Catch shares yea or nay?

What do you guys think of catch shares?

N.H. conference zeroes in on fishing 'catch shares'
By Richard Gaines
Staff Writer



For the next two days, the 55 or so officials, appointed part-time legislators, scientists and staff who preside over the New England fishery will assemble in Bretton Woods, N.H., to examine in great detail the new fishing economic system known as catch shares — a system they have already approved for the groundfishery next year.

Otherwise known as individual tradeable quotas — or ITQs — fishermen's catch shares would convert the swimming common property of the nation's 200-mile exclusive economic zone into negotiable catching rights, thus converting public property into assignable private commodities. And the new system already approved by the New England Fishery Management Council has drawn growing concern from the fishing industry in Gloucester, throughout New England and in other fishing communities around the country and the world.

Rarely in American history has a new economic system created on a drawing board been installed to replace a pre-existing system, especially one that has been working. Indeed, while many of America's economic sectors faltered badly in the general market malaise last year, fisheries seemed barely affected.
But that is what is happening now. Not only are catch shares coming to the New England groundfishery, but it is projected in a different form to rationalize the closely-related scallop fishery — the nation's most lucrative — and, as a matter of de facto policy, the Obama administration, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is pushing hard to engineer catch shares as the fishing regulatory format to be used everywhere as soon as possible.

Resistance to the approach is now wide and deep. Wherever catch shares have been imposed here in places and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Iceland, the one universal impact of ITQs has been to radically consolidate fishing capacity in a small number of hands. A larger number of smaller fishing boat businesses become a smaller number of larger fishing boat businesses.
Jane Lubchenco, President Obama's oceans and fisheries administrator, is not scheduled to be a party to the New England council's conference held this week at the Mount Washington resort hotel at Bretton Woods, where an international conference was held in 1944 to reorganize the global financial system. But her virtual presence will be palpable.

Developed and championed by the Environmental Defense Fund, where Lubchenco was then a board member, the new economic concept was converted into policy with Obama's selection and appointment of Lubchenco as the head of NOAA this past spring.
Lubchenco made no secret of her commitment to catch shares and essentially privatizing the fisheries, and she participated in an elaborate campaign to introduce catch shares as the salvation of the fisheries in the transition from President George W. Bush to Obama.

Lubchenco did not make it clear to the Senate Commerce Committee at her confirmation hearing that ending the traditional concept of wild fish stocks as public property and converting into a commodities market was her primary mission. Still, the drum beat for catch shares by the alliance of the Environmental Defense Fund, which minted the idea, and the Pew Environment Group, which financed elaborate and fiercely disputed scientific studies intended to make the case for the need for the regulatory shift, has continued, and Lubchenco has pursued the change with single-minded determination.

Although cautionary tales about catch shares have been arriving regularly — Ecotrust Canada issued one in June — Lubchenco and the alliance of ENGOs or environmental non-government organizations have ignored most of the warning signs.
EDF went so far as to publish on its Web site an analysis of the EcoTrust critique that made it seem that the two organizations agreed on the merits of ITQs.

"...Your blog posting makes our report sound like a glowing reference for ITQs and minimizes our critique of some fundamental problems as experienced in British Columbia, Canada," EcoTrust Canada shot back in response. "We are also not in agreement that catch shares alone will conserve fish stocks: other factors, like restricting destructive gear, ensuring proper enforcement and stock assessment, are perhaps even more important. In fact, we have seen fish stock declines in catch share fisheries in BC, including abalone, halibut and hake."

EDF was at it again last week. It posted a comment about the work of newly named Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom that presumed her work — which urges local management of common resources, and is being widely viewed as critical of the catch share format — was the foundation of its conception of catch shares. A number of counter comments on the EDF Web site guffawed at the stretch.
EctoTrust Canada will have a representative at the conference in Bretton Woods. Fisheries officials from the few places where catch shares or ITQs are in place are also flying in.

