Revised copies of the Commercial Licensing Eligibility Work Group report were passed out. Chairman Wise reminded everyone of the Council’s action at its previous meeting: to adopt and recommend the report to DEC except for three sections, which the Council asked the Work Group to rethink and revise. These sections are:

Mr. Wise stated that the Work Group had recently met and discussed these three sections again. The group continues to recommend that income from charter and party boats carrying passengers for hire not be allowed to count towards income eligibility for commercial foodfish licenses. The recommendation that corporate foodfish licenses be phased out has been dropped. The recommendation to allow an immediate family member a one-time license transfer to someone on a waiting list or enrolled in an apprenticeship program has been modified to also require that the eventual license recipient provide documentation that he/she has also received the fishing gear formerly associated with the transferred license.

Councilor Joe McBride asked where the information in the Commercial Licensing Eligibility Work Group report came from and why Mr. Brad Loewen was a work group member since he is not a member of the Marine Resources Advisory Council. He wanted it on the record that he felt that having an individual from a particular user group on a subcommittee devising proposals for the Council is improper. Chairman Wise explained that the Work Group was reasonably balanced, that non-Council members had been members of previous Council sub-units working on commercial licensing issues, and the Council had been fully informed about Mr. Loewen’s participation on the Work Group on several prior occasions and no objections had been lodged. He noted that the Work Group recommendations were only that, the full Council had the final say on what changes to the current commercial licensing eligibility laws are recommended. Mr. McBride commented that having work group meetings scheduled during the day limited the attendance of many, including himself, who had to work. Mr. Loewen defended his participation on the Commercial Licensing Eligibility Work Group. He had been invited to the Work Group because the other members felt that he would be useful because of his expertise.

Councilor Tom Jordan explained the Work Group’s recommendation to disallow income from charter/party boats when carrying passengers for hire when seeking a new commercial foodfish license, which has been vigorously opposed by the charter/party boat industry. A main concern for future licensing is that few persons presently holding a commercial foodfish license can make a day’s pay anymore. The Work Group’s recommendation has nothing to do with taking a license away from anyone; it is to make life better for anyone who now possesses a license. Over time, the number of license-holders should decrease, as a replacement rate of 1 new for 2 lapsed licenses has been proposed.

Another licensing issue was “hand-downs” or “What if you son wants to do this?” Mr. Jordan noted that this is already possible for commercial foodfish licenses. We are now in the process of working on applying this also to special commercial harvest permits for striped bass and fluke permits, that they would go with any transferred foodfish license. Another question was, “What if daddy isn't ready to retire and the son can't qualify.” So an apprenticeship program was proposed. Very few new foodfish licenses will likely be given out in the future, which is why the Work Group had a problem with charter/party boat for-hire income counting for foodfish licenses. The easiest way to get a new foodfish license is likely to be through the “for hire” fishery, because hundreds of people were pre-qualified for a foodfish license whose primary occupation was not commercial fishing. The Work Group felt that, with the limited amount of new foodfish licenses to be issued, they would make the playing field even again and establish one qualifier for all which would be “harvest of fish for sale”. Maintaining equity is the motive behind the Work Group’s recommendations.

Recognizing that there is a much disagreement and opposition within the charter/party boat industry to this proposal, Mr. Jordan observed that an alternative approach is to treat the charter/party boat industry foodfish licensing identically to the rest of the commercial fishing industry. The Council has adopted a recommendation that total commercial foodfish license numbers be capped at the 2001 levels. One could determine the fraction of the 2001 foodfish license holders that also hold the charter/party boat operators license, whose foodfish licenses were gotten with “for hire income,” and make them a group. That group of licensed charter/party boat operators would be subject to the same license restrictions earlier recommended by the Council for all commercial foodfish license-holders: i.e., a hard cap at the 2001 level and a license replacement rate of one new for every two lapsed or turned in.

Councilor McBride stated that the recommendation of the Work Group to disallow income from “for hire” fisheries appeared to be a ploy to take away foodfish licenses and, subsequently, striped bass special harvesting permits, from charter and party boat operators. Mr. McBride expressed concern about the Work Group’s suggestion that, at some future date, reunifying for commercial foodfish licenses and other commercial fishing licenses might be appropriate. Mr. Wise noted the proposed disallowance of “for hire” income refers only to people who are seeking new commercial licenses; all existing foodfish license holders, including those also possessing the charter/party boat operators license, would be grandfathered. He agreed that the report still has a section on licensing requalification, however, it does not call for any particular requalification at any particular time. Chairman Wise reminded the Council that it had previously approved that section of the Work Group report proposing the establishment of an apprenticeship program. This would provide an avenue for someone not meeting the income requirements, because of a disallowance of “for hire” income or any other reason, to eventually get a new commercial fishing license. Councilor Tom Melton stated that the Work’s Group’s proposed disallowance of “for hire” income in counting towards commercial foodfish license income eligibility would, over time, eliminate the party & charter boat industry from possessing foodfish licenses and this should not be allowed to happen.

