Commercial fishermen in the northeast have long complained that NOAA's enforcement is inconsistent and penalties are more severe in the northeast compared to other areas. It appears that the US IG agrees.

I think the problem is that regional NOAA authorities have too much leeway to enforce as they "see fit" rather than adhering to a more universal policy.

****

"The inspector general felt NOAA failed to adequately manage an enforcement program that dished out seemingly arbitrary penalties and fines. Complaints from fishermen included abuses of authority, disparate treatment and excessive fines."

For the full article: Report validates fishermen?s concerns - Cape Cod, MA - Wicked Local - Cape Cod (http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/environment/x626052774/Report-validates-fishermen-s-concerns)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while the dollar amount may seem to be extreme (impossible to know as they only list the dollar amount and not the violation), there still must have been grounds for them to be fined else the article would be fill with cases of where people faced unjust fines that were thrown out during appeal.

While a $270,000 fine seems extremely high, the article gives no way to know if it was issued due to a somewhat innocent paperwork issue or a habitual offender of poaching.

To use a motor vehicle analogy: even though a speeding fine might be $400 and a judge decreases the fine to $100, it does not make the initial fine unreasonable nor does it make the driver any less guilty of the offense.

I suggest reading Richard Gaines articles in the Gloucester Times or Nils Stolpe from National Fisherman for some insight into this.

I suggest reading Richard Gaines (?) articles in the Gloucester Times for some insight into this.

You have a link? I'm definitely interested.

Google the names. There is a very interesting article by EDF attacking Mr. Gaines...that's enough for me.

Google the names. There is a very interesting article by EDF attacking Mr. Gaines...that's enough for me.

I've read 5 or 6 of Richard Gaines articles now. He has dozens of articles on the Gloucester Times website, most of which seem to show that he has a personal vendetta against NOAA and is a cheerleader for the commercial fishing industry. His articles seem anything but impartial.

However, just like polar political arguments, his articles should motivate the reader to do further research. They also open the door to the dysfunction of how NOAA's law enforcement arm is managed.

On the other hand, it still doesn't change my initial comments about how there must have been grounds for fines to be issued. Do the fines seem extreme? It's hard to tell because I haven't been able to come across an actual catalog for some of the specific violations and the subsequent fines.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while the dollar amount may seem to be extreme (impossible to know as they only list the dollar amount and not the violation), there still must have been grounds for them to be fined else the article would be fill with cases of where people faced unjust fines that were thrown out during appeal.

While a $270,000 fine seems extremely high, the article gives no way to know if it was issued due to a somewhat innocent paperwork issue or a habitual offender of poaching.

To use a motor vehicle analogy: even though a speeding fine might be $400 and a judge decreases the fine to $100, it does not make the initial fine unreasonable nor does it make the driver any less guilty of the offense.

I can't evaluate the fines either. However, the point is that NE fishermen have long complained that NOAA's enforcement and fines have been more heavy handed in the NE than in other areas. The problem is that fishermen often lack reasonable recourse (short of suing NOAA -- which is very expensive). I think what everyone is looking for is a more just process. It appears that the IG's slap on the wrist to NOAA is an indication that NOAA has to be more reasonable, more fair, and more even-handed across all jurisdictions.

I can't evaluate the fines either. However, the point is that NE fishermen have long complained that NOAA's enforcement and fines have been more heavy handed in the NE than in other areas. The problem is that fishermen often lack reasonable recourse (short of suing NOAA -- which is very expensive). I think what everyone is looking for is a more just process. It appears that the IG's slap on the wrist to NOAA is an indication that NOAA has to be more reasonable, more fair, and more even-handed across all jurisdictions.

If it is the case that fishermen in the Northeast, as we define it (Maine down to NY or so), are beind fined disproportionately, then I agree wholeheartedly. Reading through some of Richard Gaines articles, it seems as though "Northeast" as defined by NOAA and in the USIG report is Maine through the Carolinas.

Zinser's report found that penalties assessed by the Gloucester office throughout the Northeast region, from Maine through the Carolinas, were on average 250 percent greater than the next highest region and more than five times the national average.
NOAA chief targets asset fund, inconsistent fines - GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA (http://www.gloucestertimes.com/archivesearch/local_story_034225940.html)

The reason for me bringing that up is because I'm curious how the disparity is being determined. For example: if striper charters were being hit with heavier fines in MA compared to striper charters off NC for similar violations, the complaints would be justified.

There is always the argument that if people didn't break the law, they wouldn't have any issues. The reports are focusing on how much the fines are, whereas people should be asking *why* are the fines being handed out.

It sounds to me that the comm guys who are complaining about the fines are doing an end run complaining to the IG who can't really change anything as far as the fine structure is concerned, I doubt. Its a cheap way of appelaing the fines they have been assessed without hiring an attorney and bringing their grievances before the court.

I might be wrong, but I just see this as a possibilty.