States' Commerical Fishing Law

You asked for information about other states’ efforts to protect and promote commercial fishing and lobstering.

Since we had little time to conduct an in-depth study of the coastal states’ commercial fishing programs, this report describes strategies and programs in only a few states. Our brief review suggests that states use two ways to support commercial fishing. Some develop comprehensive strategies that address the underlying factors that determine whether the commercial fishing industry can sustain itself in the long run. Others take a more tactical approach, providing financial and technical assistance to fishing families and businesses.

Maine, for example, examined the underlying factors that affect the state’s commercial fishing industry. These include federal regulations, Massachusetts laws encouraging Maine fishermen to land fish there, and the lack of waterfront land suitable for commercial fishing operations. Massachusetts provides counseling and technical assistance to fishing families and communities through several Family Assistance Centers.

All of the New England coastal states and New York have laws to protect and regenerate the lobster population in the region.

The federal government also provides financial and technical assistance to fishing families and communities or does this through state and local governments. It will re-examine its laws this year, according to a December 12, 2005 Hartford Courant article.

One way to evaluate state policies and programs intended to benefit the commercial fishing industries is the extent to which they allow the industry to sustain itself in the long run without government assistance.

1. a policy helps the industry to become economically sustainable if can generate profits in the long run without government or regulatory relief;

2. it also helps the industry to become ecologically sustainable if the industry can generate these profits without depleting fish populations; and

3. if the policy achieves these two goals, then the industry can become politically sustainable because it will be able to survive without government subsidies (Eagle, et al, “Why Farm Salmon Outcompete Fishery Salmon,” Marine Policy, August 2003).

Table 1 below presents four generic policy options and describes how they affect the industry’s economic, ecological, and political sustainability.

Table 1: How Different Policy Options Affect the Industry’s Sustainability

Executive and legislative agencies in Maine and New York regard fish as a self-replenishing natural resource and consequently have recommended ways to strike a balance between the short-term need for profits and the long-term need to maintain the resource. In other words, they recognize that the industry cannot survive unless it can forgo greater profits though larger catches today in exchange for an adequate

fish supply tomorrow. Unlike minerals in the ground, fish reproduce themselves. But their ability to maintain population levels depends on the number of fish the industry catches.

Governor Baldacci created this 16-member task force to recommend how the state could rebuild its groundfish (or bottom fish, which are marine fish such as a cod or flounder) stocks while preserving and enhancing the groundfishing industry. The task force examined how new federal regulations could hurt this industry in the short run even while restoring fish stocks in the long run. It also identified why Maine was losing commercial fishing to Massachusetts.

The task force’s major recommendations includes acquiring fishing rights and permits; making it more advantageous for vessels to operate out of Maine ports; and authorizing $ 10 million in bonds to develop docks and other infrastructure, provide low-cost credit, and develop new fish-based products. Attachment 1 lists the task force’s 31 recommendations.

Maine Legislative Committee to Study the Loss of Commercial Fishing Waterfront Access and other Economic Development Issues Affecting Commercial Fishing (2001)

Three years earlier, a legislative committee studied the extent to which the industry was losing access to the waterfront sites and how the state could help expand the industry. It reviewed earlier studies showing how developers were building new homes, stores, and other facilities on sites that were best suited for commercial fishing.

The committee also found that foreign fishing fleets, health insurance costs, skills shortages in fish processing, affordable housing shortages, and little effort to develop new fish-base products or find new markets for existing products undermined the industry’s competitiveness.

The committee recommended using the state’s coastal area management program to preserve sites that were appropriate for commercial fishing operations, increasing funding for improving small harbors, and awarding extra planning grants to towns whose coastal area management plans address state land use goals.

New York’s coastal management program includes a policy aimed at developing commercial finfish, shellfish, and crustacean resources in coastal areas. The policy directs government agencies to (1) develop commercial fishing without preempting or displacing private initiatives, (2) develop commercial fishing support facilities only where they are needed, and (3) consider how their actions will affect the state’s commercial fishing resources.

Several states run programs that provide technical assistance to commercial fishing families and businesses.

• Oregon’s Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program matches people who need help with the organizations that provide it.

• California’s Groundfish Disaster Relief Program reimburses commercial fishing families and businesses for safety equipment, better data collection, and job retraining.

• Fishermen and Families Assistance Centers in Gloucester, New Bedford, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts provide career counseling, job training, and support services.

• A federally funded program in Maine retrains fishermen for jobs in forestry management, bookkeeping, computer repair, diesel mechanics, shellfish aquaculture, truck driving. It also trains them to qualify for commercial pilot and Coast Guard captain’s licenses.

States surrounding Connecticut have enacted laws to bolster conservation efforts to keep the lobster industry viable. Laws regulating the size of lobsters that may be taken and who may take them exist and are enforced throughout New England and New York. For example, New York law bans landing or possessing any “v-notched” lobsters. In particular, “v-notch” lobster restoration programs in New England, similar to the one Connecticut’s legislature enacted in 2005, seek to protect and increase the species.

