Mid-Atlantic fishermen and their advocates told four members of Congress on Monday that inaccurate stock assessments needlessly limit their catch and endanger their livelihood as the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing in Riverhead.

Bonnie Brady of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association and Captain Joe McBride of the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association were among those providing testimony to Representative Lee Zeldin of New York’s First Congressional District and three members of the natural resources committee. Witnesses also included representatives of fishing and seafood trade associations and a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which manages fish species in federal waters.

At issue in the field hearing, called Restoring Atlantic Fisheries and Protecting the Regional Seafood Economy, were the science and data collection used in management of fish stocks.

Along party lines, the committee members either defended or disparaged NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Services’ stewardship and stock assessments, from which quotas are determined. They disagreed on assessments of striped bass and fluke, for which the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council have recommended 2016 harvest reductions of 25 and 29 percent respectively.

Ms. Brady asked the committee to direct the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to schedule a full benchmark assessment of the fluke stock in the first half of 2016, telling Mr. Zeldin and his colleagues that the recommended harvest reduction was based on outdated models and an inaccurate picture of the species’ health. She also asked that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act be amended to add a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation representative and another New York stakeholder to the New England Fishery Management Council.

She also asked the committee to ensure that the Senate introduce and pass a version of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which the House passed in June. The Obama administration opposes the bill; a statement issued in May said that it would undermine the use of science-based actions to end and prevent overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the statement said, already provides the flexibility needed to manage fisheries.

Mr. McBride told the committee that recreational fishermen should be allowed to catch striped bass in the Block Island Sound transit zone, an area of federal waters between swaths of state waters that he said posed a longstanding problem for anglers. Conservation of striped bass, stocks of which collapsed in the 1980s, has been effective, and the fishery is now “very viable,” he said. He also asked for continued support of a bill introduced by Mr. Zeldin that would clarify the landward boundaries of the exclusive economic zone area between Montauk, Block Island, and Point Judith, R. I.

Another witness, James Donofrio of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, complained about prohibitions on healthy stocks and “outright misinformation” from what he called the “environmental industry.” “Our industries are dying,” he said, “and it doesn’t have to be that way.” Ms. Brady agreed, as did Greg DiDomenico of the Garden State Seafood Association, who worried about use of the federal Antiquities Act to create marine reserves without input from fishermen or other stakeholders. Mr. DiDomenico also asked committee members to start an oversight process on both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Some committee members and witnesses disparaged the testimony of the NOAA representative, Paul Rago, insisting that the agency is not using best available science and its quotas are both exceedingly conservative and include additional “buffers” to compensate for incomplete science in its stock assessments. The committee’s chairman, Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, and Tom MacArthur, a Republican from New Jersey, repeatedly pressed Dr. Rago on the latter accusation. “You only look at factual findings, or make some assumptions to allow for incomplete science?” Mr. MacArthur asked.

“We are objective,” was the reply. “There are no explicit cushions that are built into the science for incomplete observations. We do look at scenarios related to alternative hypotheses about the environment.”

“That could include climate change?” Mr. MacArthur asked. Yes, was the reply.

The lone Democrat, Jared Huffman of California, defended NOAA and applauded its incorporation of climate science in fisheries assessments. “And I strongly disagree with those who have trivialized and criticized this plan, suggesting that it’s some kind of a radical climate-change strategy that is somehow at odds with best available science,” he said. “It is the best available science. Warming waters, ocean acidification, and species range shifts clearly show that you can’t have the best available fishery science without incorporating climate science.”

Mr. Huffman argued that “short-term sacrifices” by commercial and recreational fishermen have allowed stocks including bluefish, fluke, and black sea bass to rebuild, “with huge economic benefits.” The worst course of action, he said, would be “to abandon this science-based strategy before it’s had the chance to completely succeed.”

But Mr. MacArthur echoed the complaints of those who called stock assessments excessively conservative. “When you compound conservatism one layer on top of another on top of another . . . you can end up being so risk-averse that you do nothing,” he said. “I believe that’s what’s happening today in commercial and recreational fishing. We’re being overly conservative in the name of good science.”

