Correcting the Record: Recouping Commercial Fluke Quota
Lost to New York Due to Mis-reporting
Last year there was a clerical error wherein fluke were put on New York?s reporting landings when they should have been placed on New Jersey's. Councilor John (Sandy) Mason brought this to the Council?s attention and wanted to know what could be done to rectify the record and possibly recoup this lost quota (circa 15,000 lbs.) to New York's 2008 commercial fluke quota. Mr. Vic Vecchio, formerly of DEC and now a NMFS port agent officed on Long Island, thought that maybe the confusion came about because fishermen have landing permits for other states ? perhaps they land in New Jersey but ship the fish to Fulton and the credit for the fish is erroneously given to New York. This is one possible scenario. Electronic reporting started in 2004; we are still in the early stages of electronic reporting and problems are inevitable. He suggested that, although there have been mistakes made, New York will NOT get its 2008 commercial fluke allotment to make good on this previous mis-reporting. Councilor House thought that an audit of the assignation of landings data by the US Department of Commerce inspector general is called for and, where mistakes are found, it is only fair to request compensation. Caution was expressed, however, that an audit might reveal instances where fish landed in New York were mistakenly credited to another state; i.e., an audit can be very much a double-edged sword.
Lost to New York Due to Mis-reporting
Last year there was a clerical error wherein fluke were put on New York?s reporting landings when they should have been placed on New Jersey's. Councilor John (Sandy) Mason brought this to the Council?s attention and wanted to know what could be done to rectify the record and possibly recoup this lost quota (circa 15,000 lbs.) to New York's 2008 commercial fluke quota. Mr. Vic Vecchio, formerly of DEC and now a NMFS port agent officed on Long Island, thought that maybe the confusion came about because fishermen have landing permits for other states ? perhaps they land in New Jersey but ship the fish to Fulton and the credit for the fish is erroneously given to New York. This is one possible scenario. Electronic reporting started in 2004; we are still in the early stages of electronic reporting and problems are inevitable. He suggested that, although there have been mistakes made, New York will NOT get its 2008 commercial fluke allotment to make good on this previous mis-reporting. Councilor House thought that an audit of the assignation of landings data by the US Department of Commerce inspector general is called for and, where mistakes are found, it is only fair to request compensation. Caution was expressed, however, that an audit might reveal instances where fish landed in New York were mistakenly credited to another state; i.e., an audit can be very much a double-edged sword.
