Issue #1.  Should the numerical limits (caps) currently in place for foodfish, crab and whelk licenses be maintained?
           
Recommendation:  Maintain these limits for at least another four years.
           
Rationale:  Most of New York’s commercial marine fisheries operate under strict harvest regulation, and this will continue into the foreseeable future.  With harvests limited, often by annual harvest quotas, removal or relaxation of limits to new entrants into these fisheries would militate against current management objectives in the areas of resource conservation and maintaining a reasonable economic livelihood for those engaged in commercial fishing.

Issue #2.  Should the mechanism currently in place for setting the annual cap on certain licenses be maintained (i.e., an annual 50% reduction in the number of new licenses available)?
           
Recommendation:  Maintain this mechanism for the next four years.  However, note to the State Legislature that an indefinite decline in the number of new licenses that could be issued, and in the total numbers of extant licenses, should not be allowed.  
Rationale:  Currently, the number of capped commercial fishing licenses issued annually is set by formula.  The cap declines by 50% of the difference between the cap of the prior year and the number of licenses used that year.  Thus, if the 2006 cap was 1155 licenses and 1115 were actually issued in 2006, the 2007 cap would be 1135 ([1155-1115] = 40; [40 x 0.5] = 20; [1155-20] = 1135).  Under this formula, the number of capped licenses annually issued has slowly but steadily declined, which was the intent.  The formula relates the annual cap to the relative demand for these licenses through the metric of the number of licenses actually issued in the prior year.
           
Unless the number of licenses issued equals the cap for a given year, the above formula will inexorably drive down the number of licenses issued.  Albeit that this was the fundamental purpose of establishing caps and the annual cap-setting procedure, the Work Group recognized that it is not be in the interests of New York’s marine commercial fisheries to allow the number of commercial fishing licenses to decline without limit.  Our commercial marine fisheries have always presented a complex of operations (large vessel offshore, smaller inshore operations, various gear types etc.) that, together, employed a significant number of individuals.  Retaining robust, diverse fisheries is, in the Work Group’s view, a legitimate public interest and management concern.  To allow the commercial fishing industry to contract indefinitely risks a sudden collapse of the industry that would produce severe and negative economic impacts on coastal communities.  Based on the current rates of decline in license numbers, we do not believe this risk is significant over the next four years, hence the recommendation to continue the current mechanism.  However, if the rate of decline were to increase suddenly, it could become necessary to act before the proposed extension sunsets.

Issue #3.  Should eligibility criteria continued to be used to determine who receives new commercial fishing licenses and, if so, what criteria should be used? Note:  under current law, those holding a commercial fishing license can renew it for the subsequent year simply by applying for the license and need not meet any eligibility requirements to maintain it.  The Work Group makes no proposal to alter this arrangement.
           
Recommendation:  Retain the use of eligibility criteria in the issuance of new commercial fishing licenses.
           
Rationale:  If the number of new licenses to be issued is to be limited, the State must have some credible and defensible basis on which to allot licenses to those who seek them for the first time.

Issue 3a.  Should factors other than income be used to qualify applicants for a new license?
           
Recommendation:  Retain income as the only criterion other than age (16 years) as a basis to qualify for a new license.
           
Rationale:  The discriminating factor on which eligibility criteria have traditionally been based is the applicant’s relative historic and demonstrable “dependence” on fishing for a livelihood.  That is, the applicant with a greater demonstrable dependence on fishing should receive a license before an applicant with a lesser such dependence.  The Work Group believes this remains an appropriate rationale by which to allocate licenses to new applicants.  In its discussion, the Work Group was not able to identify measures other than income (e.g. pounds landed, Vessel Trip Reports submitted, number of days fished) that are verifiable and free of other problems.  DEC Council and the State Attorney General’s office have raised legal issues with the use of income as a metric to allot commercial fishing licenses, but the Work Group believed it is the best and most appropriate metric available.

Issue 3b.  Should the specific income eligibility criteria used to issue new licenses be changed?
           
