77 



she does not allow them. As one stock declines, another increases to take its place. 

 I note that human populations are among the fastest increasing, along with appetite 

 and need for seafood. 



3) recognizing that aside from intrinsic value, the value of fish is food. This is 

 the basis of a great deal of national economic activity, encompassing the commercial 

 fisheries that provide it to the general public and also sportfishing individuals and 

 industry. 



4) recognizing that fishing is the social and economic basis of many coastal com- 

 munities. 



5) understanding that management decisions must include carefully considered 

 projections, both long-term and short-term, of how those decisions will affect these 

 stocks, individuals, groups, and communities. Obviously, fishermen and fishing vil- 

 lages can't exist without fish, but neither can they exist after their social bases, tax 

 structures and other infrastructures have been destroyed by management measures. 



The proposed amendments to the Magnuson Act seem to act as bywords of dis- 

 enfrancnisement to the people who are most affected by the health of the fisheries — 

 the fishermen. Many of the proposals seem directed toward large corporate entities 

 or their representatives and leave the individuals who embody the majority of the 

 harvesters feeling categorized as cheats, scofilaws and profligates of our natural re- 

 sources. To the contrary, many Maine fishermen are also our towns' selectmen. Lit- 

 tle League coaches, planning board members, conservation group members, and so 

 on. Our ethos is different. 



Addressing Magnuson issues, please remember that fishery management is an in- 

 exact art aflecting an inexact science. I doubt that fisheries wUl ever be manageable 

 for sustainability the way forests or rangelands may be. Fish can't be enumerated 

 and for the foreseeable future the ecosystem holds too many variables that are un- 

 derstood poorly or not at all. Each area needs an understanding of what it wants 

 from the fisheries: Greatest employment? Highest efficiency? (whatever "efficiency" 

 means) Zero discards? Seeing the means necessary to achieve these ends may prove 

 unjustifiably costly in more ways than money. 



The proposals addressing conflict of interest presume that only commercial fisher- 

 men might have one. But: Environmental groups receive the most funding when 

 there is a burning fisheries issue. Sportfishermen have an agenda different from 

 producing food products for the public. The Administration's proposal would pre- 

 clude a member with a financial interest from even participating in a decision. It's 

 possible there would be no one able to discuss the matter on several species of inter- 

 est to many different-groups represented on the councils. Has everyone forgotten? 

 The councils were created to allow the various user and interest groups an oppor- 

 tunity to discuss and debate all sides of the issues! 



A viable New England fishery has been obfuscated by the direction of Amendment 

 5 to the Groundfisn Plan and by the Scallop Plan's Amendment 4. Industry mem- 

 bers can't shift to another fishery because nearly all have controlled entry dates. 

 Safety is compromised by management that has "opportunity days," all of which 

 can't be used unless the fisherman is willing to go in all kinds of weather. There 

 is no incentive to leave the groundfish or scallop fishery because the vessel now has 

 an entitlement, whatever that may mean in the future. A young fisherman from my 

 town, seeing that he hadn't enough "days at sea" to provide support for his family, 

 borrowed $20,000.00 and took his boat to Rhode Island to try a different fishery. 

 All his assets are tied to his vessel and because we know the market for groundfish 

 vessels at present is not good, he cannot escape the fisheries financially alive. When 

 he went to Rhode Island, he left his family back in Maine. Once there, he found 

 that even if he did manage to catch this product, there is control date that would 

 preclude his remaining in that fishery when its FMP is developed and implemented. 

 Missing his family and home and severely discouraged, he returned to Maine. 



A member of tne Mid- Atlantic Council has made a motion that is intriguing, re- 

 questing through Magnuson that the councils be allowed to set a control date for 

 any and all fisheries in an area encompassing Maine to Cape Hatteras before a plan 

 is developed. However, if that happens, it should include all who use the resource 

 commercially; that is, include party and charter vessels, and it should work toward 

 including all users eventually. This would get a better estimate of the number of 

 participants and of the total removals. 



I think the Magnuson Act needs minor changes only in the area of Highly Migra- 

 tory Species. 



m 1990, Congress recognized that Atlantic hi^ly migratory species including 

 swordfish, tunas and sharks were harvested heavily by many nations in the same 

 areas where U.S. vessels fished. Because one nation's unilateral restriction could en- 

 courage greater harvest by the others. Congress moved oversight of highly migra- 

 tory species to the Secretary of Commerce. Recommendations for management of 



