NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 164
An Overview
of the Social and Economic Survey
Administered during Round II
of the Northeast Multispecies
Fishery
Disaster Assistance Program
by Julia Olson and
Patricia M. Clay
National
Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab., 166 Water St., Woods Hole,
MA 02543
Print
publication date December 2001;
web version posted April 9, 2002
Citation: Olson J, Clay PM. 2001. An Overview
of the Social and Economic Survey
Administered during Round II
of the Northeast Multispecies
Fishery
Disaster Assistance Program. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 164; 69 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Abstract
This paper characterizes and summarizes responses to selected questions
from the Social and Economic Survey administered in spring and summer
2000 to recipients of the second round (Round II) of financial assistance
in the Northeast (Gulf of Maine) Multispecies Fishery Disaster Assistance
Program. The paper indicates how these fishermen conduct their livelihood,
the beliefs they have about fishing, and the social communities in which
they live, and points to further research needs generated by the initial
survey results. Both permit holders (vessel owners) and crew members
participated in the survey which covered six broad themes: households
and communities, expenditure impacts, business practices, management
and enforcement, capacity and the future, and fishing family assistance.
Survey results, while summarized across all respondents, illustrate both
the degree of similarity and diversity within the fleet. While some survey
results corroborate accepted arguments in the social sciences of fishing,
others point to possible qualifications, especially notions of the “local,” and
of community. For many respondents, visions of the future seemed to center
on notions of community and community relations as alternative spaces
for institutional foundations, with promising implications for future
management.
INTRODUCTION
Congress
appropriated five million dollars to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in late 1998 to provide emergency disaster assistance
to persons or entities in the Northeast multispecies fishery who incurred
losses from a commercial fishery failure due to declining groundfish
stocks. (The Northeast multispecies fishery covers 15 species occurring
between Maine and North Carolina: Acadian redfish, American plaice, Atlantic
cod, Atlantic halibut, haddock, ocean pout, offshore hake, pollock, red
hake, silver hake, white hake, windowpane, winter flounder, witch flounder,
and yellowtail flounder.) The initial round of disaster assistance, initiated
in October 1999, was directed towards groundfish fishermen most affected
by seasonal area closures enacted in 1999 in the Gulf of Maine. Although
about 200 individual permit holders (vessel owners) in the fishery received
an average of about $12,500 each, the first round of disaster assistance
did not exhaust all of the appropriated funds. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries
initiated a second round (Round II) of disaster assistance in March 2000.
In Round II, eligibility requirements were broadened such that many more
people, including both vessel owners and their crew members, became qualified
to receive one-time payments of up to $7,500 per owner and up to $1,500
per crew member. In return for receiving compensation, participants agreed
to make their vessel available for cooperative research projects and/or
to respond to a survey that would provide social and economic information
for fisheries management.
The Social and Economic Survey that resulted from this initiative covered
six broad areas of interest to policy-makers, researchers, and stakeholders:
households and communities, expenditure impacts, business practices,
management and enforcement, capacity and the future, and fishing family
assistance (Appendices I and II).
The survey questions solicited specific information, as well as feedback
for improving future surveys. Owners received surveys in March 2000,
and had until the middle of the following month to complete their survey;
crew received surveys in May 2000, and were given until the end of the
following month to complete their survey. Completed surveys from 286
owners (holding ownership of 297 vessels) and 181 crew members (representing
135 permitted vessels) were received and processed. The response rate
was 78.1% for owners eligible in both rounds, and 75.1% for crew.
This paper looks at trends across all survey respondents in order to
provide a general indication of the material available in the survey
results. It does not, however, examine the connections within the set of
responses for any given survey respondent; further study will be needed
to examine the configuration of response patterns for individual fishermen
in order to better approach the interplay between meaning and practice.
The eventual goal to further such study is a database maintained by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center that will be made accessible to outside
researchers, while preserving the anonymity of survey respondents.
