59 



ture. Systemic solutions to the problem will not be found through the traditional 

 legislative, regulatory or legal channels employed by the environmental community 

 or Amendment 5 as it is currently drafted. There is no comprehensive transition 

 agenda currently represented in federal or state policies or the proposals of the envi- 

 ronmental community. 



One conservationist has suggested that the regional fishery management council 

 system represents a fifteen year experiment in bottom-up management which has 

 failed. In one sense he is correct: the existing council management system has 

 failed. However, a true bottom-up system requires that there are constituencies who 

 believe they are represented in the process. In fact, few commercial fishermen in 

 the northeast have ever believed that the Regional Fisheries Management Council 

 represented their interests, and this was true before the debate on Amendment 5 

 began. 



In reality, the present regional council management system is neither a bottom- 

 up nor a top-down management system. It was based on the premise of having a 

 strong regulatory and enforcement agency at the top which would set firm manage- 

 ment parameters and enforce regulations which are developed at the council level 

 in the oest interest of the resource. In fact, the system has not functioned effectively 

 at either the top or the bottom. 



Fishermen's denial has played a key role in exacerbating the problem. Many fish- 

 ermen refused to believe that the new regulations would actually be put in place, 

 and therefore they did not take steps to order new gear to comply with the changes 

 by the stated deadlines. By the time they did order it, suppliers told them that they 

 couldn't get the gear to them by the deadlines. As a result they raised a hue and 

 cry that they would not be able to comply with deadlines because the gear wasn't 

 available, which in turn led NOAA to extend the deadlines for certain actions. In- 

 stead of being salutary, these steps have only exacerbated the regulatory uncer- 

 tainty in the fishery, and angered tliose fishermen and boat owners who did take 

 steps to buy the necessary equipment to comply with the rules. 



Socio- Economic Issues 



The failure of the fishing industry will cause severe economic dislocation in coast- 

 al conmiunities from Pt. Judith, R.I. north to Eastport, Me, an area which has al- 

 ready been severely impacted by the recession and military base closings in the 

 northeast. The ports of New Bedford, Portland, and Gloucester likely will be the 

 hardest hit in the short term, because of Amendment 5's impact on the Georges 

 Bank groundfishery and Amendment 4 on the scallop fishery. Over the longer term, 

 however, if the large vessels from the powerful offshore fleets in Gloucester and 

 New Bedford are displaced and move south, which they are likely to do, other fish- 

 eries along the mid-Atlantic coast could sufTer as well. 



Commercial fishermen throughout the northeast have always operated on the 

 margins of society. However, over the last few decades they have become increas- 

 ingly marginalized and disenfranchised from the communities where they live and 

 from society at large (Hall Arber 1993, Creede 19930. That trend continues today. 

 Dockage and fueling facilities for commercial interests are being displaced by rec- 

 reational development and alternative commercial development pressures. In many 

 communities, commercial fishing cannot remain viable without concerted, positive 

 action at the community level. 



Fishermen throughout the northeast feel disenfranchised and isolated. Contrary 

 to f>erceptions in the environmental community, commercial fishermen in the north- 

 east have never felt that the industry controls the NEFMC, and they do not believe 

 that the existing management system represents their collective interests or the in- 

 terests of the fishery resource. 



There is presently no vision for the future of the northeastern fishery, particularly 

 relative to the capacity and composition of the fleet which is sustainable. Fun- 

 damental questions have not been addressed, such as: 



• What do we want the fishery to look like in one decade? 



• Is the history here worth saving? Can the character of New England's family- 

 dominated, owner-operator industry be retained? 



• What is the commercial fishing component that needs to be saved? What size 

 and composition is viable for the industry to be sustainable? 



• Can a limited entry system be devised to achieve those goals? 



The answers to these and other questions must be provided by the fishermen and 

 the affected communities. Outside interests and stakeholders must be involved as 

 well, and they can help to provide the resources necessary to help these commu- 

 nities develop the answers. But, they cannot impose a vision on the communities 

 if that vision is to prove to be sustainable. 