The conference participants will have much to ponder.
After working on a catch share system that reorganizes local fishermen into cooperatives known as sectors, the council in June complied with Lubchenco's challenge to vote in a catch share system without delay.

But in September, recognizing flaws in the design, the council voted to re-engineer some changes in the catches allowable to those fishermen who have elected to stay out of the catch share/sector system and instead fish in a common pool under the old style effort controls, which limit fishermen's days at sea and access to specific fishing grounds at various times. By contrast, the catch share system sets limits on the fishermen's allowable catch.

The co-sponsor of the Bretton Woods conference with the New England Fishery Management Council is Duke University's Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at the Nicholas School of the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Those organizations have a financial relationship with EDF and Pew, which has distributed many millions to support academic schools and research reports that share the general goals of the funding organization.

Pew and EDF share the drumbeat for extreme measures to halt allegedly rampant "overfishing," but the science they've cited to make their case has come under a mounting number of credibility questions. Lubchenco, for example, participated in writing a policy paper sponsored by EDF to convince Obama of the need for catch shares, but cited a report funded by Pew grants that without catch shares or the like, the next generation would have little to catch except jellyfish; that report has been highly disputed sat by scientists.
The conference keynote speaker tomorrow will be Monica Medina, the former chief counsel for NOAA in President Clinton's administration who shifted to Pew before returning to government as a member of the Obama transition team.

After the transition team brought Lubchenco to the president, Lubchenco brought Medina back to NOAA on a $100,000 plus contract to head a catch shares task force, which is due to report back to Lubchenco before the end of the month.

A former Pew scholar while at Oregon State University, Lubchenco hired Justin Kenney from Pew to be NOAA's director of communications. Kenney's wife, Amy Schick Kenney, is heading the delegation from Duke's Nicholas School.
The conference is open to the public, but has not been geared toward the public's edification. The staff of the council said the goal is to give the government officials the best understanding of the catch share system.


http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punew...291232309.html

pay to play its bs

Its BS x2.
Urghhh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gjb1969

pay to play its bs

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seamonkey

What do you guys think of catch shares?

A larger number of smaller fishing boat businesses become a smaller number of larger fishing boat businesses.
Jane Lubchenco, President Obama's oceans and fisheries administrator, is not scheduled to be a party to the New England council's conference held this week at the Mount Washington resort hotel at Bretton Woods, where an international conference was held in 1944 to reorganize the global financial system. But her virtual presence will be palpable.

Developed and championed by the Environmental Defense Fund, where Lubchenco was then a board member, the new economic concept was converted into policy with Obama's selection and appointment of Lubchenco as the head of NOAA this past spring.
Lubchenco made no secret of her commitment to catch shares and essentially privatizing the fisheries, and she participated in an elaborate campaign to introduce catch shares as the salvation of the fisheries in the transition from President George W. Bush to Obama.

Lubchenco did not make it clear to the Senate Commerce Committee at her confirmation hearing that ending the traditional concept of wild fish stocks as public property and converting into a commodities market was her primary mission. Still, the drum beat for catch shares by the alliance of the Environmental Defense Fund, which minted the idea, and the Pew Environment Group, which financed elaborate and fiercely disputed scientific studies intended to make the case for the need for the regulatory shift, has continued, and Lubchenco has pursued the change with single-minded determination.

Although cautionary tales about catch shares have been arriving regularly — Ecotrust Canada issued one in June — Lubchenco and the alliance of ENGOs or environmental non-government organizations have ignored most of the warning signs.
EDF went so far as to publish on its Web site an analysis of the EcoTrust critique that made it seem that the two organizations agreed on the merits of ITQs.

"...Your blog posting makes our report sound like a glowing reference for ITQs and minimizes our critique of some fundamental problems as experienced in British Columbia, Canada," EcoTrust Canada shot back in response. "We are also not in agreement that catch shares alone will conserve fish stocks: other factors, like restricting destructive gear, ensuring proper enforcement and stock assessment, are perhaps even more important. In fact, we have seen fish stock declines in catch share fisheries in BC, including abalone, halibut and hake."