RESULTS
INTRODUCTORY
SKETCH
The respondents can be characterized as fishermen who predominantly
fish using small- to medium-scale boats (over 80% belong to tonnage classes
1 and 2 which include boats under 50 gross registered tons), have multispecies
permits in the fleet days-at-sea (DAS) permit category, and fish using
bottom trawls or, to a lesser extent, gill nets (Table 1a, Table 2a,
and Table 3). Compared to all other vessels with
a valid multispecies permit (hereafter the “overall groundfish fleet”),
the survey respondents fish with somewhat older and less powerful vessels
(in terms of vessel horsepower and gross registered tonnage); yet, the
distribution of size classes in the survey population is less skewed
than the overall permitted groundfish fleet (Table
1b). That is to say, both the very small and very large vessels are
not represented in the survey population. This difference can be attributed,
in part, to the large number of multispecies vessels in the overall groundfish
fleet that are permitted in the open-access categories H-K, and that
fish primarily with hand gears (Table 2b and Table 3).
Most surveyed crew members and owners live in ports along the Gulf of
Maine coast (Figure 1 and Figure 2),
while the distribution of homeports for all vessels in the overall groundfish
fleet implies a much wider distribution of residences, though it should
be noted that the vessel homeport represents the mooring location of
a vessel and cannot be taken as synonymous with residence for all fishermen
(Figure 3). Moreover, because the survey was
administered to people eligible for disaster relief from specific area
closures, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to all fishermen
in the Northeast.
Yet, while the profile of the average survey respondent may not match
all of the characteristics of the average owner or crew member in the
overall groundfish fleet, survey respondents seem to resemble more closely – in
terms of the actual landings of groundfish – the region’s active
core of medium-sized, limited-access, groundfish fishermen. The 1999
landings of large-mesh groundfish were largely brought in by bottom trawl
and gillnet vessels that fished in the individual and fleet DAS permit
categories, and that were homeported in New England (Table
4), which is in large measure similar to characteristics of the survey
respondents. Nonetheless, whatever the uniqueness or representativeness
of the group which qualified for disaster assistance (Table
5), the survey responses provide a glimpse into how the members of
that group conduct their livelihood, into the beliefs they have about
fishing, and into the social communities in which they live.
HOUSEHOLDS
AND COMMUNITIES
Respondents were typically long-time fishermen, with owners averaging
28 yr on the water and crew averaging 18 yr (Table
6), with an analogous difference in average ages (47 and 38 yr old,
respectively). While fewer than half of either group claimed a father
or grandfather in the industry (Table 6),
about 21% of owners and 13% of crew were associated with families having
four or more generations in the fishing industry (see Table
15). Owner households were more than twice as likely as crew households
to belong to fishing industry organizations (51 and 19%, respectively);
nonetheless, the majority of owners and crew felt that those organizations
represented fishermen’s interests (Table
6). While about half of all respondents had previously worked in
nonfishing jobs – with crew somewhat more likely to have done so – both
crew and owner households earned, on average, 83-84% of their current
income from the fishing industry (Table 6).
Many of these households are fishing households, in which other
family members (primarily spouses, but also children and parents) are
involved in various aspects of the business (Table
7).
The majority of fishermen surveyed considered the town in which they
live to be a fishing community, though less than half considered their
communities dependent on fishing (Table
6); this partial disconnect between community and dependence voices
multiple notions of what constitutes a fishing community, and speaks
to the need to consider “on-the-ground” notions of economic and social
dependence when assessing communities. The fishermen who considered their
communities “fishing communities” most commonly referred to
the high number of boats, fishermen, or fishing businesses and infrastructure
present (cited by 57% of owners and 41% of crew). Another important factor
noted was a long history of ties in the community to the fishing profession
(27% of both owners and crew). These percentages should be interpreted
with some caution, as many of the same respondents who considered their
town a fishing community also said their views had changed over time,
voicing concern that their communities were being–or already had
been–forced out of fishing. For the respondents who did not regard
their port as a fishing community, the most common reasons were: a lack
of fishing boats or fishing facilities, including supportive organizations
(56% of owners and 58% of crew); living inland and fishing elsewhere
(18% of owners and 19% of crew); and regional changes out of fishing
due to tourism, development, or regulations (19% of owners and 11% of
crew).