An offhand quip from Mr. Bishop, who had previously stated that some of the witnesses’ testimony “will be wrong,” summarized his point of view. “I’ve found in my short life,” he said, “that science is not necessarily objective.” 

A complaint alleging that those engaged by East Hampton Village to sterilize deer were not licensed to practice veterinary medicine in New York State has been referred to the state attorney general’s office, it was learned this week.

Dell Cullum, a wildlife removal specialist and nature photographer who brought the complaint to the Office of Professional Discipline of the state Education Department, has received a letter dated Nov. 30 from a supervisor in that office saying “the investigation of your allegations is complete” and has been forwarded to the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau of the attorney general’s office. “The assigned prosecutor will contact you as necessary and you will be informed of the outcome of the case.” 

The program, now in its second year, is intended to reduce the deer population through a five-year effort. Village officials and the president of White Buffalo, the nonprofit firm hired to conduct the sterilizations, insist that it complies with state regulations. The firm, which is based in Connecticut, had reported that it sterilized 114 deer last winter. It returned to the village in the fall to resume the program for a short time.

In his complaint, made in July, Mr. Cullum, an outspoken opponent of the program, described unpleasant deaths months after ovariectomies were performed on some of the does in a village-owned shed that he and others say was unsanitary.

Only persons holding state licenses can practice veterinary medicine in the state, and sterilization falls within the scope of veterinary medicine, according to Jeanne Beattie of the Education Department. There are two possible exemptions for out-of-state licensed veterinarians, however, one of which, said Anthony DeNicola, White Buffalo’s president, means its practices comply with the law.

According to the law, a veterinarian licensed in another state “who is meeting a veterinarian licensed in this state for purposes of consultation” may practice here, provided such practice is limited to consultation and “training and sharing of expertise.”

“Trying to work with experts in the field who have large-animal expertise to refine this method under field circumstances — that’s the whole premise behind this. That’s why we’re doing research,” Dr. DeNicola said yesterday. Sterilization of white-tail deer, he said, he said, is rare. “We’re the first to try to scale this, to bring the best minds on how to do this safely and effectively.”

Mr. DeNicola acknowledged having received an inquiry from the Office of Professional Discipline, but said those who have performed the sterilizations did so under the supervision of a state-licensed veterinarian, Dr. Steven Timm, who is based in Wisconsin.

“We’re not trying to do things illegally,” Dr. DeNicola said. “We’re following very rigid protocols. We have people that come in that are licensed, and folks coming in to get trained so folks in the future can be involved in these programs.” On two occasions, he said, state officials observed White Buffalo’s work in East Hampton. He also disagreed with Mr. Cullum’s and other opponents’ characterization of the shed in which the surgeries were performed, calling it clean and safe.

The village paid White Buffalo $140,000 for last winter’s effort and appropriated $50,000 in its 2015-16 budget for its continuation. Becky Molinaro, the village administrator, said yesterday that “it is our understanding that, per conversations that White Buffalo staff has had” with state officials, “that White Buffalo has been in compliance at all times.”

Mr. Cullum remains skeptical. “I would hope that if they suspect or have found criminal activity,” he said, referring to the Office of Professional Discipline, “they’re going to want to get on this immediately. I’m anxious to see how it trickles down. So many people aided and abetted, and even more stood by and watched it happen. That’s kind of sad, and kind of bad.”

The East Hampton Town Board established a rental registry by unanimous vote at a work session on Tuesday morning.

The new law will require property owners to file with the town Building Department before advertising or entering into leases. Landlords who do so without registering, and tenants who occupy unregistered premises, will be subject to prosecution. Registration requires a $100 fee for a registry number, which will be good for two years.

The proposal had been vigorously debated for some time and was the subject of several town board sessions, as well as a hearing attended by 300 residents last month. It had engendered a vocal and organized contingent of opponents, a number of whom were on hand at Town Hall Tuesday

The information to be filed includes the number of legal bedrooms and number of legal occupants in a house, according to state law, but not the names of tenants. The law also requires information about rental periods that is to be updated when changes occur. A fee for filing updates, which had been proposed, has been dropped.