Council Tony Somma objected that, in its initial review of the Work Group report at the September 2002 meeting, the Council extensively discussed getting new entrants into the commercial fishing industry and alternative mechanisms to do that, but there is no mention of this in the revised Work Group report. Mr. Wise stated that Mr. Somma and one or two other Councilors had opposed limiting the number commercial licenses. However, there was no general consensus expressed by the Council on this point and the Work Group remains of the opinion that the number of state commercial fishing licenses remains too high and it did not feel comfortable with the approaches urged by Mr. Somma. Mr. Somma reiterated that he finds it objectionable that the Work Group’s recommendations would not allow new people to get into the commercial fishing industry.

Councilor Freierman stated that she did not believe that income earned when carrying passengers for hire should count towards a commercial foodfish license. This is a license that should be used by those catching fish “for food.” Ms. Freierman was not opposed to a captain or mate using income fishing for foodfish for eventual sale and applying that income towards a foodfish license.

Mr. McBride said that two alternative approaches to this quandary might be acceptable: 1) cap the number of charter boat operating licenses at the current level, which the industry has been requesting for years; or 2) take the percentage of current foodfish licenses held by charter and party boat operator license-holders and use that as the base for renewing foodfish licenses for the fraction of the current commercial foodfish license-holders in the “for hire” industry. He suggested that if these approaches had been in the Work Group report, fewer people would have gotten so upset with the recommendations. Mr. Jordan stated that the Work Group had been informed that the party/charter boat industry opposed a cap on operators licenses, although perhaps not the segment of the industry based in Montauk.

Chairman Wise asked for comment from members of the audience on the proposal for disallowing “for hire” income in commercial foodfish license applications, or the idea of a cap on party/charter boat operators licenses, which is presently not found in the Work Group report. Several individuals strongly opposed the proposed disallowance of “for hire” income counting towards securing a new commercial foodfish license, but felt that the alternative identified by Councilors Jordan and McBride (#2 in Mr. McBride’s statement, above) might work. Concern was expressed concern about the suggestion in the Work Group report that, at some future point, requalification of commercial licenses might be appropriate and recommended. It was suggested that this could be used to eventually disallow part-time and or charter/party boat operations from the state’s commercial fisheries. It was suggested that the holders of commercial foodfish licenses should be categorized according to the primary fishery in which they are engaged (charter/party boat, trawl, handline, etc.) and then devise license renewal and issuance schemes that maintained the relative percentages of the total licenses for these different gear types.

Chairman Wise addressed the members of the party/charter boat industry in the audience. He stated that it was clear that many in the room disagreed with the recommendation on disallowing “for hire” income towards the commercial foodfish license eligibility, but it was not true that this recommendation indicated that the Council, “had it in,” for the party/charter boat industry in New York State, as had been alleged by some in the audience and on the Council itself. Referring to the Council’s discussions over the past several years dealing with marine recreational fishing measures, Mr. Wise argued that those discussions had been dominated by the views and interests expressed by the party/charter boat industry and the Council had tried to be as responsive as possible to the industry’s interests and views in making its recommendations to DEC.

Mr. Colvin informed the Council that DEC’s legislative proposals for the next legislative session are due in two days to the Governor’s Office. The Department will do the best it can with the advice that the Council renders today to craft a proposal on commercial licensing eligibility issues. But, the time is now for the Council to speak on these remaining commercial licensing eligibility issues Chairman Wise stated that the Council had approved most of the Work Group’s recommendations at its September 2002 meeting. If the Council was going to speak on the three issues in that report that were further discussed today, it needs to do so now.

Councilor Jordan motioned the following with respect to the revised report of the Commercial Licensing Eligibility Work Group:

Mr. Jordan’s motion was adopted. The vote was 12 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstentions.
Councilor Somma explained that he abstained from the previous motion because he did not think New York State should tell anyone how he or she can or cannot make a living. He felt that the Council and DEC were losing sight of their purpose, which is looking out for marine resources, not the economic interests of fishermen or prospective fishermen.