Yet, respondents provided more nuanced and sometimes ambiguous explanations
about community in further commentary, a better sense of which can be
gained from examining responses at a smaller scale (see also Hall-Arber et
al. (2001) for in-depth regional and port descriptions). While the
sense of not being dependent on fishing closely coincided with the sense
of being a nonfishing community, this relationship showed regional differences.
(With the exception of Gloucester, Massachusetts, most communities did
not have enough respondents for meaningful comparisons to be made, so
discussion will be confined to the state level.) Of the 82 owner respondents
from Maine, 34 said they did not live in a fishing community, 47 said
they did, and 1 responded other. For those who lived in self-declared
nonfishing communities, the overwhelming majority (94.1%) also did not
consider them dependent on fishing; for those who did live in self-declared
fishing communities, just over two-thirds (68.1%) also considered them
dependent on fishing. Of the 33 owner respondents from New Hampshire,
21 said they did not live in a fishing community, and 12 said they did.
For those who lived in self-declared nonfishing communities, the overwhelming
majority (90.5%) also did not consider them dependent on fishing; for
those who did live in self-declared fishing communities, only one-fourth
(25.0%) also considered them dependent on fishing. Of the 106 owner respondents
from Massachusetts, not including Gloucester, 45 said they did not live
in a fishing community, 59 said they did, and 2 responded other. For
those who lived in self-declared nonfishing communities, the overwhelming
majority (95.6%) also did not considered them dependent on fishing; for
those who did live in self-declared fishing communities, less than half
(44.1%) also considered them dependent on fishing. Owner respondents
from Gloucester, Massachusetts, numbered 63, of which 62 considered Gloucester
a fishing community and only 1did not (for whom Gloucester was also not
dependent on fishing). For those who called Gloucester a fishing community,
nearly all (91.9%) also considered it dependent on fishing.
What lies behind many of these responses is a shifting sense of what
constitutes the fishing community itself, especially with respect to
the respondents’ views about community members who do not fish.
For example, many of the Maine respondents who considered their ports
to be fishing communities but not to be dependent on fishing, reasoned
that what made their community a fishing community was a large
number of fishermen working out of, or living in, the area – particularly
if there was a history of such fisheries participation. However, what
these Maine respondents regarded as the community as a whole was
one which was primarily engaged in other activities; here, the notion
of a fishing community was more as an enclave within a larger jurisdiction.
Those who considered their fishing communities to be dependent on fishing,
tended to view other occupations – such as those in the tourism
industry or with seafood restaurants – as themselves dependent on
fishing. It should be noted that these variations often occurred among
respondents claiming the same community. Yet, the survey respondents
from Gloucester, in particular, showed a remarkably consistent sense
of being a fishing community, focusing on both a history of fishing and
a strongly articulated sense of an entire community dependent on and
supportive of fishing, in contrast to respondents from other towns who
wrote of how the greater community now works against them.
Of course, it is easy to read too much into short survey answers, and
understanding the differences and the representations of community lends
itself better to ethnographic interviewing. But the point is not so
much that one set of answers is right and the other wrong, but that one’s
notions of, and mutual commitments to, a community are colored precisely
by the variety of relations that constitute and affect community. As
one respondent explained, his community was dependent on fishing because “There
are hundreds of families that live on cape year[-]round who make their
living from the sea.” He reasoned, nonetheless, that he didn’t
live in a fishing community because “The Cape is [being] overrun
by development. There is a fishing community here, but it[’]s becoming
harder to find.”
EXPENDITURE
IMPACTS OF FISHING INDUSTRY IN NEW ENGLAND
The Social and Economic Survey solicited data on the flow of fishing
costs and expenditures through 13 broad regions: Downeast Maine, Upper
Mid-Coast Maine, Lower Mid-Coast Maine, Southern Maine, New Hampshire
Coast, Gloucester/North Shore, Boston/South Shore, Cape and Islands,
New Bedford Area, Rhode Island, Connecticut Coast, Non-Coastal New England,
and Outside New England (Appendix I and Appendix II).