Property owners also would have to certify, by notarized statement, that their properties meet state maintenance codes regarding 22 items, such as smoke detectors, pool fencing, and stairway handrails.

Opponents, including several who urged the board on Tuesday morning not to move ahead with the registry, have said it would cause economic harm, that its imposition is overkill when only a small number of rental properties run afoul of existing laws, and that it would not solve overcrowding, share housing, or illegal short-term rentals.

Town Councilman Fred Overton, the sole Republican on the town board, who sponsored the resolution establishing the registry, said before the vote that though the hearing was "an outcry of opposition to some degree," he had met with constituents of varying opinions and was "comfortable offering this resolution." He said he was not convinced that the registry is unconstitutional, as had been alleged. And, he said, "I'm not convinced that it's going to create the problems that some people say it is.

Town officials and ordinance enforcement personnel have insisted that having property information on file will enable more efficient prosecution of housing law violations.

"I'm comfortable with the idea that this will help enforcement by addressing a number of important issues," Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said at the session. "It's not a silver bullet, but I do believe it can be an additional, effective tool," Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said.

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby agreed with those who  have said that criticism of the law was based on a lot of "misinformation;" Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez offered to meet with those who continue to question it.

The existing town prohibition against more than two short-term rentals of two weeks or less within a six-month period is unaffected by the new law. However, many speakers have suggested revising that restriction due to changes in the vacation market, with many now seeking short-term versus seasonal rentals. Those comments, Mr. Cantwell said, "have made me even more concerned that there's a great deal of high turnover weekly rentals going on in this town."

"We have to ask the larger question," Mr. Cantwell said. "Do we want to commercialize these residential areas. . .in order to foster growth and economic opportunity? What kind of community do we want to be?"

Seasonal rentals have long been a source of income for town residents, he acknowledged, "but I think there has to be some limit to the commercialization of our residential neighborhoods."

The East Hampton Town Board moved closer this week to creating a registry for rental properties. During a meeting in Town Hall on Tuesday, the board reviewed some of the proposal’s specifics and spoke with representatives of several town departments about how the law would be implemented.

The discussion came after some 300 people, many of whom were opposed to the law, jammed a public hearing on the rental registry on Nov. 19. Supervisor Larry Cantwell said yesterday that with minor revisions the measure was expected to be ready for a board vote before the end of the year. Based on the tone of Tuesday’s conversation, its passage appeared likely, Mr. Cantwell said.

Of particular concern among town board members, however, was the matter of fees. Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said registering should be free or require a very low fee. Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said he thought the cost should be minimal and only reflect the cost of maintaining the registry, with no additional fee for changes. They agreed that the fees should be specifically outlined in the law, which was not the case in the original proposal and which would require a new public hearing.

During the public comment period Tuesday, Eric Kaufman, who runs Hamptons Vacations, which manages roughly 10 rental properties on the South Fork, told the board that although under the proposal all leases were treated the same way, by-the-week vacation rentals were more beneficial to the local economy than others and caused fewer negatives, such as noise, water-quality, and school district costs, than other kinds of occupancy.

Tom Steele reminded the board that an online petition opposing the rental registry had collected more than 1,300 names in four weeks. He also said the plan raised constitutional issues, particularly with regard to searches and privacy rights. He urged the board to abandon the registry and instead rely on existing laws.

Public opinion at meetings on the subject had been overwhelmingly opposed to the registry, he said, and added that the town had not provided any statistics to support the plan.

Once put in place, the registry would be maintained by the town’s Building Department. Landlords would be required to list each property’s number of rooms, square footage, and potential number of occupants. The town would provide landlords with a registry number, and renting without a number would be prohibited. It would also require that registry numbers be included in any advertising.

Landlords would be required to list the length of each rental and to update the town’s records if there were any changes. They would also be required to fill out and have notarized an inspection checklist listing such things as smoke detectors and pool-access alarms.

The law includes provisions intended to make code enforcement more efficient, Michael Sendlenski, a town attorney, told the board on Tuesday. It sets penalties that start at $150 for a first offense and up to $30,000 and/or six months in jail for repeated ones.

