Chapter Two
Drastic cuts to quotas for most of the bottom fish we caught created dangerous derby fisheries. Everyone started trying to quickly catch as many of the high-value fish as possible before those quotas were filled, making them illegal to keep. It was extremely frustrating to target fish without much market value while discarding every illegal fish we accidentally caught living in the same areas. Many of those illegal fish died from barotrauma caused when internal gases expand while being brought up from deep water. Now we had to stay longer in worse weather to catch enough legal fish to pay the bills. I went to the next South Atlantic Fishery Management Council meeting to give public comments asking that they manage reduced quotas with appropriate possession limits to keep seasons open. This simple solution would stop the needless waste of Regulatory Discards during complete closures by allowing us to target fish with higher limits while legally keeping most of what is caught with lower limits. We could work in safer conditions supplying consumers with a dependable supply of responsibly harvested seafood. The council wouldn’t even consider this reasonable request that would have benefitted everyone and our resources.
The next closure for one of our most important fish was days away when we started heading home after a successful trip. The crew on a boat working around us decided to stay another day since it would be our last chance to keep Vermillion Snapper for several months. The weather worsened overnight. We heard a report the next morning about a guy on that boat being knocked overboard by a big wave. His body was never found. That father of a newborn baby died trying to support his family, due in large part to the council’s refusal to properly manage quotas. The fact it could have easily been somebody on our boat that was lost at sea hit me hard. I never wanted to fish again if it was going to be like this.
The council’s cold response to hearing about that fisherman’s death was this. “He knew it was dangerous before leaving the dock.” Fishing has always been one of the most dangerous jobs, but they didn’t have to make it more so by ignoring Congressional mandates in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to limit waste and promote fishermen’s safety at sea. It was time to stand up for what I believe in, which includes being wise stewards of our environment and preserving freedom.
The council obviously didn’t care what a few fishermen said or about the financial ruin they unleashed on us. It would take public support to make any real difference. I had calendars printed from pictures taken while working around the water. They provided a way to share information and fund my fight for our freedom to fish. People liked the pictures and common-sense solutions being offered. The chance to speak at an event came up, so I researched some famous speeches for inspiration. Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator speech was my favorite. That first speech was unscripted and well-received. My daughter gave the kind of warm hug afterward that melts a father’s heart.
Fishery managers revealed plans to close most of the southeast seafloor to all fishing based on a lack of data for three fish. This would basically put every snapper/grouper fisherman out of business. They planned to vote on the two amendments that would enact these massive closures at their next meeting. There was some disturbing information hidden deep within the hundreds of pages of lawyer-speak in those amendments, including a sentence saying the closures could be enforced by any means necessary. There was a scoping meeting in our area before the vote where we could ask questions. I asked if “enforced by any means necessary” meant we could be shot for fishing in a closed area. The answer was an unequivocal, “YES”.
Hundreds of worried fishermen crowded into a small conference room to oppose those area closures the council was about to vote on. Many of us made public comments pleading with the council to consider other options that would let us keep working. I also called on council members to resign in protest. We left hopeful our freedom to fish survived the night. A newspaper headline the next morning read, “Fishermen Dealt Death Blow”, leaving no doubt about what had happened.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and Secretary of Commerce both had to sign off on the closures before they became law. I had a thousand pre-addressed postcards made with a lightning picture on the front with this text. “Please do not strike down our freedom to fish.” The postcards helped me spread the word while giving people an easy way to get involved. Most people were surprised to hear about the coming closures and eagerly sent signed postcards. This was not enough to stop the final approvals. Public pressure to suspend the unprecedented closures continued to build until they were finally replaced with a series of smaller Marine Protected Areas.
Now the council wanted to make us install Vessel Monitoring Systems on our boats to keep us out of the protected areas. I pointed out how this was outdated technology that violated our Constitutional Right to privacy and offered a reasonable alternative. Closed areas should be marked by data buoys equipped with cameras to prevent poaching. This would provide visual markers to avoid instead of invisible lines we couldn’t cross. Existing data buoys could easily be moved to Marine Protected Areas. The council was determined to make us install those expensive corporate spy devices that required considerable monthly monitoring fees. Near unanimous opposition from fishermen to this unconstitutional scheme did not seem to be enough to stop it. I called a national radio show before the meeting and asked everyone to contact the council and politely oppose their Orwellian Vessel Monitoring Systems. The final vote was close but in favor of freedom. Council staff later told me that calls from across America opposing “Orwellian Vessel Monitoring Systems” swayed the vote. Polite persistence wins in the end when enough concerned citizens stand united. The bigger the issue, the more people it takes. This is why those seeking power try to divide us in so many ways. It works.
