Issue #3b.  Several persons thought that a minimum $15,000 average annual income from fishing eligibility was too high for persons looking to get a new commercial fishing license and start out in the business.  Councilor (and Work Group member) Sima Freierman pointed out that this would not be the only way to secure a new fishing license.  Graduates of a commercial fishing apprenticeship program (see above) would be eligible for a license without having to meet an income eligibility criterion.Mr. Arnold Leo of the Town of East Hampton thought that the proposed $15,000 minimum was a reasonable compromise between those who wanted a much lower threshold and those who thought it should be set much higher.  

Issue #4.  Mr. McBride asked why there was a need to limit the number of new commercial licenses issued to those qualifying only with "for hire" income, as a fraction of the number of new licenses issued.  Should a similar restriction be placed, for example, on those who used income from fishing only one type of commercial gear, e.g., trawling?  Mr. Colvin responded that the "up to 10% of the new licenses issued to those using only 'for hire' income" provision was established the last time that the Council and DEC made recommendations on income eligibility.  At that time, some felt that "for hire" income should not be allowed to be used at all to qualify for a commercial fishing license.  As a compromise, it was agreed to determine the number of extant commercial foodfish licenses that were held by persons who also held the state "for hire" vessel operators license.  It turned out that approximately 10% of the extant foodfish license were held by "for hire" income qualifiers.  It was agreed to use this percentage as a guide in the issuance of new foodfish license between those who qualify using "for hire" income and those using income from commercial fishing.

Mr. Colvin asked whether the Council anticipated that specific qualifying criteria would be established for those seeking new "for hire" vessel operators licenses if said licenses were ever capped?  The only current requirements are payment of the $250 fee, possession of a valid vessel operators license issued by the US Coast Guard, and being at least 16 years of age.  Mr. McBride, who chaired the subcommittee that proposed the recommendations on capping the number of "for hire" vessel operators permit, verified that no additional eligibility criteria were being recommended at this time.  He also confirmed that the recommendation applied only to those "for hire" vessels that were typically not Coast Guard-inspected, i.e., six-pack charter boats.  The larger, Coast Guard-inspected party boats are not included in the license capping recommendation.

Issue #5.  Ms. Debra Barnes commented that, with respect to the opposition of the DEC Shellfish Advisory Committee to the institution of a cap on state shellfish diggers permits, that position was adopted at the most recent meeting of this group, which was poorly attended.  All of the members present who were baymen opposed a cap on the state diggers permit; those members present who were not diggers abstained from the vote.  Additionally, recognizing that the several towns on Long Island also issue diggers permits for their waters, the committee felt that any diggers permit limitation could, if desired, be undertaken at the town level.  Councilor Rivara, also a member of the Shellfish Advisory Committee, stated that the group's opposition to the continuance of limits on any state commercial fishing licenses stemmed largely from the view that clammers are presently shut out of any other fishery in which they are not licensed.  It was pointed out that this is true only for the lobster fishery, on which there is a complete moratorium on the issuance of new licenses.  A digger meeting the income eligibility requirements could get a new foodfish or a crab license, however.

Councilor John Davi thought that creating an ad hoc group to more thoroughly examine the benefits and level of support for a numerical cap on shellfish diggers permits was a good idea.  Councilor Dean Yaxa agreed and wanted to be a part of any such group.  Chairman Wise observed that the timetable for such a group would be too late to allow any recommendations it might make to be considered by DEC in formulating the agency's legislative proposals for this year.  However, if the recommendations of the ad hoc group were available by late winter, they could be brought directly to the Legislature and still be considered.   Ms. Rivara commented that shellfish aquaculturists are required to possess a state shellfish diggers permit and this requirement would need to be taken into account in the future institution of any numerical cap on diggers permit.  Mr. Colvin replied that those licensed in the State's surf clam fishery also faced the same requirement and the various categories of shellfish diggers license holders would need to be addressed in any program to limit the number of diggers licenses.

Issue #7.  In response to a question about the Work Group's recommendation to allow an individual who receives a commercial fishing license as a bequest from an immediate family member to sell that license and associated gear to another individual, Mr. Wise clarified that the purchase of the license/gear would not be required to meet any income-related or other eligibility requirements.  Councilor Melissa Dearborn asked whether the fishing gear associated with the license must always be included in any such sale, or could one sell just the license?  Mr. Colvin responded a recommendation linking the license with the gear and requiring the gear to be included may present an enforcement problem for the Department.  The Work Group's intent in coupling the license with the gear helps guard against the immediate family member being taken advantage of by a prospective purchaser "low-balling" the value of the gear.   Several councilors felt that it was not really necessary to link the sale of a license in this circumstance with the sale of the associated fishing equipment or other related assets.  It was agreed to revise the Work Group's recommendation to drop the requirement for a license-equipment package.

Mr. John Mihale, a commercial fisherman, suggested that the Council and the DEC should consider expanding the opportunity for a license-holder to sell a license beyond the specific situation anticipated by the Work Group's recommendation, i.e., an immediate family member who has received a license as a designee.

Issue #9.  Mr. Leo suggested that a commercial fishing license apprenticeship program should include those who aspire to receive a new lobster license.  Mr. Wise observed that including lobstering apprentices in an apprenticeship program should only be done if it were possible to ensure that, by the time such an apprentice graduated, the management regime for lobsters would allow the issuance of trap tags to someone who has had no history in the lobster fishery (other than their apprenticeship).  At present, this can't be done.  Mr. Colvin noted that, this notwithstanding, an individual serving an apprenticeship on a lobster boat would, upon the conclusion of their apprenticeship be eligible for any of the other commercial fishing licenses (foodfish, crab, whelk) and this, itself, may warrant including the lobster fishery in any apprenticeship program.    

Ms. Freierman concluded this agenda item with a motion that the Council accept and support the above recommendations of the 2006 Commercial License Eligibility Work Group.  In response to a question from Councilor Rivara, Mr. Wise clarified that Ms. Freierman's motion included the recommendation for the Council and DEC to form a follow-up group to discuss and research further the suggestion that the numbers of State shellfish diggers licenses be capped.  The Work Group's recommendation to DEC is to not move forward on such a cap at this time.  If the follow-up group comes to a different conclusion, that group could suggest something different to the Legislature, either through the Council or directly to the Legislature.  Ms. Freierman's motion carried; the vote was 9 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstentions.

Mr. Colvin thanked the Work Group and Council for its help with these recommendations, which he will transmit to the DEC Commissioner's Office.   That office will determine whether and which of these proposals will be forwarded to the Spitzer transition team.  When the Spitzer administration takes office in January, the new Governor's Counsel Office will decide which of the recommendations that have been sent to it by the Commissioner's Office to accept and include among its legislative proposals for the 2007 legislative session.   This decision will probably be made in February or March.  Until such a decision has been made, Mr. Colvin will not be able to discuss the status of these recommendations with the Council. 

Chairman Wise observed that the Council usually informs the Legislature directly of its recommendations to the Department on legislative matters.   Mr. Colvin noted that, of course, the Legislature could itself develop bills on any of these recommendations without waiting for DEC to submit one or more of them in the Governor's legislative package or via a departmental bill.  Councilor Chris Squeri suggested that individuals in the "for hire" industry could and should approach the Legislature directly about the proposed cap on six-pack vessel operators licenses.

 

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