Based on all survey respondents, most captains (95.3%) and crew (82.3%)
lived in their vessel’s home region, and most vessels also purchased
the majority of their fishing and vessel needs in their home region (Table
8). Of these purchases, bait (for those applicable), moorage fees,
fuel, and food were more likely acquired in the home region; likewise,
crew spent the majority of their income in their home regions as well.
Insurance and new gear, on the other hand, were less likely to be acquired
in a vessel’s home region. Most respondents did not believe that
recent closures or other regulations had significantly changed in which
of the 13 regions they made purchases or spent their income; however,
some fishermen noted that the level of their purchases had decreased,
while others wrote that they were doing business in larger metropolitan
areas because of, for example, port changes due to area closures, or
because smaller, local businesses had closed.
FISHING BUSINESS PRACTICES
According to the vessel owners surveyed, the most significant changes
in fishing business practices due to the past 5 yr of regulations were: “decreased
time spent on the water,” “postponed new gear,” “changed
fishing location,” “took on less crew,” and “cut
back on gear and vessel maintenance” (Table
9). These changes can have many different implications, from financial
solvency to community impacts to vessel safety, to mention a few. The
following subsections explore these implications further, drawing from
selected questions in this section of the survey (Appendix
I and Appendix II, Section 3).
Changes in Number and Composition of Crew
The average number of crew members working on the vessels represented
in the survey decreased from 2.1 in 1994 to 1.8 in 2000 (see Table
16). The stability and composition of the crew may have also changed,
for while almost all (93.4%) of the crew survey respondents said that
they were considered a regular crew member of one boat, almost one-third
(29.8%) also said that the crew changes during the year. The most common
explanations for crew changes were that the boat was not making money
(30%) or that there were personal problems between the owner and the
crew or within the crew (19%) – neither of which are necessarily
unique to the current regulatory climate. Another common explanation
for lack of stability was a reduction in available crew “sites” (a
term commonly used by fishermen to mean a billet or employment on a vessel)
explicitly attributed to area and DAS regulations (21%). Further, while
24% of crew survey respondents saw no change in the type of individuals
being drawn to fishing occupations, 38% indicated that crew members overall
were getting older (or that few young people were going into the profession),
13% noted that new and different ethnic groups and nationalities were
entering those occupations, 12% said that reliable and knowledgeable
help was becoming harder to find, and 9% said that the crew was in fact
getting younger.
Despite these differences, what many of these responses seemed to share
was a concern that fishing was increasingly seen as an unreliable source
of income, and that a strong outside economy was both drawing away its
core and changing a traditional family and life cycle of crew to owner.
To what extent these changes vary regionally, affect already existing
differences among ports in the crew-to-owner cycle (see Smith and Peterson
1977), or themselves engender significantly different social relations,
bears greater attention in future studies.
Time at Sea
Another possible indication of changing social relations – within
the boat, family, and community – can be inferred from practices
such as time away at sea. Over half (58.1%) of crew respondents stated
that the amount of time they spent away from home had changed compared
to 5 yr ago: 44.8% said that time away at sea had increased (primarily
due to moving farther offshore, or taking longer trips to find fish),
39.0% said that time away at sea had decreased (primarily due to increasingly
stringent regulatory changes such as DAS cuts), and 3.8% said it had
both increased and decreased in that they were at sea less often, but
when they were gone the trips had become considerably longer. (The remaining
12.4% of respondents gave no answer.)
Vessel
Safety
Slightly over half (54.2%) of owners responded that their vessel had
needed help either while fishing at sea or in returning to port at least
once during the past 5 yr, of which those required help on average 2.9
times (range of 1-32) during the 1995-99 period. The average number of
times for vessels needing help in any given year was relatively constant
(between 1.4 and 1.6 times a year), although the number of vessels that
needed help did vary annually (Table 10).
Of those owners who had not required any assistance at sea during this
5-yr period, they still had delayed trips due to mechanical or electrical
problems during the last 12 mo of the period, on average 2.5 times (range
of 0-52). By contrast, those who had required assistance at sea had a
slightly higher number of delayed trips during the last 12 mo, on average
2.9 times (range of 0-20). However, respondents claimed that most (84%
for owners and 86% for crew) of the fishermen they knew had all the required
safety equipment in good operating order on their vessels.