EDF was at it again last week. It posted a comment about the work of newly named Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom that presumed her work — which urges local management of common resources, and is being widely viewed as critical of the catch share format — was the foundation of its conception of catch shares. A number of counter comments on the EDF Web site guffawed at the stretch.
EctoTrust Canada will have a representative at the conference in Bretton Woods. Fisheries officials from the few places where catch shares or ITQs are in place are also flying in.

The conference participants will have much to ponder.
After working on a catch share system that reorganizes local fishermen into cooperatives known as sectors, the council in June complied with Lubchenco's challenge to vote in a catch share system without delay.

But in September, recognizing flaws in the design, the council voted to re-engineer some changes in the catches allowable to those fishermen who have elected to stay out of the catch share/sector system and instead fish in a common pool under the old style effort controls, which limit fishermen's days at sea and access to specific fishing grounds at various times. By contrast, the catch share system sets limits on the fishermen's allowable catch.

The co-sponsor of the Bretton Woods conference with the New England Fishery Management Council is Duke University's Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at the Nicholas School of the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Those organizations have a financial relationship with EDF and Pew, which has distributed many millions to support academic schools and research reports that share the general goals of the funding organization.

Pew and EDF share the drumbeat for extreme measures to halt allegedly rampant "overfishing," but the science they've cited to make their case has come under a mounting number of credibility questions. Lubchenco, for example, participated in writing a policy paper sponsored by EDF to convince Obama of the need for catch shares, but cited a report funded by Pew grants that without catch shares or the like, the next generation would have little to catch except jellyfish; that report has been highly disputed sat by scientists.
The conference keynote speaker tomorrow will be Monica Medina, the former chief counsel for NOAA in President Clinton's administration who shifted to Pew before returning to government as a member of the Obama transition team.

After the transition team brought Lubchenco to the president, Lubchenco brought Medina back to NOAA on a $100,000 plus contract to head a catch shares task force, which is due to report back to Lubchenco before the end of the month.

A former Pew scholar while at Oregon State University, Lubchenco hired Justin Kenney from Pew to be NOAA's director of communications. Kenney's wife, Amy Schick Kenney, is heading the delegation from Duke's Nicholas School.
The conference is open to the public, but has not been geared toward the public's edification. The staff of the council said the goal is to give the government officials the best understanding of the catch share system.


http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punew...291232309.html

---

The last paragraph is the most telling to me. It appears from that they don't even care what the public thinks. At least when I went to the proctologist he told me before he inserted his fingers. Here they are screwing everyone and not even giving advance notice. Even though I have no sympathy for commercial fishing, I can't help but think we will be the ones that are screwed next.:burn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seamonkey

Resistance to the approach is now wide and deep. Wherever catch shares have been imposed here in places and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Iceland, the one universal impact of ITQs has been to radically consolidate fishing capacity in a small number of hands. A larger number of smaller fishing boat businesses become a smaller number of larger fishing boat businesses.
Jane Lubchenco, President Obama's oceans and fisheries administrator, is not scheduled to be a party to the New England council's conference held this week at the Mount Washington resort hotel at Bretton Woods, where an international conference was held in 1944 to reorganize the global financial system. But her virtual presence will be palpable.

Developed and championed by the Environmental Defense Fund, where Lubchenco was then a board member, the new economic concept was converted into policy with Obama's selection and appointment of Lubchenco as the head of NOAA this past spring.
Lubchenco made no secret of her commitment to catch shares and essentially privatizing the fisheries, and she participated in an elaborate campaign to introduce catch shares as the salvation of the fisheries in the transition from President George W. Bush to Obama.

Lubchenco did not make it clear to the Senate Commerce Committee at her confirmation hearing that ending the traditional concept of wild fish stocks as public property and converting into a commodities market was her primary mission. Still, the drum beat for catch shares by the alliance of the Environmental Defense Fund, which minted the idea, and the Pew Environment Group, which financed elaborate and fiercely disputed scientific studies intended to make the case for the need for the regulatory shift, has continued, and Lubchenco has pursued the change with single-minded determination.

