62 



plane in rapid succession within a short time Tram* have left the 

 men and women of our fishing industry with little time or ability 

 to pursue diversification or other economic or legal recourse to 

 the sweeping financial impairment Which could well result from the 

 situation. 



During nearly every stage of plan development for Amendments 

 5 and 7 the fishing families of our port sought to engage the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the New England 

 Fishery Management council (NEMFC) in a productive dialogue 

 relative to balanced conservation options. This involvement led to 

 a hope and belief that oomprehenaive measures would be developed 

 which would promote the recovery of groundfish ctoek9 and the basic 

 survival of thee* many email businesses. 



In the first instance of Amendment 5, a multi-faceted series 

 Of measures known as the Gloucester Plan was rejected through the 

 course of two public hearings, public comment and subsequent 

 discussions with nmfs and the Department of Commerce. Finally, a 

 harsh set of regulations was adopted in order to recover groundfish 

 stocks within 5-7 years, requiring far-reaching reductions in 

 fishing effort. The total of these reductions was calculated to be 

 fiOt of total fishing effort on the tan multispecies species over 

 that limited period of time. 



Prior to the adoption of Amendment 5, I vlaited Small Business 

 Administration (SBA) officials in Washington with a diverse 

 delegation of fishing industry representatives from Gloucester. 

 Understanding the problems for small business presented by the 

 plan, SBA personnel expressed concern to the Department of Commerce 

 on our behalf. Nonetheless, Amendment 5 proceeded and our small 

 businesses were dealt their first strong blow. 



yet within a few months of its passage we were told, as we had 

 predicted, that Amendment 5 could not achieve its intended result*. 

 The nefmc and NMFS, however, attributed its ongoing failure not to 

 the unworkable measures employed by Amendment 5, but rather to 

 their lac* of severity. The goal, we were now told, was an 80% 

 reduction in effort. Federal regulators revealed this even as 

 Amendment 5 had only been given months to produce the desired 

 results. 



Unlike the development of Amendment 5, the development of 

 Amendment 7 has been marked by expedited deliberation and passage. 

 Throughout this period, the comments of federal regulators appear 

 to evidence an overriding fear of allowing time for more thorough 

 analysis, scientific peer review, or the development of acceptable 

 industry alternatives. While a perceived mandate from the 

 Department of Commerce appears to be responsible in part for this 

 behavior, reliance on data with as much as a throe year time lag 

 also seems to be a major factor. 



In fact, the expedient and abbreviated process by which 



