Wakefield, RI.
By Michael A. Rice
In late October, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council (ASFMC), the interstate body with federal representation charged with managing migratory fisheries species, voted Rhode Island out of compliance with their regional lobster management plan. An amendment to the regional lobster management plan adopted by the ASFMC in 1997 set a 100-piece limit per day for non-trap fishermen with a 500-piece limit per 5 day or longer trip. As a result of this vote to find Rhode Island out of compliance, the ASMFC has asked the United States Secretary of Commerce, Norman Y. Mineta, to impose a federal moratorium on lobster fishing in Rhode Island’s fishermen until such time that Rhode Island resumes enforcing the non-trap limit provisions of their lobster management plan. The Secretary had 30 days from the time of the ASMFC to make a decision whether or not to close the fishery. Wednesday, December 6, was the deadline for the Secretary’s decision, but very much at the eleventh hour, the National Marine Fisheries Service (one of the agencies within the Commerce Department) announced that they would not be closing the fishery and the matter required further discussions with the state agencies. Needless to say, if the federal closure of Rhode Island’s lobster fishery occurred, it would have stricken a severe economic blow to an already weakened fishing industry because the lobster fishery is one of our largest single fisheries in terms of overall landings and sales, in excess of $40 million annually.
Like most other complex issues, the road to non-compliance status has been a long and tortuous one. When the ASFMC amendment to include non-trap limits on catch was adopted in 1997, the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (RIMFC) modified state fisheries regulations in October 1998 to comply with the amendment, and DEM began enforcing the limits. It is important to note that fishermen using traps to catch lobsters were not constrained by any limits on lobster possession, and for the most part it has been trawl fishermen that have borne the brunt of the catch limits. And interestingly, of the major lobster producing states (ME, MA, RI, CT & NY), Rhode Island is the only state that has a significant trawl fishery for lobsters.
It was almost inevitable, but Rhode Island fishermen were found by DEM Enforcement Officers to be in possession of lobsters over the limit and the matter wound up in court, with the case being dismissed because it had not been shown that there was equal treatment of fishermen under state law (i.e. discrimination based on gear type). Following this court decision, the RIMFC in June of 2000, over the objections of DEM officials and Governor Almond, reversed its decision to impose non-trap limits thereby setting up the confrontation with the ASMFC.
The by reversing its earlier decision RIMFC has taken a very courageous and bold step to unify the various sectors of the capture fisheries in our state. They argued, and rightly so, that there is no inherent reason to believe that trawl fishermen have any more or less impact on lobster populations than do trap fishermen. They asserted that in this state if one sector is to bear the brunt of the catch limits, the others should do so as well. This is simply an affirmation of the age-old ethics of the lifeboat in which rations are shared among the strong and weak when faced with uncertainty about rescue.
This RIMFC action to protect our relatively small trawl fishery shows a very uncommon degree of insight. If there are future declines in the lobster fishery, or in any fishery for that matter, it is likely that the politics of management will favor the plans of stronger, better-financed groups. Just who will be next? Will recreational lobstering enthusiasts be the next group to be squeezed? How about small-scale commercial fisheries enterprises being targeted at the expense of larger, better financed operations, reminiscent of former Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz’s comment to family farmers “either get big, or get out”? The RIMFC defense of our trawl fishermen is enlightened collective self-interest.
Some may argue the merits of the expedient solution of going along with the demands of the ASMFC, but Rhode Island is no stranger to resisting the hegemony of other states, especially when it involves an assault on our sense of basic fairness. Every school child in Rhode Island can tell of the tale of our being last to sign the Federal Constitution, and then only under duress, but being able to pressure toward the development of the Bill of Rights. It is of no concern to other states about non-trap fisheries; they don’t have them, so targeting Rhode Island potentially boosts their market share. There is no great fishery conservation principle involved.
The Department of Environmental Management has gone on record of opposing the RIMFC decision to support the contentions of unfairness and support the ASFMC position that disproportionally penalizes Rhode Island’s fishermen. However unfortunate that this may be, it is important to realize that DEM as the key fishery enforcement agency of the state is not in a particularly strong position to act as an advocate for the fishing industry to the federal government. More often than not the positions taken by the Department have tended toward favoring fewer and larger operations and less diverse methods of fishing. This is for the simple reason that it is much easier and cheaper to enforce a uniform industry. Strong industry advocacy organizations are an imperative for a continued healthy and diverse fishing industry in Rhode Island.
Michael A. Rice, an occasional contributor, is a professor and chairman of the Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at the University of Rhode Island and is an occasional proxy delegate from Rhode Island to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.