[ZuluHotel]

FWIW, Here's the text:

ON THE FENCE
At one of the boat shows last year, we were situated right next to a supplier of commercial fishing gear, mainly foul-weather gear. At one point, a short, saggy man with a generous waistline and penny loafers approached our neighbor’s booth and announced that he was “a commercial fisherman.”

My glance immediately shot to his hands, which, in confirmation of my suspicions, proved to be callus-free and apparently dish-pan soft. I walked out of the Fisherman booth before I lapsed into hysterics, and saw Jason Jarvis moving in the same direction with a knowing grin creeping across his face.

I’ve seen scenario plenty of times in my home state of Rhode Island and also in Massachusetts, where there is a large fleet of commercial striped bass permit holders. Some years back, Rhode Island opened up a “multispecies” commercial license that was open to all, provided they could foot the $300 annual fee (which has since gone up).

Many of the would-be commercial fishermen I knew who forked over the money with intentions to actually become full-time fishermen let their licenses lapse—not because they wanted to part with the permit, but because, struggling to stay financially afloat during winters as fishermen, they didn’t have the folding green available when the bill came due.

The result is that a high percentage of the quote-unquote commercial hook-and-line permit holders are guys with lucrative full-time jobs, day jobs, so to speak who own boats and summer in South County.

Because, as more than one high-liner in the commercial pin-hook fishery has warned, “you’re not going to make it rod-and-reeling,” I’d venture a guess that the two primary functions of the multi-species license (viewed on an average) are (1) to enable boat owners to purchase fuel at a commercial rate and (2) to allow said boat owners to use their vessels as tax shelters.

I only know a handful of legitimate pin-hookers who can amass a stack of landings slips that resemble a decent annual income. The other guys land enough fish in a year’s time to offset fuel bills and, some days, walk off the dock with a little Huckleberry money.

This situation is a case of the state living with the legacy of what was essentially a quick cash-grab in 2000 or 2001. Some licenses have gone dormant, some have been relinquished, but quite a few are still out there. It’s a pet peeve of mine, but the implications really haven’t bothered me that much until recently.

The trouble arises when the issue of regulations comes up. Next year, we’ll be facing a near-crippling cut in the overall fluke quota in Rhode Island. Yet a percentage of recreational fishermen will be able to fish under commercial regs because they hold multispecies licenses. These guys will drift uptide of charter boats, watching them discard 2-pound fluke, and throw every 14-incher that makes it over the rail into the fish boxes. They will return to the dock bragging that they landed “100 pounds” (a limit, perhaps), but the bulk of the catch will be smalls, say 14 to 16 inches. If they’re lucky, the fish house will cut them a check for 100 bucks.

In one fell swoop, they will also take 100 pounds off the allotted commercial quota, which, frankly, doesn’t look like it’s going to be much anyway. I’m not one to sing the praises of dragging, but I do know and respect a good number of people who fish commercially as their sole source of income. It doesn’t sit well with me that a stockbroker, say, or a plumber or the editor of a weekly fishing magazine, for that matter, is working against the quota full-time fishermen are living with. It makes me irate when the same guy hops back over the fence at winter hearings to lash out against commercial greed and the horrors of dragging.

The same holds true with the commercial striped bass fishery in Massachusetts. There’s an alarming number of guys who are ostensibly recreational fishermen who hold commercial permits. Though it’s a somewhat different situation than the RI multispecies in that striped bass is exclusively a hook-and-line fishery in Mass, the net result is the same: sport fishermen making small sums of money by selling fish, and eating up the quota the handful of full-time hook fishermen depend upon for a livelihood. If there is a sound criticism of the Mass commercial bass season, it’s that the fishery is a free-for-all. The quota fills pretty fast given the number of hands in the till and fish crossing the docks (and thresholds of restaurant back doors). If the quota were reserved for full-time fishermen, I doubt it would be filled. I know each fish would fetch a higher price.

The resource is too important to be a source of pocket change for fence-jumping recs.

So, at the risk of alienating more than a few folks, here’s the solution I propose (it is certainly not my idea, as I’ve heard it expressed by dozens of fishermen on both sides): Put an income-percentage requirement in the licensing process. If you don’t make 40- or 50- or 75-percent (pick a number) of your income from fishing, no commercial license for you.

At this point in fisheries history, we need many things, but we certainly do not need more commercial fishermen. With less hands in the quota pie, less fish glutting the market, the prices would stay up and the existing fleet could land less fish for more money.

A five-fish limit for the MA striper season would stretch the season, keep the price out of the toilet where it inevitably lands every season, and allow the guys historically involved in the fishery to actually make some money without slaughtering 30 fish a day. Don’t call me a turncoat: The end result is less dead bass, which at this uncertain point seems like a more important goal than toeing the party line.