It also gives discretion to town prosecutors to ask the court to dismiss or reduce charges. Conditions for leniency would include whether a landlord reported the violation to the town, assisted in an investigation, was cooperative, or sought to have a problem tenant evicted prior to the town’s becoming involved.

“The registry would provide code enforcement with more information about who the culpable party is. Nothing within this adds to culpability of a homeowner,” Mr. Sendlenski said.

Mr. Cantwell spoke about a concern voiced by some residents about the registry checklist. He wondered about those homeowners who did not have complete Building Department paperwork, such as certificates of occupancy. “People in the business say the perception is that there are many properties without C.O.s or with open building permits,” he said. “Why are we even asking the question?”

Ann Glennon, the town’s chief building inspector, responded that a homeowner without an accurate certificate of occupancy would still receive a registry number. Asked to estimate that number, she said, “We still have them out there, but I don’t think that there are as many of them. I don’t think that it is as bad as it used to be.”

Councilman Fred Overton said that 7 of 10 towns in Suffolk had some sort of registry or rental permit requirement, but also asked Mr. Sendlenski about the constitutional objections.

“It’s much less onerous and doesn’t even come close to the constitutional issues that have been raised and upheld,” Mr. Sendlenski said. “I’m very comfortable with the constitutionality.”

The board also spoke with Bob Pease of the town’s information technology office about how registry forms would be made available online. Mr. Pease said he believed that an online process would be functional by early April.

With reporting by Christopher Walsh

The Town of East Hampton is a step closer to a condemnation bid on two disputed slivers of ocean beach on Napeague, having received the necessary survey.

Condemnation of the stretches of oceanfront known as Truck Beach, as well as a smaller area to the east, would represent a town attempt to end lawsuits brought by several homeowners associations and individuals seeking to block access by four-wheel-drive vehicles.

While driving on the beach is a longstanding practice in East Hampton Town, with roots in colonial-era fishing and whaling, the number of people with four-wheel-drive vehicles has exploded in recent decades. (East Hampton residents can obtain a free permit to drive on most beaches; nonresidents pay a fee.)

The lawsuits are a response to the popularity of Truck Beach, where on summer weekends, Sundays in particular, in excess of 100 vehicles line up side-by-side while their occupants swim and socialize

Following up on an agreement with the town board to share costs leading up to condemnation, the East Hampton Town Trustees delivered a check on Thursday for half the bill for the property survey.

Diane McNally, the trustees' clerk, appeared at a Thursday evening town board meeting bearing a check for $17,362.50, the trustees' share of the $34,735 fee.

"This is not a lot of money in consideration of what has been spent and will be spent in the future, but in actuality that beach is priceless to this community, so we are going forward," Ms. McNally said.

Thursday's meeting was crowded with residents who urged the town board to continue to push back against the suit. Several beachfront property owners attended as well. One, Caroline McCaffrey, a 20-year resident of the area, said that fast-moving trucks both on the beach and the narrow roads used to access it were a safety concern for her and for neighborhood children.

"The debate about condemnation has only added fuel to the fire. I am afraid that someone will have to die before this is resolved," she said.

"I'm really frustrated that there are not more people standing up for this right that we have that I have been enjoying for more than 40 years," Brian Pardini, a commercial fisherman, said. His family and others depend on income that, in part, comes from using the Napeague beach for commercial fishing.

Some of the beachfront property owners have said that condemnation is likely to be expensive. One speaker, Cindi Crain, of Safe Access for Everyone, a new group, said that there were free alternatives to the town's taking over the disputed strip of sand that should be explored.

"Truck Beach is owned by 140 individual property owners, each of whom will claim damages under eminent domain," Ms. Crain said. The cost to town taxpayers, she said, could be $14 million or as much as $70 million.

Brian Buckhout, speaking in turn, a member of Citizens for Access Rights, disagreed with predictions that the condemnation price tag would be high. "My personal opinion is that the land is worthless, as it is underwater at least six months of the year. It's not buildable; it's a bucket of sand," he said.

LTV is looking for stories of holidays past and present for a project to be taped for broadcast. Community members with fond memories, crazy tales, or personal reflections have been invited to stop by its Wainscott studio Thursday and Friday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to be recorded.