Recent studies have indicated that the probability of vessel accidents
decreased in the decade prior to the time period of the survey (Jin et.
al [in review]); yet, whether assistance at sea varies inversely or directly
with the documented accident rate, and how assistance needs may interact
with and be influenced by risk-taking, deferred maintenance, and regulatory
inducements, require future study.
Income Effects
Owners were also asked what factors have affected their ability to make
a living, and both owners and crew members were asked how changing regulations
have affected their household finances. The factors cited most commonly
by owners as having a “very negative effect” on their livelihood
included “increased marine fishery regulation” (83.6%), “increased
costs of harvesting fish” (45.1%), and “loss of habitat” (42.7%).
Other factors cited by owners less commonly as having a “very negative
effect” were “coastal development” (18.9%), “increased
number of recreational fishers” (20.3%), and “loss of markets
for harvested fish” (24.5%). Only 5.2% of owners and 5.0% of crew
listed no changes in their household finances; the most common changes,
similar for both groups (Table 9), were reducing
or eliminating savings, cutting back or eliminating vacations, and postponing
the purchase of new vehicles. Owners (40.6%) also cut back on insurance
in general (including vessel, home, auto, health, life, and/or unspecified
insurances), while almost one-quarter (23.8%) specified they had no health
insurance at all (see Table 15). The insurance
situation was more acute for crew, with almost half (49.2%) indicating
that they had reduced or eliminated insurance in general (including auto,
health, life, and/or unspecified insurances), while over half (55.2%)
of crew respondents specified that they had no health insurance whatsoever.
With respect to nonfishing income, 44.4% of owners reported some increase
or a major increase (25.2 and 19.1%, respectively [note that totals may
differ from sums of components due to rounding error of components])
in their dependence on nonfishing income during the past 5 yr, while
a nearly equal percentage of owners (46.5%) reported no change. Many
of the owner respondents incurred an increased debt load to cover reduced
fishing income, with 59.5% of owners reporting some increase or a major
increase (31.5 and 28.0%, respectively) in the use of loans and other
credit during 1995-99; 29.0% of owner respondents, however, saw no change
in debt load during this time period. In terms of changing labor practices–which
both reflect and further impact these changes – 30.1% of owners
experienced some decrease or a major decrease (12.9 and 17.2%, respectively)
in the use of nonfamily hired labor or crew (47.2% saw no change); 41.9%
reported some increase or a major increase (27.6 and 14.3%, respectively)
in the use of family labor (49.0% saw no change); and 50.4% indicated
some increase or a major increase (30.8 and 19.6%, respectively) in the
need for family members in more roles (40.9% saw no change). To what
extent these changes indicate permanent structural changes in labor relations
warrants further study.
Responses to Closures
Owners were specifically asked how their fishing practices change when
one of their traditional fishing grounds is closed. The most common answers
were: “fish in the closest area to the closed area, if there is
a reasonable chance of success for the same species” (67.8%), “go
to the next area that has a reasonable chance for the species I’m
allowed to fish” (59.8%), “try several areas around the closed
area” (49.7%), and “depending on length/size of closure, might
switch target species” (45.5%). Other responses less commonly cited
by owners were “depending on length/size of the closure, might move
to a different port altogether” (22.0%), and “fish in closed
area with exempted gear” (21.3%). The fact that fishermen seem less
likely to move to a different port is good news for those concerned about
community disruption due to closures, though other factors in maintaining
sustainable communities need to be examined.