. Those organizations have a financial relationship with EDF and Pew, which has distributed many millions to support academic schools and research reports that share the general goals of the funding organization.

Pew and EDF share the drumbeat for extreme measures to halt allegedly rampant "overfishing," but the science they've cited to make their case has come under a mounting number of credibility questions. Lubchenco, for example, participated in writing a policy paper sponsored by EDF to convince Obama of the need for catch shares, but cited a report funded by Pew grants that without catch shares or the like, the next generation would have little to catch except jellyfish; that report has been highly disputed sat by scientists.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punew...291232309.html

---

I can't see anything here that would benefit rec or comms. I don't know why people aren't shouting from the rooftops against this.

It seems to me we are trending towaed socialism or communism in this country. What happened to capitalist opportunities for a guy to go out and strike it rich on his own instead of buying up the shares or rights of others?

They are at it again with the Catch share BS.

NOAA to move faster to reform commercial fishing

The federal agency in charge of protecting the nation's oceans announced Thursday it is ramping up efforts to expand new rules aimed at lessening the cutthroat competition among fishermen that has threatened dozens of ocean species.

By JEFF BARNARD

Associated Press Writer



The federal agency in charge of protecting the nation's oceans announced Thursday it is ramping up efforts to expand new rules aimed at lessening the cutthroat competition among fishermen that has threatened dozens of ocean species.

At the same time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conceded it will not be able to fully meet deadlines set by Congress to end overfishing by 2010 for unhealthy stocks, and 2011 on all stocks in U.S. ocean waters.

NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco said they were "on track" to meet the deadlines on some species, but not all.

"We still have more than 20 percent of fish stocks that are not rebuilt, and a larger proportion of fisheries are not meeting their economic potential," Lubchenco said in a teleconference from Washington, D.C. "This is a tool we believe will help us realize the full economic and biological benefits of rebuilt fisheries."
The management system being backed by NOAA - called catch-share - is seen as a way to end overfishing.

It's a relatively new approach, imposing a strict overall catch limit and dividing that total catch among individuals such as fishermen, communities, cooperatives or companies. Studies have found that when fishermen no longer have to race to fill their nets, they make more money by fishing less while doing a better job of conserving.

The new draft policy - meant to build support among fishermen and regional fishery management councils for catch shares - will go through a four-month public comment period ending April 10 before final adoption.

A marine biologist, Lubchenco has pushed catch shares as part of a comprehensive national ocean policy endorsed by President Barack Obama. But it can take years for regional fishery management councils to work through the process. Meanwhile, fishermen have struggled to make a living while fish processors have tried to gain more control.

Lubchenco said the latest NOAA appropriations bill currently in the Senate includes $18.6 million for the agency to help regional councils consider catch share, on top of the $6 million in the current budget. She emphasized the system is not mandatory.
The Environmental Defense Fund praised the new policy, saying that catch shares have restored fish populations while improving the livelihoods of fishermen.

"This policy will reverse the freefall that U.S. fish stocks have been in for decades," David Festa, vice president of Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "It moves fisheries management into the 21st Century."

Lee Crockett, federal fishery policy chief for Pew Environment Group, cautioned it is important to design catch shares so that they strengthen conservation, and keep small-scale operators in business, without allowing the biggest players to take over.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/imp;v1;f;2...gif?7870214332
Catch shares have been used in the U.S. since 1990, and now cover 13 fisheries, including Alaskan halibut, Gulf red snapper and Atlantic surf clams.

The West Coast's most valuable fishery, a group of bottom-dwelling species known as groundfish, has been rebuilding since 2000, when harvests were cut in half to protect overfished rockfish. Despite limiting harvests and cutting the fleet through buybacks, several groundfish species remain overfished. After five years of work, the fishery is to move into catch share management in 2011.