While the council focused on area closures and spy devices, the wasteful derby fisheries continued. At one of the quarterly meetings, I asked how we were supposed to safely survive the rebuilding process if they would not follow congressional mandates to limit waste, make efficient use of the resource, and promote the safety of fishermen at sea. The cold and callous reply was this. “That is not our concern. We only have to follow the mandate to end overfishing.” Congress certainly didn’t seem concerned about the gross mismanagement and blatant violations. A plea for help to the environmental organizations attending fishery meetings also fell on deaf ears. It seemed unfathomable that they didn’t care about countless fish being killed and wasted when it could so easily be avoided. I was somewhat naïve in believing everyone’s primary concern was the resource. It was clear from the start that concern for fishermen was almost nonexistent. Fishermen seem to be the most reviled variable in management equations and the fish don’t matter much more. Viewing us as numbers wouldn’t have been as easy if they had to see the tons of wasted seafood piled high and rotting before them or feel the suffering of families struggling to pay bills and put food on their tables.
The next big thing being pushed by fishery managers and environmental organizations explained a lot, including a previous comment about “professionalizing the fleet”. They wanted to manage our fishery with something called Catch Shares that gives fishermen a share of certain quotas we could catch whenever we wanted. This sounded better than what was happening until a little research revealed it is really just a path to private ownership of Public Resources. The record shows how everywhere this has been tried resulted in fleet consolidation as a few corporations buy out most independent owner/operators like me. Fishermen who hold out are at the mercy of those corporate investors that control the market. Some of those same investors also invested in sizable charitable donations to the environmental organizations pushing Catch Shares. This was happening across the globe to the point where some countries had no ownership or control over Catch Share managed resources in their own waters. The privatization of Public Resources is something most of us haven’t thought much about, but it is a very real threat we should be aware of. This isn’t only a fisheries issue, there is a rush to control natural resources on land, in oceans, and even space. Wouldn’t it be wise to consider how we can protect and profit from our Public Resources before turning them over to global corporations and foreign investors?
Most fishermen realized Catch Shares would do far more harm than good for us and every citizen who collectively owns our Public Resources. There was a small group of permit holders who wanted to cash in on the privatization scam and planned a hostile takeover of our fishery with an experimental Catch Share program. They would be given the lion’s share of quotas for most of our high-value fish, leaving their scraps for the rest of us. Fishermen gathered for a council meeting on Jekyll Island trying to keep another creature from being created there. Overwhelming opposition leading up to the meeting mounted with every person signing up to give public comments. The proposal was withdrawn before we even had a chance to speak. This was a big win for our fishery, freedom, and every American.
Justified anger was fueled by the premeditated government-mandated wanton waste of countless fish and repeated attacks on our freedom. That anger was obvious in my public comments demanding the council responsibly manage quotas. There eventually came a feeling it was time to let go of that negative anger and focus more on offering positive solutions most people could easily understand and support. Growing support from fishermen and concerned citizens to properly manage quotas started convincing the council to do its job as required by Congress. Commercial trip limits were put on Vermillion Snapper and worked instantly. The season remained open all year so there was no need to discard any of them. Other fish got similar protection soon after. Understanding what was happening and why helped me let go of the anger so I could be a better advocate. That life lesson can be summed up like this. Ignorance breeds anger just as gentleness is born of wisdom.
The next closure for one of our most important fish was days away when we started heading home after a successful trip. The crew on a boat working around us decided to stay another day since it would be our last chance to keep Vermillion Snapper for several months. The weather worsened overnight. We heard a report the next morning about a guy on that boat being knocked overboard by a big wave. His body was never found. That father of a newborn baby died trying to support his family, due in large part to the council’s refusal to properly manage quotas. The fact it could have easily been somebody on our boat that was lost at sea hit me hard. I never wanted to fish again if it was going to be like this.
The council’s cold response to hearing about that fisherman’s death was this. “He knew it was dangerous before leaving the dock.” Fishing has always been one of the most dangerous jobs, but they didn’t have to make it more so by ignoring Congressional mandates in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to limit waste and promote fishermen’s safety at sea. It was time to stand up for what I believe in, which includes being wise stewards of our environment and preserving freedom.
The council obviously didn’t care what a few fishermen said or about the financial ruin they unleashed on us. It would take public support to make any real difference. I had calendars printed from pictures taken while working around the water. They provided a way to share information and fund my fight for our freedom to fish. People liked the pictures and common-sense solutions being offered. The chance to speak at an event came up, so I researched some famous speeches for inspiration. Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator speech was my favorite. That first speech was unscripted and well-received. My daughter gave the kind of warm hug afterward that melts a father’s heart.
Fishery managers revealed plans to close most of the southeast seafloor to all fishing based on a lack of data for three fish. This would basically put every snapper/grouper fisherman out of business. They planned to vote on the two amendments that would enact these massive closures at their next meeting. There was some disturbing information hidden deep within the hundreds of pages of lawyer-speak in those amendments, including a sentence saying the closures could be enforced by any means necessary. There was a scoping meeting in our area before the vote where we could ask questions. I asked if “enforced by any means necessary” meant we could be shot for fishing in a closed area. The answer was an unequivocal, “YES”.