Recommendation:  Yes.  Applicants for new limited commercial fishing licenses should be required to demonstrate an average annual income from fishing over the prior three years of $15,000.  This income could consist of: (1) earnings derived directly (and so reported on tax forms) from sale of fish, shellfish etc. harvested by the applicant and/or (2) income paid to the applicant for working to assist in commercial fishing or fishing as currently defined, and reported on a 1099 or W-2.
           
Rationale:  The current income eligibility criteria allow an applicant for a new license to qualify under either of the following criteria:  (1) an average of 50% of earned income over the prior three years from fishing or (2) an average income of $15,000 from fishing over the prior three years.  The earned income criteria can be readily met by individuals with miniscule earned income from fishing and large sources of unearned income (e.g. a pension).  Given the continued stressed condition of New York’s fisheries and the presence of hard quantitative commercial harvest quotas for many species, the Work Group felt that the license eligibility rules should preferentially reward applicants for new licenses who can demonstrate a             significant level of past involvement with commercial fishing.  Using a flat criterion of $15,000 average annual income from fishing does that.  Several Work Group members were concerned that the $15,000 figure is too high and would be difficult to meet for some, especially younger applicants who have entered the commercial fishing industry more recently.  Use of this method will also mitigate legal concerns raised recently by DEC and Department of Law attorneys.

Issue #4.  How should the Department implement the legal requirement that no more than 10% of the new commercial foodfish license issued each year be issued to applicants qualifying for said license using income derived from “for hire” fisheries?

Recommendation:  In general, the law should be implemented as written.  No license would be issued to persons qualifying solely on "for hire" income until at least nine have been issued to persons using commercial fishing income.  Consideration could be given to issuing the first license to a new applicant qualifying using “for-hire” income after five, rather than nine, provided that overall the proportion so qualifying remains about 10% of the licenses eventually issued.  The work group also discussed amending the law to provide that at least one new foodfish license issued each year should be issued to an applicant qualifying using income from “for-hire” fishing.

Rationale:  The Department cannot predict how many new commercial foodfish licenses will be sold in a given year and, thus, the number of licenses that would constitute 10% of that figure.  The recommended procedure for issuing new licenses to applicants who use “for hire” fishing income to qualify is the optimal approach to ensure that the intent of the law is met.

Issue #5.  Should State shellfish diggers licenses be capped?

Recommendation:  A numerical cap on state shellfish diggers permits should not be established at this time and the Council’s support of this idea should be re-examined.  The Council and DEC should institute a consultative process with baymens associations, towns, the shellfish aquaculture industry and other interested parties to attempt to achieve a broader consensus on recommendation for subsequent presentation to the State Legislature.

Rationale:  The Council is on record as supporting creation of a numerical cap on State shellfish diggers licenses.  However, in its discussions, the Work Group noted several issues that would accompany a numerical cap on shellfish diggers licenses and that needed to be addressed if the merits of such a cap are to be fully assessed: (1) should diggers permits be divided into different permits, including a scallop-only permit, to help resolve different  harvesting sectors? (2) the position of the towns will be critical to DEC and the Legislature in deciding this issue; (3) it is essential to anticipate and address issues that might arise if the state and a town have different cap numbers for a town’s residents.  DEC’s Shellfish Advisory Committee has recommended that a cap on diggers licenses not be pursued.  The Work Group believed that the merits of such a cap and these questions about how such a cap would be implemented need more discussion before the Council develops a recommendation.

Issue #6.  Should party/charter boat vessel operators licenses be capped?

