At this point, thanks to a successful PR campaign by anti-fishing interests, anyone with a superficial knowledge of the New England groundfish fishery who lacks either the resources or the curiosity to find out what’s really going on has been convinced that stringent cutbacks inflicted on commercial and recreational fishermen today will lead to an overabundance of fish tomorrow.

New England fishermen and fisheries managers rightly see the survival of the many New England fishing businesses as being as important as the survival of the fish. The standard litany of the groups and individuals – the so-called “conservationists” - aligned against them is that cutbacks in fishing effort today will yield tremendous returns to those same businesses, communities, fishermen and their families tomorrow. In the often repeated words of Pew Charitable Trusts funded Oceana’s lawyer Eric Bilsky, “The short-term squeeze is worth getting three times more catch in the long term,” (Every day you’re open and there’s no fish, you’re hemorrhaging cash, Portsmouth Herald, 05/07/02). Of course, Mr. Bilsky’s and the rest of the anti-fishing claque’s position ignores the impact that the irrevocable damage to hundreds of New England businesses, dozens of New England communities, thousands of New Englanders, and a centuries-old way of life will have on the possible rebuilding of the New England fishing industry, but will it eventually return two or three times more fish to the fishermen that remain?

---

Amendment 13 cumulative landings 2004-2026

A graph of cumulative groundfish landings (in pounds) from 2003 to 2026 for the “No Action” and other management alternatives

---

 Their brand of fisheries management (or more accurately, of media manipulation) might sell in the Mary Poppins inspired world of foundation—funded NGOs where tens of millions of oil-generated dollars may be had, it appears, simply for the asking2 . In the real world that the rest of us inhabit, confronted by realities like rampant coastal development, the onslaught of imported seafood products and the necessity of actually having to work productively for a paycheck, Mr. Bilsky’s “spoonful of sugar” is more likely to choke the patient than to help him swallow the medicine. As can be made crystal clear by a quick examination of readily available government data, that “medicine” is more akin to a placebo than to anything that will improve the fisheries more significantly than less stringent measures. And, if adopted, those less stringent measures would allow much of the fabric of New England’s fishing communities to remain intact.

Thanks to a series of amendments to the fishery management plan that controls recreational and commercial fishing of New England’s groundfish (actually the Northeast Multispecies [Groundfish] Fishery Management Plan) most of those stocks are and have been on their way to recovery for several years.1 Unfortunately, this recovery wasn’t rapid enough nor apparently the damage to New England’s fishing communities severe enough for the “conservation” community. So some of its members filed suit in federal court to help things along. Oceana, a new group self-described as “a nonprofit international advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans” and established with at least $13 million from the “charitable” trusts established by the family of the founder of Sun Oil,3 joined in.

---

Annual groundfish landings (in pounds) for “No Action” and other Amendment 13 Alternatives 

---

No Action F-Rebuild Phased F Adaptive 2003      127,804,289       136,122,934      136,016,419        136,107,358 2004      171,357,040       120,783,934      143,581,433        139,108,546 2005      194,340,342       133,286,969      149,266,262        156,083,764 2006      212,107,481       147,960,545      157,666,202        175,898,965 2007      225,025,685       162,081,824      167,207,764        193,457,853 2008      237,947,702       175,725,247      175,911,042        209,612,463 2009      242,300,813       188,742,778      194,337,866        205,554,960 2010      249,212,086       264,344,897      259,349,802        219,187,800 2011      247,846,760       261,562,918      260,401,626        231,487,370 2012      258,184,021       269,992,449      262,465,170        243,009,582 2013      262,057,974       273,992,704      267,879,269        253,552,639 2014      265,465,591       279,174,949      275,964,679        263,118,177 2015      268,850,613       294,926,671      286,244,837        301,954,127 2016      272,056,805       297,310,203      288,700,132        302,574,913 2017      274,974,226       300,109,840      288,368,560        303,878,564 2018      277,409,640       302,725,153      291,908,857        305,696,991 2019      280,043,836       305,663,323      295,498,105        307,932,161 2020      281,677,263       308,349,134      294,143,640        310,146,927 2021      283,731,290       310,989,626      293,186,731        312,482,020 2022      285,073,016       313,182,799      297,000,077        314,647,981 2023      286,248,624       315,356,458      300,552,886        316,739,394 2024      287,450,500       319,393,177      306,227,377        318,575,116 2025      288,361,400       320,743,054      308,998,417        320,237,697 2026      289,315,950       321,848,493      311,309,289        321,652,892 Total   6,068,842,947    6,124,370,079   6,012,186,442     6,162,698,260 Difference      + 55,527,132      -56,656,505         +93,855,314

---

Note that in the 3 alternative measures being projected total landings will not exceed those of the “no action” alternative until 2010 at the earliest. Also note that there is at best less than a 2% difference in the cumulative landings between the “no action” alternative and the others.

---

 In April of 2002 U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that an amendment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan had to be promulgated by August 22, 2003 that “complies with the overfishing, rebuilding and bycatch provisions of the SFA (Sustainable Fishing Act).”

The various alternative amendments to the FMP now under consideration are a result of Judge Kessler’s decision.