Hundreds of worried fishermen crowded into a small conference room to oppose those area closures the council was about to vote on. Many of us made public comments pleading with the council to consider other options that would let us keep working. I also called on council members to resign in protest. We left hopeful our freedom to fish survived the night. A newspaper headline the next morning read, “Fishermen Dealt Death Blow”, leaving no doubt about what had happened.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and Secretary of Commerce both had to sign off on the closures before they became law. I had a thousand pre-addressed postcards made with a lightning picture on the front with this text. “Please do not strike down our freedom to fish.” The postcards helped me spread the word while giving people an easy way to get involved. Most people were surprised to hear about the coming closures and eagerly sent signed postcards. This was not enough to stop the final approvals. Public pressure to suspend the unprecedented closures continued to build until they were finally replaced with a series of smaller Marine Protected Areas.
Now the council wanted to make us install Vessel Monitoring Systems on our boats to keep us out of the protected areas. I pointed out how this was outdated technology that violated our Constitutional Right to privacy and offered a reasonable alternative. Closed areas should be marked by data buoys equipped with cameras to prevent poaching. This would provide visual markers to avoid instead of invisible lines we couldn’t cross. Existing data buoys could easily be moved to Marine Protected Areas. The council was determined to make us install those expensive corporate spy devices that required considerable monthly monitoring fees. Near unanimous opposition from fishermen to this unconstitutional scheme did not seem to be enough to stop it. I called a national radio show before the meeting and asked everyone to contact the council and politely oppose their Orwellian Vessel Monitoring Systems. The final vote was close but in favor of freedom. Council staff later told me that calls from across America opposing “Orwellian Vessel Monitoring Systems” swayed the vote. Polite persistence wins in the end when enough concerned citizens stand united. The bigger the issue, the more people it takes. This is why those seeking power try to divide us in so many ways. It works.
While the council focused on area closures and spy devices, the wasteful derby fisheries continued. At one of the quarterly meetings, I asked how we were supposed to safely survive the rebuilding process if they would not follow congressional mandates to limit waste, make efficient use of the resource, and promote the safety of fishermen at sea. The cold and callous reply was this. “That is not our concern. We only have to follow the mandate to end overfishing.” Congress certainly didn’t seem concerned about the gross mismanagement and blatant violations. A plea for help to the environmental organizations attending fishery meetings also fell on deaf ears. It seemed unfathomable that they didn’t care about countless fish being killed and wasted when it could so easily be avoided. I was somewhat naïve in believing everyone’s primary concern was the resource. It was clear from the start that concern for fishermen was almost nonexistent. Fishermen seem to be the most reviled variable in management equations and the fish don’t matter much more. Viewing us as numbers wouldn’t have been as easy if they had to see the tons of wasted seafood piled high and rotting before them or feel the suffering of families struggling to pay bills and put food on their tables.
The next big thing being pushed by fishery managers and environmental organizations explained a lot, including a previous comment about “professionalizing the fleet”. They wanted to manage our fishery with something called Catch Shares that gives fishermen a share of certain quotas we could catch whenever we wanted. This sounded better than what was happening until a little research revealed it is really just a path to private ownership of Public Resources. The record shows how everywhere this has been tried resulted in fleet consolidation as a few corporations buy out most independent owner/operators like me. Fishermen who hold out are at the mercy of those corporate investors that control the market. Some of those same investors also invested in sizable charitable donations to the environmental organizations pushing Catch Shares. This was happening across the globe to the point where some countries had no ownership or control over Catch Share managed resources in their own waters. The privatization of Public Resources is something most of us haven’t thought much about, but it is a very real threat we should be aware of. This isn’t only a fisheries issue, there is a rush to control natural resources on land, in oceans, and even space. Wouldn’t it be wise to consider how we can protect and profit from our Public Resources before turning them over to global corporations and foreign investors?
Most fishermen realized Catch Shares would do far more harm than good for us and every citizen who collectively owns our Public Resources. There was a small group of permit holders who wanted to cash in on the privatization scam and planned a hostile takeover of our fishery with an experimental Catch Share program. They would be given the lion’s share of quotas for most of our high-value fish, leaving their scraps for the rest of us. Fishermen gathered for a council meeting on Jekyll Island trying to keep another creature from being created there. Overwhelming opposition leading up to the meeting mounted with every person signing up to give public comments. The proposal was withdrawn before we even had a chance to speak. This was a big win for our fishery, freedom, and every American.
Justified anger was fueled by the premeditated government-mandated wanton waste of countless fish and repeated attacks on our freedom. That anger was obvious in my public comments demanding the council responsibly manage quotas. There eventually came a feeling it was time to let go of that negative anger and focus more on offering positive solutions most people could easily understand and support. Growing support from fishermen and concerned citizens to properly manage quotas started convincing the council to do its job as required by Congress. Commercial trip limits were put on Vermillion Snapper and worked instantly. The season remained open all year so there was no need to discard any of them. Other fish got similar protection soon after. Understanding what was happening and why helped me let go of the anger so I could be a better advocate. That life lesson can be summed up like this. Ignorance breeds anger just as gentleness is born of wisdom.