Marketing Changes
Most fishermen (60.5%) indicated that they chose a dealer trip by trip,
basing decisions according to the particular species they were selling
(31.8%) or by shopping around for the best price (28.7%). Other fishermen
had dealers prearranged before their trip (27.6%) or sold to an organization
to which they belonged (15.1%). A number of owners (15.4%) indicated
that they also sold their catch at an auction. When specifically asked
to compare auction to nonauction sales, auctions came out on top in 11
of 12 possible categories, for example, “speed of sale,” “treated
well,” “quality is rewarded,” “speed of payment,” and “firm
prices”; only “personal contact” received a higher rating
under nonauction sales. About 5% of owners, however, commented that they
had no options for their sales and marketing practices: that there was
only one dealer or auction in town, or that local businesses were closing
down and forcing them to go to larger towns. Thus, regional stability
implied in the results of the Section 3 of the survey (“Expenditure
Impacts of Fishing Industry in New England”) does not preclude the
possibility of microlevel changes and impacts, and reiterates the need
for local-level studies.
MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Mesh-size regulations were the management measures considered by both
owners and crew to most effectively reduce fishing mortality, and least
negatively impact income and family life (Table
11). Large, long-term closures were deemed hardest on families and
finances, while trip limits and overall quotas (total allowable catches
or TACs) were seen as least effective in reducing fishing mortality.
The strength and consistency of these responses echo views expressed
by others in the fishing industry, and may indicate that these views
are generally shared by many fishermen.
Responses to questions about management processes (Table
12) reveal that more public outreach and involvement are needed.
Most respondents (71.4% of owners and 87.3% of crew) had either never
or seldom attended a Council or Committee meeting. A little more than
half of the owners (59.1%) and crew (51.4%) felt that they understood
the Council/Committee management system; 65.0% of owners and 56.9%
of crew felt that they knew the important laws that guide the fisheries
management process. At the same time, a little more than half of owners
(53.9%) indicated they needed more information about regulations to
conduct their businesses better, a need second only to more information
about gear technology (cited by 62.6%). About three-quarters of both
groups felt that they understood fish population dynamics, but only
about one-third of owners and one-fourth of crew felt that they knew
how economic information was used in the management process, and fewer
of these fishermen said they understood how social and cultural information
was used (55% of owners, however, felt they knew why such information
was important). Moreover, 73.4% of owner respondents and 54.7% of crew
respondents felt that their views do not get expressed in the formal
Council/Committee management process, and a number of respondents who
answered that their views were expressed, tempered that sentiment by
explaining that they still were not listened to. These responses speak
to a feeling, among some owners and crew, of disenfranchisement in
the management process.
Most respondents (92.3% of owners and 90.1% of crew), nonetheless, indicated
that fishermen generally want to comply with regulations. Almost all
respondents (95.8% of owners and 97.8% of crew) believed that at least
50% of commercial fishermen usually or always complied with groundfish
laws and regulations, and over half of respondents (55.2% of owners and
50.8% of crew) believed that 95-100% of fishermen did so. The majority
of respondents also felt that there was adequate enforcement both at
sea (84.6% of owners and 85.1% of crew) and on the dock (81.1% of owners
and 86.7% of crew).
Compliance and enforcement are not limited to just federal and state
regulations, however, for the responses to a question asking owners which “local,
informal, traditional fishing rules or codes or agreements (not federal
or state regulations) affect how you fish,” indicated a vital system
of local practices. Most commonly cited were: “rules or traditions
for avoiding gear damage to other gears” (61.2%), “rules that
limit where I fish” (54.9%), “rules or traditions to minimize
waste and discards and encourage conservation” (53.9%), “rules
that designate areas for different gears” (52.8%), “rules that
limit when I fish” (52.8%), and “rules for cooperation among
same gear vessels” (45.5%). These findings are consistent with the
literature on community-based management (see McGoodwin 1990 for an overview),
which has documented the many possible and extant forms of regulation
and resource management, and the disenchantment of many fishermen with
institutional arrangements of “top-down” management.
CAPACITY AND THE FUTURE
Many stakeholders have become increasingly concerned about the future
of fishermen and fishing communities. Fishermen’s associations,
special partnerships, and vision statements have been created – in
part – in the past 5 yr in response to changing management regulations.
