25 



temporary, they were meant to be used in spawning seasons to pro- 

 tect the aggregate concentrations of spawning fish. Someone de- 

 cided that this seemed like a good idea, it should be expanded 

 upon, both in area and timeframe. 



Then comes along another impact that hits another portion of the 

 fleet that wasn't even considered at one time, the scallop vessels. 

 All mobile fleets right now are being excluded from this area, 

 which, like I explained before, has been expanded, it has been ex- 

 tended for year-round closure with no hope of opening it. 



We don't know what the consequences are of all the combined ef- 

 fort being placed on less than half the Georges Bank that once was 

 at least a double area. Part of the problem comes from the fact that 

 over 50 percent of Georges Bank is now closed to us. But it goes 

 much further than that when you consider that probably equals at 

 least 70 percent of the fishable bank for us. 



The BuyBack Program only addresses groundfish vessels. It does 

 not provide for the relief of other fisheries such as the scallopers, 

 nor does it provide any relief for the shore-side businesses that are 

 suffering proportionately with the vessels. 



The failure of any part of this infrastructure has a profound ef- 

 fect that may not be readily apparent at first, but recently off-ves- 

 sel prices for fish declined so drastically, and this was due pri- 

 marily to the fact we could not handle the amounts of fish that 

 were being landed in New Bedford. 



We had the fish, we didn't have the people to handle, and to ag- 

 gravate that beyond what we expected, we ended up with Canadian 

 fish coming into our ports and markets and challenging us with the 

 Canadian dollar value. 



This is contrary to the socioeconomic impact studies and state- 

 ments that were provided to the New England Fishery Manage- 

 ment Council in the course of their deciding what Amendment 7 

 was going to look like. It is also required by the Magnuson Act, and 

 it has been shuttled back and forth and kind of handled shoddily, 

 at best. 



Not all of us want to sell our boats. No one wants to fail though. 

 We can only seek relief for the boats or businesses with the banks, 

 and they turn a deaf ear. 



We have one vessel being towed in by the Coast Guard, com- 

 pletely paid for. It is going to cost approximately $15,000 to 

 $20,000 to get it on the railway. It cannot find the money. The New 

 Bedford Corporation which is handling the local revolving loan 

 funds had over 100 requests that total up to $7.5 million with a 

 low interest rate and revolving loan fund. They had $2.5 million to 

 work with. 



My group, the New Bedford Seafood Coalition, was funded by a 

 technical assistance grant through this corporation, and we are not 

 sure if we are going to be able to seek further funding there. So, 

 the corporation I am representing now to represent the New Bed- 

 ford fishing industry may not be a viable entity come next year. 



We don't know what the overall impact of the remaining open 

 areas is going to be, like I explained before, but what if our science 

 is inexact or incomplete? How do we make up for it then? 



Canada have taken the opposite course in the management of the 

 same resources that we are out there fishing along side of them. 



