# **SALTWATER SPORTFISHING Partners Meeting**

St. Petersburg, Florida April 13-14, 2005

**Allocation Criteria**

**Rip Cunningham, Saltwater Sportsman Magazine**

My intent is to take a somewhat high altitude view of this issue,
because I have to admit that I do not have all the answers for this
topic. I do not believe that there will be one solution or set of
criteria that fit all situations.

When I was first asked to be a panelist for this event and was told my
topic was Allocation Criteria, I asked Forbes what do you mean by
allocation criteria. The answer was "how should the fish be allocated to
the recreational users." OK.

Well I thought that should take about 30 seconds. Simply, we don't want
them to be allocated the way they have been. Currently 97% of the users
get approximately 3% of the resource. So, I thought, let's dream a
little and aim to turn those numbers around. Then I woke up and realized
that we needed to have a real solution.

Why is allocation a hot topic, beside the fact that recreational users
deserve a bigger slice of the pie. It is a hot topic, because it is the
light at the end of the tunnel which just happens to be on the front of
the oncoming train.

For those who attended the Managing Our Nations Fisheries In DC a few
weeks ago, you know that considerable time was spent discussing
"rationalizing commercial fisheries" and "dedicated access privileges,"
call them ITQ's, IFQ's, Co-OP's, community-based quotas or market-based
management solutions. Call them what you will, they will all have to be
based on allocating the resource. Are they going to happen on a
wholesale basis tomorrow, not likely, although they are happening on a
piecemeal basis right now. But make no mistake that they are coming and
as users of the resource, the recreational fishing industry has a dog in
that fight. In my estimation, it will be a fight. The allocation battle
will determine the winners and losers. Getting what should be our fair
share will not be easy.

There currently are a number of proposals and bills to change
Magnuson-Stevens concerning dedicated access privileges. When it comes
to "Considerations for determining allocation, they are all in agreement
that the process should be "fair & equitable" and based on " present and
historic participation."

We would obviously like to see it be fair and equitable, but if it is
based on present and historic participation that is not likely. Only a
few of the bills and proposals concerning dedicated access privileges
address economics directly. Many have spoken to this issue, but simply
put when it comes to economic impact from finfish resources, the
recreational fishing industry hits the ball out of the park. We far
exceed the commercial impact by many times on any number of measures.
When it comes to conservation or sustainability of the resource, this
industry has always tried to be ahead of the curve.

With all of these considerations, why would you manage so many fisheries
for commercial interests? With all of these considerations, isn't it
obvious that the resources should be allocated 97% to the personal use
or recreational user? Well, yes it is, to us. So where have we failed
and where should we improve.

At the first of these events 2 years ago, I opened up the conference by
challenging NMFS to explain why there were the inequities in allocation
and I have to give it to Bill Hogarth. He handed the challenge right
back. He asked why isn't the recreational industry doing a better job at
supporting and pushing for your needs. Since I am a self-proclaimed slow
learner, it has taken me a while to read between the lines. Why aren't
we doing a better job at the politics of fisheries.

What I am saying is not meant to slight the many of you who are and have
been involved for years. To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims ad, "We've
come a long way baby." But we still have a long way to go.

We may think that politics is bad word, but it is how things get done in
this country. Politics is merely the ability to influence decisions. It
doesn't insinuate smoke filled back rooms. It would seem as though 90%
of politics is simply being there. The recreational fishery needs more
industry and grass roots involvement in what will be the coming
allocation battle. We need more organizations involved. We need more
lobbyists involved. And frankly, we need a salt water license or stamp
in all coastal states.

In my short tenure on the New England Council, I see more lobbyists and
organization representatives for commercial interests commenting,
cajoling, pushing for or scolding the Council then there are the same
kind of representatives for the recreational industry. I have been on
the MA Marine Fisheries Commission for 18 years and only on a couple of
times have I been approached by recreational interests on an issue. I
have been approached by commercial interests many times. While I realize
that recreational interests in other states and councils have done a
better job at this than has been done in the Northeast, I believe that
it is a fundamental weakness that needs to be improved.

So what will determine allocation of the marine resources that the
recreational fishing industry needs to survive? I think that it will be
issues of fairness and equity, although the definition of fair and
equitable is as varied as those defining it; I think it will be
economics, where this industry shines; I think it will be past history,
but used primarily to define a floor below which we don't fall and a
ceiling we are not likely to exceed; I think the salt water license will
be part of the mix; and I know the real key to success will be a lot of
politicing.

We will need grass roots support. We will need tackle and marine
industry leadership. What we really need is more than 3% of the
resource, but we will have to come together as a cohesive industry and
work for every fish we get.