Scup

CT DEP
I have been very critical of the CT DEP marine division in this thread. The thought that one should not judge another man until one has to walk a mile in his shoes keeps popping up in my mind. This form has forced me to put on my thinking cap and try to figure out why I am so unhappy with the DEP. Like most of the form members, I think there seems to be much wrong with the current system of regulations. However, I would like to transpose myself into the DEP’s position and look at the situation from their perspective. The first thing that has to be addressed is they are not idiots. This I based on the phone calls and letters I have written to them. They always responded and my last letter was answered by the assistant director of the DEP. The response was to the point, and I did not like what the director had to say, but the response was carefully written. Basically, the response dealt with the subject of having no exceptions to the laws, but throughout the letter there were suggestions on how I can achieve what I wanted to do and still remain within the DEP’s framework. They were definitely trying to be helpful. Let me put it as I currently see the situation.
Our DEP, Marine Division, has three primary goals:
Protect the recreational sector
Protect the commercial sector
Protect the fish
To begin with, the above three are definitely in opposition. I feel it is impossible to fulfill all of these to everyone’s satisfaction simultaneously. Compromises have to be made, and no one is going to be happy with all of them. Let’s look at the three goals from the perspective of which of the above could withstand the hardest shock to its structure and still survive. I maintain by far, the most rugged of the three is the recreational sector. Suppose the hardest blow of all was dealt to the recreational angler in 2008; complete moratorium for all species of fish. You cannot keep anything! In 2009, the recreational angler will be out there still fishing. Why even in 2008 he would be out there doing his catch and release thing. True, there would be ripple effects to the charter boat and head boat industries, and several fishing tackle stores will go under, some never to resurface, but the recreational angler will still be there because of his love for fishing. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but the angler’s love for his sport makes him far more durable to withstand anything that is thrown at him.
Now look at the commercial sector. They are not in it for the love of the sport but the love of money. Take away their profits, and you destroy the industry. Many of the form members will respond to this as “fine, let them go under”. Think about it, can you really imagine that it would be wise to destroy our commercial fishing industry? People, whether they fish or not, like to eat fish. There is a demand for fish and our seas have always been able to fulfill this need. Due to increased populations, and a past unregulated industry, has left the situation in total disarray. This does not mean there is no room for the commercial sector; it just means they have to be carefully regulated in the future. However, they are not as robust as the recreational sector. Since money drives them, anything that affects their operations could easily push them over the edge of no return. If you think I am out of my mind, look at it this way. The next time you are fluking and a dragger goes by, think about who is going to be around decade from now. I would place my money on you surviving, not the dragger. Suppose the draggers were outlawed. Just who do you think is out there right now fishing and supplying the public needs? I am a pin fisherman, and supply a small amount of fish, mostly scup, to the wholesaler. But nine months out of the year I do not supply anything. For the fish wholesaler to stay in business he needs a continuous supply of fresh fish. He would fold tomorrow if he had to depend on pin fishermen. After the collapse of the wholesaler, the Mom and Pop fish stores would soon follow. Again you might say “so what”, but think again. The last time I purchased a fillet of flounder in food store chain, the fillet was in a plastic tray, and sealed with clear plastic wrap over its top. When I got home and opened it, it stunk to high heaven. Walk by the fish section of a food chain store and look at the hard shell clams for sale that are encased in clear plastic. Tap on the opened clams, right through the plastic, with a quarter to see if they close. If not, do you think it would be wise to purchase and eat dead clams? Why Mom and Pop fish stores have their clientele is the customer’s trust that the product they will purchase will be of quality. I would not like to see the small but trusted Mom and Pop fish markets close but many are barely holding their own right now. Once an industry is destroyed, it is likely terminal, never to return. The commercial sector does not have the resilience of the recreational sector.
Since this is a form for charter boat captains just where do they fit in? They are a hybrid, they are not commercial, but they still need to make a profit, and I think most are driven somewhat by the love of the sport. Their industry can be wrecked rather easily too.
Getting back to the DEP’s problem, they have to juggle everything above and come up looking good. Well, it is not about to happen. I think what bothers me the most is when I went to the web page described in this form concerning the current situation of fish stocks and saw what is happening. Somehow, I feel that decisions made by the DEP in trying to accomplish all three of their goals have left the fish coming up short. I also know that they are not idiots and are well aware of the situation. This year just might be the year when everyone is going to have to take a hard hit, and I think the recreational sector is going to be hit the hardest only because they can withstand the shock better. It is not fair, but what other choice does the DEP have?