It’s not quite as good as winning the Lotto, but grabbing hold of an ITQ is a pretty nifty alternative.

You get a percentage of the public’s fish, and turn those rascals into your own private property. Year after year.

Privatize the public’s fish. And get them free.

Couldn’t happen, you may say.

But that’s exactly what the Individual Transferable Quota system does to a growing number of fisheries as commercial forces work their influence in our tainted federal management system.

Watch for an ITQ to come soon to a fishery near you. Red grouper, for instance.

It’s astounding to see public property given away, without bidding and at no cost, permanently. Then, once an ITQ is in the “owner’s” wallet, he can sell or rent it and watch from the beach. Enjoy the windfall.

With other resources such as timber or oil the public receives compensation for such privileges and the takes are temporary, and certainly not transferable as if the person really owned them.

But welcome to fisheries management U.S. federal style.

ITQs are being touted with a specious claim that they cut down the amount of gear out there and eliminate the race to fish, because each permit holder has a percentage of a quota so there should be no competitive rush to box it.

Naysayers, however, report that it doesn’t really work that way and there are reports of widespread non-reported catches and competitive races continue as ever. Moreover, rich companies often carve out monopolies.

In short, the giveaway system is ludicrous and would seem to be illegal in the absence of competitive proposals or bidding. With ITQs, catch percentages are handed out according to individual historical records. Why, we ask, would a person’s previous catches automatically entitle him to such a gift from all of us?

The admitted strategy employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service is to ease the ITQ system in to more and more fisheries.

At first glance, the ITQ game may seem to be an intramural struggle among commercial forces.

Look again, gang.

What happens is that the ITQ machine locks in a percentage of the allowable catch for commercials whether or not that may be the best use of a fish stock.

Now theoretically, the total quota could be reduced. But if an ITQ permit had been purchased from another party that had yielded a certain amount of money, imagine the squealing that would ensue if the second buyer’s investment were to be up for reduction. “You’re taking my property,” would be the claim, however ill-founded.

And imagine, which is not hard to do, that non-commercial use is proven to be a far better and more fair allocation. At that point, an ITQ investor would scream to the heavens that recreationals are taking the commercial’s rightful share.

With red grouper, as a looming example, recreationals already are slapped with an unfair 19 percent. As more personal-use fishers come along, that could bring even smaller limits for families while commercials add more profits, or lie in hammocks counting their winnings.

What can we do about the ITQ scam?

I’m afraid that only direct and powerful protests to Congress can slow the ITQ train.

--Karl Wickstrom