Recommendation:  The Work Group notes the following positions, adopted by the Council at its September 2006 meeting:

1. Institute a cap on the number of licenses that could be issued to charter (“six-pack”) and smaller vessels operating in the marine waters of New York State.
2. Set the cap at 100 more than the number of “for hire” vessel operators licenses issued by DEC to charter boats in 2006, to allow for new entrants.
3. Give prospective new entrants 12 months to request/receive on of the 100 additional “for hire” vessel operators licenses.
4. License transferability
   1. Charter boat “for hire” license should be transferable to immediate family members
   2. If possible, allow charter boat “for hire” license to be sold
      
5. Set a 5-year sunset period on the above cap and derivative measures.

Rationale:  The above recommendations were presented to the Council by its Subcommittee on Capping “For Hire” Vessel Operators Licenses.  This group conducted an assessment of the need for and benefits of such a cap.  The fundamental purpose and benefit of a cap on “for-hire” vessel operators licenses as per the above recommendations is to help reserve the economic viability of a segment of the “for hire” industry.  As the larger capacity party-boat segment of the “for hire” industry is not encompassed by the above recommendations, the Department may wish to consider establishing separate classes of the “for-hire” license based on a vessel’s passenger capacity. 

Issue #7.  Should a deceased commercial fisherman’s official designee be allowed to sell the business, including any associated license(s), under limited conditions and terms?

Recommendation:  Yes, an immediate family member who receives a commercial fishing license upon the license-holder’s death should be allowed to transfer/sell the license to another person.  The Work Group presumed that the family member would sell the license, with or without the associated fishing gear and other assets, to a willing buyer.  That buyer could him/herself designate an immediate family member who would receive the license upon his/her demise and be allowed to sell the license and/or related commercial fishing assets.

Rationale:  The law presently allows an individual holding one or more commercial fishing licenses to pre-designate a member of their immediate family who would be reissued said licenses(s) upon their death.  However, an immediate family member who receives a commercial fishing license as a designee may have no desire or ability to engage in commercial fishing.  The above procedure to allow, under these circumstances, said designee to sell the license, with or without the associated fishing gear and equipment, gives the fishing family some equity in this equipment.  The recommended allowance would reinforce New York’s historic commitment to maintaining a strong family tradition in its commercial fisheries.

The Council’s current position on this matter is this:  “The Council supports the license transfer to a pre-designated family member upon the license-holder’s death.  The Council is also on record as supporting a one-time allowance for that family member to transfer or sell the license, and associated fishing equipment, to an individual on a waiting list or a certified fisherman apprentice.”

The Work Group suggested that the above position be modified to drop the “one-time” limitation, the requirement that a license could be sold only as a license/gear package, and the requirement that a designee could sell a license and/or equipment only to an individual on a waiting list or a certified fisherman apprentice.  It is not clear how such a waiting list would be developed and, under the terms of an apprentice program, a certified apprentice would have little or no need to enter the commercial fishing industry by purchasing a designee’s license.

Issue #8.  Should the current moratorium on the issuance of new State lobster licenses remain?

Recommendation:  Maintain this moratorium

Rationale:  The current condition of the lobster stocks in New York’s marine waters is poor, especially in Long Island Sound; harvests are down.  To allow new entrants into this fishery would not be in the best interest of the stock or the economic interests of all participants.  Moreover, under the fishery management plan for this species, new entrants would not be able to get an allowance of mandatory trap tags, even if they were issued a license.

Issue #9.  Should the graduates of a State-sponsored commercial fishing apprenticeship program be guaranteed preferential treatment in the issuance of new fishing licenses and should that program apply not only to the foodfish license, but to other commercial fishing licenses as well?

Recommendation:  Apply an apprenticeship program not only to the foodfish license, but also to whelk and crab licenses.  Give consideration to incorporating the commercial lobster license into any apprenticeship program.  Reserve 50% of the new licenses that can be issued in any given year for graduates of an apprenticeship program.

Rationale:  The Work Group saw no compelling reason not to include whelk and crab licenses in the apprenticeship program.  While the number of commercial lobster licenses has been and should remain under a moratorium, there may be benefits to include commercial lobster fishing in any apprenticeship program implemented by DEC, anticipating the day when this moratorium might be relaxed and new entrants allowed into the lobster fishery.  Reserving 50% of the available new licenses on an annual basis will help make an apprenticeship program more attractive to prospective participants.

 

Page last modified Friday, December 29, 2006 by George E. Carroll