“Perhaps a great New Year’s Eve or the best present you ever received or gave, or skating on Town Pond, or what the holidays and winter were like 20, 30, or 50 years ago — really anything that touched you or your family, and that we can add to our collective memory,” is what is wanted, Morgan Vaughan, the public access channel’s director, said in a release.

A broader storytelling project is in the planning stages for next year, Ms. Vaughan said. Walk-ins will be welcomed all day. Questions can be directed to [email protected] or 537-2777.

The space at 171 Main Street in Amagansett that for many years housed LaCarrubba’s clothing store and was most recently occupied by Flowers by Beth is being divided. 

Ille Arts, currently at 216A Main Street, will move into the westerly half of the two spaces on Jan. 1 and open in March. Joe and Sal LaCarrubba, the building’s owners, are in the process of selecting a tenant, from among several applicants, for the other half. 

“We’ve had quite a few inquiries in the past couple days,” Joe LaCarrubba said on Monday. “We’re still working on it,” he said of the interior modifications, “and will probably be done by the end of the month. We’ve already rented one side, but we’re quite fussy about who goes in there.” 

The LaCarrubbas’ decision to divide the retail space was serendipitous, said Sara De Luca, the director of Ille Arts. “I had been looking for a larger space,” possibly at Amagansett Square, she said on Monday. She learned that the LaCarrubbas’ building was to be divided and contacted them, “and we shook hands right away.”

The gallery’s new space will be nearly 1,300 square feet, with “incredible storage” in the basement, Ms. De Luca said. She described it as “a much better, more visible location, overlooking the square.” The move “made perfect sense and happened at the right time. I’m very excited about moving there.”

Santa Claus is due to arrive soon, and children and adults alike who hope to find drones under the tree will have no restrictions on flying them in the Village of Sag Harbor, at least until after the new year.

The village board held a hearing Tuesday night, but took no action, on proposed legislation that would ban recreational drones from flying over private or public property to take aerial photographs, video, or surveillance, unless their operators have permission from a property owner or the village. The proposed law is similar to an aggressive approach to drones enacted in the Town of Huntington earlier this year, but Sag Harbor is the first on the East End to tackle the issue of unmanned aircraft.

Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who is also the village attorney, explained that while the commercial use of drones is regulated by the federal government, recreational use is not, as yet anyway. The proposal laid out some “common-sense safety provisions” taken from Federal Aviation Administration recommendations, he said. For instance, it would prohibit flying a drone for recreational use higher than 400 feet and would require that pilots maintain visual contact with the aircraft.

“Privacy and safety is why we started this,” Mayor Sandra Schroeder said as she opened the hearing. The proposal was introduced a month after a radio-controlled airborne device crashed on Main Street. It had been flown for commercial purposes, however.

Kurt Leggard, a North Haven resident and professional photographer who owns a drone, had some questions about the legislation. While he acknowledged privacy issues, he said there should still be the opportunity to fly. “National air space is not controlled by any municipality,” he told the board. Though he flies a drone for commercial purposes, he also uses it recreationally. Soon, he predicted, “everybody’s kid and their mother” will own one.

“In about three weeks, I’d say,” Mr. Thiele remarked with a laugh. “Drones are probably going to be a big Christmas present this year.”

Mr. Leggard, who has applied for a waiver under the F.A.A. Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that will allow him to fly unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes in the national airspace, offered his expertise to the board in crafting regulations on unmanned aircraft. Mr. Thiele took him up on his offer, and recommended taking no action so the community could be heard from further. Mayor Schroeder agreed, saying she had received many questions, and the hearing was tabled for another month.

Mr. Thiele warned the board that the federal government, which has created a task force on the subject, was likely to take a stand on the recreational use of drones within the year. “The F.A.A. could pre-empt this law in a heartbeat,” he said.

Yesterday, he questioned by phone whether the village should introduce a new law and then have the F.A.A. announce regulations soon after. “The $64,000 question here is what is the federal government going to do,” he said.

In a fast turnaround, the two major parties have selected candidates for the upcoming special election in the Town of Southampton to fill the vacancy left by Brad Bender, who resigned late last month after pleading guilty to a drug-related charge.