Economists, anthropologists, and other social scientists working in fisheries
have also been concerned with how individuals and communities are reacting
to and planning for these changes. The survey revealed that many of the
respondents neither see the need for much change in fleet structure or
fishing practices, nor are optimistic about effective changes in future
management strategies. Most respondents believe that current levels of
fishing capacity (number of vessels, total effort, etc.) are reasonable
for current stock conditions, and do not believe there will be too much
active fishing capacity for a rebuilt biomass to sustain. The majority
had no plans to reduce their own effort when stocks rebuild; almost half
had made investments, mostly in gear, to increase their current catch
per day.
Most respondents also plan to continue fishing themselves (see next
section on “Fishing Family Assistance”), and
63.5% of crew still want to own their own vessel, even though 55.8% have
changed their expectations of doing so over the past 5 yr. Nonetheless,
only one-quarter of respondents would advise young people to go into
fishing (Table 13). The majority of respondents
(86.7% of owners and 79.0% of crew) believe that the current permit system
reduces flexibility for fishermen, but only just over one-half think
that system could be changed without increasing fishing pressure on stocks
(Table 13). Similarly, only 26.5% of the crew
respondents think that crew members should be licensed. About one-third
thought there could be advantages to a system of localized control of
fishing capacity such as the Maine lobster management zones (primarily
because it would take into account area characteristics and allow fishermen
a more direct responsibility), but 28.0% of owners, and even more crew
(44.8%), thought such a system would ultimately not work.
Both owners and crew were presented with a list of possible goals for
fisheries in the Northeast region, and showed very similar tendencies
in the ranking of the different objectives (Table
14). The goals with which respondents most “strongly agreed” or “agreed” were: “maximum
benefits to the community” (83.3% of owners and 74.1% of crew), “secure
places for existing fishermen with opportunities not reduced by new entrants” (76.2%
of owners and 75.2% of crew), “maximum possible number of fishing
jobs the resource can support” (60.5% of owners and 64.1% of crew), “harvest
capacity matched to resources” (72.7% of owners and 60.7% of crew), “new
entrants limited to numbers exiting” (55.9% of owners and 49.2%
of crew), and “maximum economic benefits to the nation” (61.5%
of owners and 47.0% of crew). The only goal that was evenly split in
interpretation – and evenly split for both owners and crew – was “maximum
possible number of fishermen.” Finally, the only goal with which
respondents most “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” was “unlimited
entry in any fishery” (68.5% of owners and 57.5% of crew). These
responses speak to an accordance with notions of both ecological and
social sustainability.
FISHING FAMILY ASSISTANCE
The Social and Economic Survey also solicited views on the fishing family
assistance programs that have been available over the past 5 yr (Appendix
I and Appendix II, section 6). About three-fourths
of the respondents were aware of these programs, though almost as many
had never used them (Table 15). Less than
one-third (31.8%) of the owners expressed interest in using free computer
and Internet access at the fishing family assistance centers, and even
fewer owners (18.9%) were interested in attending career orientation
workshops; the vast majority (93.7%) were committed to staying in fishing.
Among crew however, there was more interest in both using the centers
and in career workshops, despite a strong commitment to continue fishing.
While the surveyed fishermen as a whole do not wish to leave the industry,
they are considering other, at least temporary, options to their normal
fishing patterns. Almost half of the owners surveyed (46.2%) were interested
in a vessel buyback program, and 71.0% were interested in using their
vessel in additional ways such as research, charter, day-hire, and training
(Table 16). Over half (61.5%) of the owners
indicated they would like more information on gear technology, and almost
half were interested in additional information on grants and regulations.
Finally, while a minority of crew and owner respondents cited a need
for assistance in, for example, applying for loans or setting up a new
business (Table 15), crew respondents were
somewhat more likely than owners to say they did need such assistance.
