Chairman Wise led the Council through the draft final report of the Commercial License Eligibility Work Group, comprised of Council members, DEC staff, and Mr. Brad Loewen of the Easthampton Town Baymen’s Association. A copy of the draft report is appended to this bulletin. After reviewing the findings and recommendations of the report, Mr. Wise distributed a letter from Councilor Joe McBride, who had been a member of the Work Group but whose work commitments prevented him from attending many of the group’s meetings. Mr. McBride took strong exception to the report’s recommendation that income from charter boat fishing not count towards the income eligibility requirement for the issuance of new commercial foodfish licenses.

The Council’s discussion of the report focused on 4 issues: 1) whether an overarching “vision” of the type and scale of commercial fishing industry desired in New York State is necessary, useful, or even desirable as an aid to sorting out a variety of management questions; 2) what kind of income eligibility requirements, if any, are appropriate for the issuance of state commercial fishing licenses; 3) the relative merits of allowing, for certain types of commercial licenses, licenses to be issued to corporations as well as individuals, and 4) restrictions of the transferability of licenses.

A Vision for the State’s Commercial Fishing Industry

The work group report recommends that the State Legislature initiate a process to create a descriptive “vision” of the type of commercial fishing industry desired in New York. This vision would address issues such as what scale and intensity of capitalization is desired in commercial fishing in New York. Do we want an industry made up primarily of small-scale fishermen, large vessel operations, or something in between? Should New York assign relative priority to part-time and full-time commercial fishermen and should one group be given preference over another? And under what circumstances? How far should New York State go to emphasize the family aspect of this industry? It was the work group’s view that these questions are indirectly addressed in many of the day-to-day management decisions made by DEC, the Council, and the State Legislature, but often inconsistently and without the benefit of a coherent and more fully considered framework. Several Councilors expressed skepticism about this recommendation, stating that it was not the state’s business to program the future scale and complexion of an industry like commercial fishing. Such an approach, in this view, would deter innovation and individual enterprise and would inject state government into areas and matters it has no business deciding. The Council took no position on this issue.

Income Eligibility Requirements for Commercial Fishing Licenses

The work group recommends that current income eligibility thresholds be retained as a requirement for receiving a new commercial foodfish and/or crab license. The report also proposes that only income derived from the harvesting of marine finfish and shellfish for sale count towards the income eligibility and that income derived from for-hire fishing activities not be allowed. This section raised two objections. A small number of Councilors felt that income eligibility requirements are inappropriate and should not be continued. In their view, the state should place as few restrictions as possible on anyone seeking to become a licensed commercial fishermen. Persons wishing to try their hand at commercial fishing should be allowed to do so. Other Councilors responded that, with many of the most sought-after commercial species under annual catch quotas, establishing entry requirements as a way of limiting the total number of licensed commercial fishermen was reasonable, in light of over harvest, equity, and personal safety concerns. Moreover, it was pointed out, New York imposes financial, education, or other thresholds on all sorts of state-issued licenses. Chairman Wise noted that the work group’s proposal to establish an apprentice program for commercial fishing license-seekers provided a mechanism by which an individual who had little or no experience as a commercial fishermen (and, thus, could not make the income threshold) could still get a license. Councilor Somma proposed that licenses be issued first to those that meet the income eligibility criteria. If, after all such individuals received a license, the numbers of licenses issued remained below the total license number cap, persons not meeting the income eligibility criteria could receive a license.

Some Councilors objected to the work group’s recommendation that income from for-hire fisheries no longer count towards the commercial fishing license income criteria. They felt that for-hire fishing was clearly a commercial activity that involved fishing, and licenses should not be taken away from those involved in this industry. It was noted that the work group’s recommendation applied only to the issuance of new licenses, not licenses currently held by charter/party boat captains and crew. Further, income from such a vessel when it was actually fishing to catch fish for sale (not under hire by recreational fishermen), would still count as income. Some saw a commercial fishing license as basically a state authorization to sell fish and one that should be offered only to those individuals involved in the catching of fish for sale.

License Transferability

One of the work group’s recommendations would allow an individual who received a license upon the death or incapacitation of a license-holder in his/her immediate family to make a one-time transfer of said license to anyone on a license waiting list and/or enrolled in a licensing apprenticeship program. Several Councilors foresaw potential problems with this allowance and recommended that the transferability of licenses not be extended under any circumstances to persons outside the immediate family of the license-holder.

Individual and Corporate Licensing

The work group makes no present recommendations to change the current regulations on whether licenses can be issued to individuals or to corporations. However, it does suggest that the state explore ways to restrict and eventually phase out corporate licenses. The reasoning is that a corporate license is transferred when the corporation and its property (fishing equipment) are sold. This gives the corporate license a value that an individual license, which cannot be transferred or sold, does not possess. Thus, the state indirectly gives an economic advantage to corporate license-holders. It was pointed out that having one’s business incorporated has many advantages and the state should not do anything that would impinge on an ability of a fisherman to incorporate. However, the work group recommendation does not advocate against incorporation, just against the issuance of licenses to corporations as opposed to individuals.

Mr. Wise motioned that the Council accept the findings and recommendations of the work group as contained in its report, except for the sections on license eligibility criteria, license transferability, and individual vs. corporate licensing. For these sections, the Council directs the work group to review its recommendations in light of the Council’s discussion and to resubmit these sections, revised if and as appropriate, at the November 2002 Council meeting. The motion was unanimously adopted.