How catch shares changed who gets to fish in New Bedford
Catch shares determined who could afford to fish, who had to buy permits, which species became daily stress points and why one boat’s quota problem could ripple through an entire sector. The system also raised a harder question that still sits at the center of the debate: what happens when the quota system depends on science that fishermen don’t trust? The shift that changed how boats could fish Before catch shares, New England groundfish worked under a days-at-sea model. A vessel received a set number of fishing days each year. What the crew landed depended on weather, skill, timing and what came up in the net. “A day at sea is, in many ways, a very big unknown,” Cassie says. “If you’re going to go out there for a day, you could catch no fish, or you could catch a ton of fish.” Catch shares changed that structure. Instead of managing time at sea, the system managed annual quota by species and permit. Permit owners joined sectors that manage quota together. A sector can lease quota, monitor landings and make decisions that protect the group from overfishing. “If one permit owner overfishes, it could shut down the entire sector,” Cassie says. “So each individual becomes liable for the whole group.” Catch shares didn’t only set limits. They changed the relationships between vessels, permit owners and the people who had to manage the risk together. RELATED: ‘Mother nature controls our lifestyle’: The real fishing authority History followed the permit, not the fisherman When catch shares came in, managers had to decide how much quota each permit should receive. That meant looking back at fishing history. In principle, that seems fair. In practice, Cassie says it missed how the dock actually worked. “That whole situation was kind of wonky,” she says. “It’s where some of the controversy started.” Some permit owners had leased their days to other fishermen under the old system. Those fishermen caught the fish, built the practical history and depended on the work. But when quota percentages were assigned, the history often followed the permit, not the person who had fished those days. “At the time, a lot of people got screwed,” Cassie says. Access to fish became something businesses had to buy, lease or combine across enough species to keep fishing. Critics may still imagine an idyllic scenario with a single operator with one boat and one permit. But Cassie says that version of the fishery is long gone. “We’re not in that world anymore,” she says. “It doesn’t exist.” Cassie says owners were looking for a way out. “It didn’t make sense for them to hold on to permits,” Cassie says. “They just wanted to be done.” And once quota became the price of staying in, bycatch started deciding who could afford to leave the dock. RELATED: The value of an experienced fishing crew for seafood buyers The fish you don’t target can still stop you fishing Bycatch existed before catch shares. But under a species-by-species quota, it became a business problem that could stop a trip. A “choke species” is a fish with limited available quota. A boat may target haddock or pollock, then catch hake along the way. But when hake quota runs tight, the boat has a problem even if the target fish are there. “My guys are out there saying, ‘I can’t stay away from it. I’m avoiding it,’” Cassie says. “They’re not fishing. They’re avoiding fish.” That’s where catch shares can feel disconnected from real life on the water. Crews may see plenty of a species, but still face cuts because the system reads the numbers differently. “How is the science saying a species needs to be cut 78% when I’m out here and I can’t stay away from it?” Cassie says. “It’s very frustrating.” The frustration goes beyond cost. If fishermen can’t land a species because they don’t hold enough quota, low landings can make the stock look weaker. “They’ll use the argument, ‘Well, they’re not landing it, so there must not be any out there,’” Cassie says. “We’re not landing it because we can’t!” That turns bycatch into one of the biggest daily pressures in the groundfish business. “Now, bycatch is our number one stressor,” Cassie says. MORE: Haddock vs cod: Key differences buyers need to know When staying in meant buying more access Catch shares changed the value of permits. If quota gives a vessel access to fish, then owning enough quota across enough species becomes a business necessity. That can make consolidation look suspicious from the outside. Cassie says she understands the concern, especially when outside investors enter the industry. “That was concerning for people, because you get these outsiders coming in,” she says. “They’re going to try to make it corporate and not really get back to the fishing community and where the roots are.” But she draws a line between outside ownership and a working waterfront business trying to keep boats fishing. For Cassie, the difference comes down to how a company treats the people behind the permits. If quota costs rise and trips get harder to make work, owners can start looking for savings elsewhere. That can reach crews quickly. “If you’re not making money, there are so many variables,” she says. “Outside investors are going to start to look at the crews and think about how they can save money. “Canastra Fishing Co. will never be that,” she says. “It’s just never going to happen.” MORE: Why fair commercial fishing wages matter for US seafood supply Why fishermen don’t trust the numbers Cassie doesn’t reject quota management. She rejects quota management built on data that doesn’t match the reality on the water. “I think catch shares would be fine if the science were better,” she says. “But our science is terrible.” Her frustration starts with how managers collect data for New England groundfish. Cassie says the system relies too heavily on limited survey work, especially when those surveys don’t reflect what crews see