limited-access permits.
“A lot of decisions were made over the years based on what we were told was the right thing to do,” said Jeff Kaelin, who represents the AJ Group, which recently brought the 140' AJ from Seattle to Fall River, MA to participate in the mackerel and herring fisheries.
“There were choices made that cost people a lot of money,” Kaelin said.
Attorney David Frulla of the Washington, DC-based firm Collier Shannon Scott further stressed the same point, arguing that at no time did the council or NMFS specifically preclude the transfer of open-access herring fishery history.
Frulla spoke on behalf of the Doña Martita and Nordic Explorer, which he has long represented, as well as NORPEL, Lund’s Fisheries, Cape Seafoods, Western Sea Fishing Company, and “active fishing vessels that serve these companies’ plants.”
In more detailed written comments to the council, Frulla stated, “Open-access herring history is not currently part of any ‘permit package’ and will not be until after herring limited-access permits are issued based on that history.”
Opposition
At the very start of the discussion, Maine council member Dana Rice expressed his fierce opposition to even considering the possibility of permit splitting.
“This is just totally against the herring amendment process,” he said. “We felt the fishery needed to be conserved. We were worried about new entrants into the fishery.”
New Hampshire council member David Goethel was in the same camp. He feared the practice would significantly increase effort because people who didn’t intend to use their herring history could split it off for application on a vessel with considerably more harvesting capacity.
“When you go to sell a permit, you have to consider all the ramifications of that,” he said. “The council has consistently said ‘no’ to permit splitting. If we allow this, we will increase our capacity in a lot of fisheries very quickly. It would set a precedent and be cited by every other fishery.”
Rice moved and Goethel seconded that “the council oppose permit splitting in Amendment 1.”
Support
Maine council member Jim Salisbury, a member of the council’s herring committee, viewed things very differently. He believed the committee had debated this issue and concluded that people had the right to do what they wanted with herring history while the fishery was still open access.
“We addressed this very issue,” said Salisbury. “I don’t think it’s fair for us to say now that it’s invalidated.”
Maine council member Jim Odlin added, “NMFS told people they could transfer history right up to implementation. People made business decisions based on that, thinking they’d get a permit.”
Odlin further said, “Keep in mind that no more herring boats qualify and no more groundfish boats qualify. We’re just preventing someone in the middle from getting screwed.”
New motion
Massachusetts council member David Pierce opposed the motion against permit splitting.
“It’s troubling at this late date that we would not allow this transfer of history. To undo that would be inappropriate,” he said.
Pierce moved to substitute the motion so that “a vessel owner who sells a vessel issued one or more limited-access permits but retains only the Atlantic herring fishing history can use the herring history to qualify another vessel for the limited-access permit proposed by the council in Amendment 1,” with the understanding that the transfer of history could go both ways (bought or sold) up until implementation.
Given the extraordinary complexity of the issue, NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul said, “I think this is a good compromise.”
But the motion to substitute failed 6-to-8 with two abstentions.
Next, the original motion to oppose permit splitting was back on the table. It passed 7-to-6 with three abstentions.
The council said the motion “reaffirms” its intent “as it relates to the transfer of fishing history to the implementation of Amendment 1.” Permit splitting will not be allowed.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
