Oyster Bay, Northport, Mt. Sinai, Huntington, Port Jefferson, Setauket Harbor, 

 and Kings Point on the Nissequogue River) with active shellfish landing facili- 

 tieso Connecticut has four active shellfish landing areas (Niantic, Nav Haven, 

 Montville, and Norwalk) <. At present, many of the finfish landing facilities 

 in Connecticut are classified as inactive due to a decline in fishing effort 

 and harvesto The Stonington Harbor facilities and the Connecticut River shad 

 landing facilities remain active, but the volume of landed fish has declinedo 



Upgraded facilities or newly-established facilities might draw local 

 Sound catches, many of which now land outside the Sound area, back to the local 

 harborso Establishment of holding facilities immediately adjacent to the fishing 

 sites or ports is neededo Such measures would make fresh fish available to 

 local markets, would reduce wear on boats and equipment, and reduce operating 

 expenses for the fishermeno 



Minor environmental and social disadvantages associated t;n.th the con- 

 struction of landing facilities and increased boat traffic are foreseeno Also, 

 the costs of such facilities may be prohibitive in terms of the return which 

 can be expected; however, it should be understood that the establishment and 

 expansion of port landing facilities would be part of a comprehensive fisheries 

 management program o 



Assistance programs for the commercial fishermen and re-evaluation 

 of commercial fishing regulations. Assistance programs in terms of grants to 

 be used for research purposes, tax exemptions, and equipment loans could help 

 to rejuvenate the Sound's commercial fishing industry,, Equipment loans could 

 be financed through the Federal Fishing Vessel Mortgage and Loan Insurance Act, 

 or possibly through FHA loanso 



The increased efficiency of commercial harvesting brought about by 

 better equipment and greater catch per unit effort could have a favorable effect 

 on the Sound's finfish populations in terms of elimination of waste associated 

 with the catch of undesired species o Advanced equipment would favor the catch 

 of "target" species over the mixed bag harvesto Of course, the "target" species 

 catch may also be subject to regulation to prevent over-fishing problemso More 

 sophisticated equipment and gear could also help the fishermen to track and 

 harvest the species in less time and perhaps result in a more reasonably-priced 

 product ashoreo 



Fishing regulations which discriminate against the commercial fisher- 

 man should be re-evaluated. For example, there is no proven biological basis 

 for CD the prohibition of the commercial harvest of striped bass in Connecticut 

 waters, (2) otter-trawling and purse-seining prohibitions for the western end 

 of the Sound, and (3) gill-netting prohibitionso Many of these regulations have 

 resulted from the controversy between sport and commercial fishermen regarding 

 which fishermen are entitled to the major portion of the catcho Unfortunately, 

 these laws have been enacted on the basis of emotion rather than facto New 

 York and Connecticut should work together to re-evaluate these laws to assure 

 justice for all fishermeno 



Some economic problems are foreseen in obtaining financial assis- 

 tance for commercial fishermen. The major problems involved in re=evaluating 

 the laws governing the commercial fisherman are legal and political; there 

 may be difficulty in getting old laws repealed. 



46 