The New England groundfish fishery, which has been struggling for 15 years to rebuild cod and flounder stocks, is moving into a catch shares system in which fishermen divide themselves into "sectors" and manage an allotted catch.
According to NOAA, commercial fishing landings are worth $4 billion a year dockside, and rebuilding overfished stocks would increase those values by 54 percent.
Meanwhile, the nation's appetite for fish outstrips domestic supply, with 80 percent of the seafood consumed coming from imports.

I am not sure that I understand what this means to recreational fishermen. It seems to me that if catch shares result in fewer comercial boats fishing less and catching less then that will mean more fish left for recreational fishermen to catch. If there are fewer boats it should be easier to monitor fishing practices on comercial boats and stop a lot of fraud. All the fish they kill will be counted, now it's a free for all, unreported catches are rampant. All you guys that are against catch shares must know something that I am missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbob

I am not sure that I understand what this means to recreational fishermen. It seems to me that if catch shares result in fewer comercial boats fishing less and catching less then that will mean more fish left for recreational fishermen to catch. If there are fewer boats it should be easier to monitor fishing practices on comercial boats and stop a lot of fraud. All the fish they kill will be counted, now it's a free for all, unreported catches are rampant. All you guys that are against catch shares must know something that I am missing.

---

I think the concept is a good idea. I would be happier if there was no commercial fishing at all, but what about the demand for sea food? Again in the other article about Lubchenko she admits that a lot of people will lose their jobs. If those jobs are replaced with corporate controlled factory ships and plants, they will be able to dictate low wages and not improve the living conditions of fishermen who have been fishing for generations. With this concept many will likely go out of business for good. I don't see where that benefits anyone, except us recs for the short term.
What about the increased tax subsidies and SS benefits the American people would have to pay if these people went on welfare? I think it is a complicated problem that can't be taken care of solely by concentrating the ownership of fishing rights in the hands of a few rich corporations.


On the other side, what would happen if she decided catch shares were so successful, that she will now institute them for recreational fishermen also. How would you feel if in order to go fishing, only the richest people in this country who had the highest bids could have the privelege of going fishing? It seems not too far away from the current plan of catch shares, and that's what worries me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieTuna

I would be happier if there was no commercial fishing at all, but what about the demand for sea food? Again in the other article about Lubchenko she admits that a lot of people will lose their jobs. If those jobs are replaced with corporate controlled factory ships and plants, they will be able to dictate low wages and not improve the living conditions of fishermen who have been fishing for generations. With this concept many will likely go out of business for good.





I don't see where that benefits anyone, except us recs for the short term.



What about the increased tax subsidies and SS benefits the American people would have to pay if these people went on welfare? I think it is a complicated problem that can't be taken care of solely by concentrating the ownership of fishing rights in the hands of a few rich corporations.



On the other side, what would happen if she decided catch shares were so successful, that she will now institute them for recreational fishermen also. How would you feel if in order to go fishing, only the richest people in this country who had the highest bids could have the privelege of going fishing? It seems not too far away from the current plan of catch shares, and that's what worries me.

---

How many fishermen will loose thier jobs if the fisheries collapse?

Why would it only benefit the recreational guys for the short term? If there are more fish for us to catch it doesn't mean we get to kill more fish. If the recreational harvest rates remain the same, but the commercial killed less fish wouldn't that be better for the fish overall?


Again, if the commercial fishing is allowed to continue the way it is and the fish stocks collapse, those guys will be out of work anyway and we recreationals will not have any fish to catch at all.


Recreational fishing would still be better managed by catch limits that no matter how severe would be welcomed by recreational fishermen to save the fish. Commercial fishing needs to kill as many fish as quickly as possible in order to make it viable. Recreational fishing generates many more jobs than commercial fishing does. There was a report done by Stripers forever that illistrated that much better than I can. I don't know how to put up the link here, but it is at stripersforever.org .

I still don't know if this is a good idea or not, but this is a good thread. I will have to do some research after the fishing season is over.