The Southampton Town Democratic Committee nominated Julie R. Lofstad on Sunday, and the Southampton Town Republican Committee chose Richard W. Yastrzemski for the position during a meeting on Tuesday night. The election will be held on Jan. 26, a date selected on Nov. 30. By state law, Southampton Town had to hold a special election 60 to 90 days from Mr. Bender’s resignation. Nominating petitions were due at the Suffolk County Board of Elections today.

They are names voters should be familiar with, as they ran in November’s regular election — Ms. Lofstad for town board and Mr. Yastrzemski for supervisor.

Mr. Yastrzemski is a longtime Southampton Village Board member and the deputy mayor there. He received 44 percent of the vote on the Republican and Conservative lines in November in losing to supervisor-elect Jay Schneiderman.

“The Southampton Town Republican Committee is excited to hit the ground running,” Bill Wright, the party’s chairman, said of Mr. Yastrzemski. “His credentials as Southampton Deputy Mayor make him the most qualified candidate for town board.”

Ms. Lofstad finished third in a race for two seats, behind Christine Scalera, the Republican incumbent, and John V. Bouvier, a Democratic candidate. Mr. Bouvier will take office in January to replace Bridget Fleming, a Democrat who successfully ran to take over for Mr. Schneiderman in the Suffolk County Legislature.

“This is a chance to complete the leadership team,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement. “Julie would be an excellent town board member. She is dedicated to improving our quality of life and preventing overdevelopment. I need Julie in order to move Southampton forward.”

A Hampton Bays resident, Ms. Lofstad and her husband run a commercial fishing business. She founded the Hampton Bays Mothers Association.

Mr. Bender had two years left on his four-year term.

Like many people around the holidays, Austin Handler and his family want to get into the true spirit of the season. Finding the best way to give that would not only feel good but also make a real impact became the burning question.

Then a heartbreaking revelation during a chat with a friend who could not afford to buy winter boots for her children this year struck a chord with Mr. Handler. “That’s what really crystallized it. I may not be able to solve world problems, but there’s probably a bunch of little things like that we could do relatively easily,” he said.

Project Santa Claustin was born. (Think Santa Claus plus Austin, a nickname Mr. Handler’s family has given him.) It is a community service initiative focused on completing small good deeds; anyone can participate or suggest a need to be filled. Mr. Handler, a Water Mill resident and designer, said it does not matter if the request is big or small, as long as it helps people and makes a difference in their lives. Ideas range from raking leaves for an elderly person, sponsoring a family at the Retreat, a domestic violence shelter, or making a purchase that will ease a burden for someone who would otherwise go without.

“I’ve been thinking of a way to get our kids involved in some kind of community service project, something that was really hands-on . . . instead of just financially supporting something,” Mr. Handler said. The major world headlines, such as the Syrian refugee crisis or the earthquake in Nepal, are so complex, and while his children took part in some projects through school for worldwide causes, “It’s very disconnected from our lives. It’s hard to wrap your heads around,” he said. “I was trying to think of something more hands-on, community-based.”

Santa Claustin launched with a Facebook page on Dec. 1 with the goal of having the community complete 25 good deeds in the 25 days leading up to Christmas. The first project was suggested by a former resident who relocated to South Carolina and has an elderly disabled neighbor who has no cable, just a television, a DVD player, and three DVDs that he watches over and over. Mr. Handler said he heard from a dozen people, community members here and friends around the country, who dropped off and sent DVDs. Around 100 were shipped off to South Carolina yesterday.

One thing the Santa Claustin project will not be doing is raising money for people, as there are other ways to do that. The project is about “simple, accessible” ways to make “a big difference.”

“The guy on disability, there’s no news headlines about him,” Mr. Handler said. “It’s a very simple concept of taking something that we have lying around that’s not doing anything for us and sending it to someone that could make a nice change in their life.”

Those who wish to participate can follow Santa Claustin on Facebook, or email [email protected]. While the project is off to a slow start this year, Mr. Handler hopes it’s something he and his family can continue next holiday season, or as the need arises throughout the year.