63 



incubators, harvester's or processor's fees, creation or expansion of loan funds or 

 venture capital funds, alternatives to commercial fishing that are fishing related, 

 e.g. whale watching, data collection, aauaculture, fish waste processing, etc. Some 

 of^these proposals represent new ideas, out many have been around for years. Many 

 of these concepts have merit, but all should be evaluated within a regional as well 

 as a local context. What may be good for Gloucester, may not be good for New Bed- 

 ford, or may be counterproductive to the health of the fishery overall. In the rush 

 to develop real solutions to the communities' problems, economic diversification and 

 transition strategies should still be subject to rigorous feasibility analyses. 



Developing markets for under-utilized species is fraught with a number of prob- 

 lems, specifically the difficulty of developing markets for several species, reducing 

 stocks of species which may nave filled in feed niches for large predatory pelagic 

 species which themselves are in trouble, conflicts with existing fisheries, and the po- 

 tential for replicating the patterns of rapid overexploitation which have character- 

 ized existing fishing efforts. A case in point is the urchin industry in Maine and 

 Massachusetts. In only 3 years a flood of fishermen into that fishery has caused 

 stocks to plummet and forced emergency closure of the fishery. Significant resources 

 should not be applied to the development of fisheries and markets for under-utilized 

 species unless strong enforceable management plans are first put in place, which 

 take into account the health of existing fisheries and the long term sustainabUity 

 of the resource. 



Science and Research 



In spite of years of research on the status of stocks of principal groundfish species, 

 large fundamental gaps in knowledge remain in understanding the factors which af- 

 fect the health of the fishery. Broad scale ecological research is needed on such top- 

 ics as: implications of shifts in temperature in the currents in the Gulf of Maine 

 and Georges Bank on spawning success, research on the long term cumulative ef- 

 fects of otter trawling on the marine bottom, research on sf>ecific effects of changes 

 in gear types, dragging times, and other fishing techniques on landings and mortal- 

 ity. As presently constituted, existing government fishery research programs will 

 not provide the answers to these key issues. The process for establishing govern- 

 ment research priorities needs to be opened to external peer review, and additional 

 funds need to be developed to support non-governmental science. 



The quality and reliability of fisheries research has been subject to intense criti- 

 cism from commercial fishermen, non-governmental academics, and the environ- 

 mental community alike. The fishing community has alleged at various times that 

 the current research practices are focused on the wrong resource issues and fail to 

 take into account natural cycles in fisheries populations and movement of fish 

 stocks among fishing grounds. This concern is exacerbated by the failure of the re- 

 search community to process data in a timely way and make results available to 

 the industry in a manner that is readily understandable. Non-governmental sci- 

 entists believe that the current government-sponsored research is insi^lar and fails 

 to receive sufficient external peer review, and thus is resistant to new ideas and ap- 

 proaches such as shifting to broader ecosystem analysis. Many environmentalists 

 believe the NMFS scientists have captured by the fishing industry and have been 

 intimidated about releasing data which runs counter to the industries interests. The 

 current fisheries research system needs to opened to outside peer review. 



In spite of critiques of the quality of fishery research, researchers and managers 

 have known for years that the fish stocks were being over-fished. The regional fish- 

 eries management council system has utterly failed to anticipate and respond to the 

 problems facing tlie New England ground fishery and related fisheries. The FMC 

 system repeatedly missed opportunities to take actions at critical junctures which 

 could have stemmed the decline of the fishery. The system does not serve the inter- 

 ests of the fishery resource, the commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, or 

 the general public.That system needs a drastic overhaul in the Magnuson Act reau- 

 thorization which will occur this year in Congress. New approaches to managing the 

 fishery, including particularly a review of options for limited entry and bottoms-up 

 management, need to be explored and if successful implemented. 



Data on the size and scope of the fishing industry and the iobs associated with 

 it is sketchy and anecdotal. Data on certain segments of the industry is maintained 

 by NMFS on a regional level, but much of that data, such as the catches of individ- 

 ual vessels is confidential. There is no centralized repository of data which is acces- 

 sible to researchers and decision-makers which clearly quantifies the economic scope 

 of the Northeast fishing industry and the total number of jobs tied to it. As a result, 

 the rehabUity of data on the industry, particularly that which relates to the poten- 

 tial impacts of reductions in fishing effort, is frequently called into question by fish- 

 ermen and environmentalists. 