In the materials prepared by the staff of the New England Fishery Management Council in support of Amendment 13 we find:

The difference in present value between the No Action Alternative and rebuilding (any strategy) is less than $300 million over 23 years. Mean total landings for the regulated groundfish species, projected to be about 127 million lbs in 2003, were projected to be 289 million lb. in 2026 (when all stocks are rebuilt) for the “No Action” alternative as compared to 327 and 310 million lb. for the constant mortality and phased reduction rebuilding strategies, respectively. Nominal revenues under no action are expect to increase to $344 million in 2026, but will increase to $355 million under the phased reduction strategy and $375 million under the constant mortality or adaptive strategies. Net benefits would increase to $280 million under no action, but would increase to between $310 and $327 million under any rebuilding strategy 3. (Note that the “No Action Alternative” is actually the continuation of the stringent management measures that have been in place and working in the groundfish fishery for several years.)

Each of the alternative groundfish management regimes will result in a “return” of less than $300 million over 23 years above and beyond what would be realized by just maintaining the management program that is now in place. That’s an average benefit of only $13 million a year for each of the next 23 years.

---

Projected percentage change in groundfish landings relative to the “No Action” alternative

Year	F-Rebuild	Phased F	Adaptive
2004	-30%	-16%	-19%
2005	-31%	-23%	-20%
2006	-30%	-26%	-17%
2007	-28%	-26%	-14%
2008	-26%	-26%	-12%
2009	-22%	-20%	-15%
2010	6%	4%	-12%
2011	6%	5%	-11%
2012	5%	2%	-6%
2013	5%	2%	-3%
2014	5%	4%	-1%
2015	10%	6%	12%
2016	9%	6%	11%
2017	9%	5%	11%
2018	9%	5%	10%
2019	9%	6%	10%
2020	9%	4%	10%
2021	10%	3%	10%
2022	10%	4%	10%
2023	10%	5%	11%
2024	11%	7%	11%
2025	11%	7%	11%
2026	11%	8%	11%

In the three alternatives the cutbacks in the first 6 to 11 years will force landings lower than they would be with the “no action” alternative. By year 2026 one alternative would yield a decrease of 1% in cumulative landings, the others increases of 1 or 2 percent.

Of the three alternative strategies, two are expected to “yield positive economic benefits” by 2018 and one by 2021.

Total groundfish landings by 2026 will be a maximum of 13% - certainly not the 300% projected by Mr. Bilsky - greater with the most stringent management measures being forced by Judge Kessler’s decision than they would be with the continuation of the existing management program (the alternative somewhat misleadingly labeled “No Action” in the proposed amendment and supporting materials). The rigorous requirements of the management program that is now in place have already demonstrated they will rebuild the groundfish stocks while allowing New England’s fishing communities to remain at least somewhat intact and fishing and support businesses - at least some of them - to remain economically viable. They just won’t rebuild them as rapidly as Mr. Bilsky et al have decided they should be rebuilt4.

And what do the New England economy, New England’s fishing businesses and New England’s fishing communities pay for this accelerated increase? The various alternative regimes would cost fishing and related/dependent businesses in the New England states from $94 million to $217 million in lost sales, $38 million to $88 million in lost personal income and from 1300 to 3000 lost jobs.5

Obviously, the cutbacks proposed in any of the alternatives would force additional numbers of waterfront businesses into bankruptcy. These businesses, including those providing vessel and crew support and fish processing, handling and marketing services, are all necessary to viable commercial fishing communities. The idea that those businesses will reappear after eight or ten or more years, when stocks have “rebuilt” to adequate levels, represents wishful thinking (or purposeful misdirection) of the most egregious sort. Considering waterfront development pressures in virtually every coastal community from New Jersey to Maine, what was a packing house or a chandlery today will be another tee shirt shop or condominium development next week. And that’s a development trend that’s only going in one direction.

(It’s important to note here what appears to be a significant fault in the ecomomic analyses of the proposed alternatives. In each the assumption is made that the “complexion” of the groundfish industry will remain the same; that is, a fleet of vessels of various sizes will continue to supply primarily fresh products to a large number of New England ports and commanding a fairly high price per pound. When, however, the cutbacks force many vessels out of business, there is going to be a significant level of consolidation, both in catching and in on-shore activities. This could lead to a fleet composed of a much smaller number of larger vessels, some or all of which would be doing on-board processing and freezing. Were that the case, theoverall  revenues generated per pound of fish landed could be reduced significantly below that for equivalent production levels supplying the fresh market. It doesn’t appear as if this scenario was considered in the economic impact analyses.)

And all this for some predicted economic benefits that won’t begin to accrue until 2018 or 2021 and will have a probably negligible -and statistically insignificant - impact on annual and cumulative landings once the “break even” point is reached.

Given a careful examination of the statistics underlying the alternative management measures offered in Amendment 13, it’s impossible to see  how such minor potential benefits so far in the future can offset what everyone agrees will be immediate and significant pain spread throughout New England’s coastal communities and beyond. Yet the anti-fishing groups, still standing behind claims of immense future benefits, continue, and continue to expand, their well-financed campaign to punish  the commercial fishing industry. The data provided in support of Amendment 13 shows that they’re not going to be helping the fish and they’re definitely not going to be helping the fishermen. That being the case, the questions need to be asked: who are they doing it for and why are they doing it?

 To go to a printable file of this FishNet (Adobe Acrobat format)

Back to FishNet USA Directory Page 

---

Supported by the Fishermen’s Dock Co-op, Lund’s Fisheries, Atlantic Capes Fisheries, Viking Village Dock, Export, Inc., Agger Trading Corp. the Belford Seafood Co-op Hi-Liner Fishing Gear, Marine Conservation Alliance and Trawlworks