The v-notch is a conservation method that protects female lobsters “observed with eggs,” according to an article at the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation website. The “v-notch stays with a lobster for at least 2 molts (usually 2 years), protecting it from the fishery so that it can produce again and contribute to the long-term stability of the resource,” according to the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation article.

V-notch protection became mandatory in 2003 in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. It had existed in Maine in a voluntary format since at least 1975 (with origins dating back to 1917, according to the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation website).

Rhode Island. V-notching began in Rhode Island in 1996 because of a legal settlement resulting from an oil spill that year from a barge, “which killed an estimated 9 million lobster,” according to a November 26, 2005, Providence Journal article. The Journal reported that the companies in the settlement agreed to pay lobstermen who catch, notch, and throw back lobsters and for monitoring results until the program reached its goal of notching and releasing 1. 248 million female lobsters, “which were expected to produce and estimated 23 billion eggs. ” The Journal concluded that the goal may be met next year, but Rhode Island lobstermen may continue to participate voluntarily.

Connecticut. PA 05-281, An Act Concerning the Implementation of a Lobster Restoration Program, requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) commissioner to establish a lobster restoration program in which the tails of mature female lobsters that licensed commercial fishermen land are marked with a V-shaped notch and then released in order to increase lobster egg production. The commissioner must adopt implementing regulations and may select a contractor to implement the program.

The act requires DEP to compensate, if funds become available, each commercial fisherman who (1) lands, marks, and releases lobsters and (2) reports it as required by law. The compensation must equal the lobsters’ average market value, which the commissioner determines.

To pay for the program, the act requires the commissioner to do whatever is necessary to apply for, qualify for, and accept any federal and state funds for lobster restoration or related acts, projects, programs, or activities. The notching provisions took effect upon passage, and the funding provisions July 1, 2005.

The U. S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration runs several programs to help commercial fishermen.

• The Fisheries Finance Program provides loans to acquire used vessels, reconstruct existing ones, and refinance debt. It also buys back fishing permits and vessels in overcapitalized markets. The 25-year loans cover 80% of the costs.

• The Fisheries Disaster Relief provides funds for assessing problems facing commercial fishermen or developing strategies to prevent future problems. The funds go to state agencies or fishing communities, which include vessel owners, operators, crews, and fish processors.

• The Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program funds projects to sustain the industry. The funds go to individuals and state agencies offering proposals that address federally determined priorities. Past priorities included preventing overfishing, rebuilding fisheries, and ensuring conservation.

A December 12, 2005 Hartford Courant article reports that U. S. lawmakers are trying to find the balance between protecting fish stocks and keeping the fishing industry afloat. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which oversees the eight U. S. regional fisheries, has proposed individual fishing quota rules for boats. But New England fishermen fear such quotas will cause large corporations to buy out smaller boat owners in an attempt to monopolize the industry, according to the Courant.

U. S. Representatives William Delahunt of Massachusetts, Rob Simmons of Connecticut, and Tom Allen of Maine have proposed an alternative quota system, “aimed at safeguarding the smaller boat fleets common to New England waters,” the article states.

The Senate committee is “expected to begin rewriting the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act on December 13 after the Senate returns from its Thanksgiving recess,” according to the Courant article. Attachment 2 is a copy of the article.


December 12, 2005		2005-R-0912
STATES' COMMERCIAL FISHING LAW

By: John Rappa, Principal Analyst Joseph Holstead, Research Analyst


*Option*	*Description*	*Sustainability*
*Option*	*Description*	*Economic*	*Ecological*	*Political*
Industry Restructuring	Organizing cooperatives, imposing fishing quotas, and legalizing certain fishing practices	Potentially lowers production costs and increases competition	Reduces pressure on fish supply, allowing fish to reproduce and maintain population levels	Reduces the need for government subsidies by increasing competition and profit margins , may put some companies out of business
Conventional Subsidies	Grants to fishermen, subsidized hatcheries, and regulatory relief	Potentially underwrites inefficient and unprofitable fisheries	Need to bolster short-term profits potentially encourages industry to over fish and thus reduce their ability to maintain population levels	Public may perceive the subsides as “corporate welfare” designed to maintain an inefficient industry
Buy backs	Government programs that buy back fishing licenses, gear, vessels, and other items.	Potentially helps the industry to weather economic cycles by reducing the number of unprofitable businesses, decreasing the total capital investments, increasing per capita rents, and reducing the number of marginal operations	Reduces pressure on fish supply, allowing fish to reproduce and maintain population levels	Reducing the number of unprofitable businesses also reduces the need for subsidies, which the public may perceive as corporate welfare
Marketing assistance	Technical and financial assistance for developing new products and markets	Potentially allows the industry to expand beyond its traditional markets	Potentially reduces pressure on fish supply by allowing industry to market and sell more new, more expensive fish products	Developing new products and markets reduces the need for government subsidies