Overall, most respondents expressed satisfaction with the opportunities
available at the fishing family assistance centers, although the responses
may also indicate that a need exists for greater outreach to crew members.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Stakeholder surveys can begin to give fishery analysts and managers
a better sense of the knowledge, practices, and beliefs of fishing participants,
in order
to move toward better-informed management and policy planning. This paper has
presented results from the Social and Economic Survey that, while summarized
across all respondents, have illustrated both the degree of similarity
and diversity
within the overall groundfish fleet. For example, while the effects from regulatory
changes were consistently acknowledged by respondents, the particular
kinds
of effects, and their distribution, often varied: some respondents saw crew
members getting younger, others saw them getting older; some respondents
saw
trips getting longer, others saw them getting shorter. This diversity may hinge
on any number of considerations – from sociotechnological factors
such as gear and vessel size, to regional and port differences – which
this paper has only begun to explore. Indeed, while some survey results
corroborate accepted arguments in the social sciences of fishing, other
survey results seem to point to possible divergences. As one example,
active participation in informal management practices that exist outside
the federal and state regulatory framework is consistent with the literature
on community-based management; yet, the general rejection as workable
of attempts at local areas of control such as the Maine lobster zones
suggests some qualification of what “local” means for mobile
gear types. As another example, many social science studies of fishing
have focused on the role of kinship, family, and history in constituting
fishing practices and businesses; yet, here we see the average respondent
often being the first generation to fish, but one whose community – if
not immediate family – may be centrally involved in fishing activities.
While these observations invite further exploration and research, the
survey results themselves point in a number of directions. These survey
results project an image of a group of fishermen who feel disenfranchised
from the federal management process; yet, these results also show promise
for future management direction. For many respondents, visions of the
future seemed to center on notions of community and community relations
as alternative spaces for institutional foundations; that is to say,
communities were seen by many as the most appropriate level at which
to incorporate fishermen’s knowledge and to negotiate decisions.
Yet, such notions again raise questions about the relations among communities,
localities, and fishing grounds, and about the differing modes of, and
relations involved in, resource management (see also Pálsson 1991;
McCay 2000). In answering questions about capacity and the future, neither
owners nor crew saw any signs of excess capacity in the fleet as currently
constituted; yet, the most clearly stated goals for the future were a
strong position against unlimited entry and a strong agreement for securing
maximum benefits to the community. At the same time, while flows of resources
and personnel across a regional level bespoke a relative stability, other
answers indicated instability and anxiety at the port level, particularly
for smaller ones and those faced with forces other than fishing and fisheries
management, such as tourism and waterfront development. Here again, we
face the dissonance among definitions of fishing community, definitions
of community, and notions of dependence on fishing, where “community” may
encompass various meanings and varying degrees of exclusion and inclusion.
What communities can become and can do, for these very reasons, may serve
as a “key symbol” that coalesces the concerns and practices
of future fisheries management. It is hoped, therefore, that these summaries
of responses to selected questions not only assist in the refinement
of other such surveys in the future, but also inspire greater cooperative
research on, and attention to, the patterns of responses and the sociocultural
configurations underlying stakeholder beliefs and practices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
authors acknowledge the assistance and editorial advice provided by Drs.
Eric Thunberg, Phil Logan, and Fred Serchuk, and the informative and
articulate
responses provided by the fishermen who participated in the survey.
REFERENCES
CITED
Hall-Arber, M.; Dyer, C.; Poggie,
J.; McNally, J.; Gagne, R. 2001. New England’s fishing communities. MIT [Mass.
Inst. Technol.] Sea Grant Publ. MITSG01-15. Available from:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Jin, D.; Kite-Powell, H.; Thunberg, E.; Solow, A.; Talley, W.
In review. A model of fishing vessel accident probability. J.
Safety Res.
McCay, B. 2000. Sea changes in fisheries policy: contributions
from anthropology. In: Durrenberger, E.P.; King, T., eds.
State and community in fisheries management: power, policy, and
practice. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey; p. 201-217.
McGoodwin, J.R. 1990. Crisis in the world’s fisheries:
people, problems, and policies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Pálsson, G. 1991. Coastal economics, cultural accounts:
human ecology and Icelandic discourses. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
Smith, L.; Peterson, S. 1977. The New England fishing industry:
a basis for management. WHOI [Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst.] Tech.
Rep. 77-57. Available from: Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
Acronyms |
| DAS = |
days at sea |
| GRT = |
gross registered tons |
| NMFS = |
National Marine Fisheries Service |
| NOAA= |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| TAC = |
align="left">total allowable catch |
| VHP = |
vessel horsepower |
