In response to Maine fishermen being put out of work, depleted Gulf of Maine groundfish populations, and the crisis of management that is currently affecting the New England groundfish fishery, Maine’s elected federal legislators have many times stepped up to the podium. From proposing and supporting the Sustainable Fisheries Act, appearing at gatherings of threatened fishermen, writing letters to the Department of Commerce (in which the National Marine Fisheries Service is housed), and giving speeches highlighting the plight of one of our most traditional and storied industries, Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Rep. Tom Allen have all taken highly visible roles as advocates in the management process.
This fall, as the process came to a head with fisheries management bodies laboring under the piercing gaze of a Federal judge, fishermen proclaiming the end of their way of life, and a firm legal deadline looming next May, the real benefit and effect of such political influence was on display for all to see.
The day-to-day process of overseeing local stocks of cod, haddock, hake and many other species is ostensibly the responsibility of the New England Fisheries Management Council. This body is comprised of 18 gubernatorial appointees, drawn from the ranks of state fisheries managers, industry members, and at-large members, including a single environmental group representative. This body recommends specific measures to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is intended to act as a check on the Council, bringing the proposed measures in line with its scientific assessments. In reality, the Service rarely challenges the Council, even when the decisions do not seem to be in line with the federal standards. The Council has been accused by a number of environmental groups as moving too slowly, and by a number of fishing groups as unresponsive to their needs. Meanwhile, groundfish stocks have dropped to extreme lows (see sidebar on Gulf of Maine cod levels), lawsuits have proliferated, and the Council has passed hundreds of pages of regulations that have for the most part failed to rebuild the stocks to the levels demanded by the law.
Reasons for this lack of effective regulation on the part of the Council and the Fisheries Service are often not publicly obvious, and some critics have cited the ability of powerful legislative interests to influence their decisions. Many legislators, with Sen. Snowe and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts often leading the way, have in fact often made their views known in both subtle and unsubtle ways. They have at various times asked officials to delay implementation of economically tough regulations, questioned the science behind the decisions, and sought to adopt less stringent rules.
Some claim that this meddling by politicians with the decisions of the Council has often led to a bogged-down process, watered down regulations, and has allowed continued overfishing, keeping populations from rebuilding as quickly as they could. The politically well connected fishing industry, bolstered by its iconic status as the keeper of the flame of one of New England’s most cherished industries, can often make itself heard in Washington circles.
“I know exactly what happens,” says Leon Panetta, a former US representative and head of the Pew Oceans Commission, an advocacy group that mapped out a plan for recovery of the nations oceans. “For the broader constituency, they portray themselves as being for sustainable fisheries. But if their individual fishing community comes to them, they are going to do everything they can to protect them.” An official of the Fisheries Service, who spoke under condition of anonymity, went even further, stating, “It is all about end runs [for special interests]; if you don’t get what you want you go up a notch. It’s endemic.”
Others affected by the process express the view that this political influence is not only a useful method of giving Maine a voice in a process often dominated by interests from states with larger fleets, but should in fact be expanded upon as one of the only hopes for traditional small-boat fishermen mired in a process that is actively working against them. Craig Pendleton, owner of a medium-sized groundfish trawl vessel based out of Saco, Maine, and one of the founding members of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, a community group dedicated to restoring and enhancing a healthy, enduring Northwest Atlantic marine system, believes “that this overall management process is still broken, with no clear long term goals about what we want this fishery and these communities to look like.” At the recent Council meeting Pendleton declared, “We need our politicians to define these things through the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and that means going through a political process, that at least gives guys like us a voice.” He maintains that the current Council actions “are still fighting about who gets the fish that are left, and not really addressing the issues of how to save them for all of us.” He himself has used the mechanism of active political advocacy to try to influence the process in favor of the traditional small boat fleet. As he feels that the most recent decisions strongly favor further consolidation of the fishing days in the hands of the larger southern vessels, he plans “without doubt to call our delegation first thing when I get out of this meeting.”
Grease on the wheel or a fly in the ointment?
Sen. Snowe has personally and openly expressed her frustration with current fisheries oversight, saying in a statement read at a Congressional hearing, “it appears to me the National Marine Fisheries Service has lost its way in interpreting the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act,” and she directly addressed the head of the Service, saying “I am looking for a commitment from you, Dr. Hogarth, that…you will do everything you can to act in accordance with Congressional intent and use the flexibility Congress has given your agency.” She is in a position of authority on such matters, being the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries, within the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. She is the most influential legislator on east coast fishing issues, and she has utilized her abilities at various times to effect the appointment of an extra member of the Fisheries Council when a particular appointment was seen as counter to Maine’s interests, has been the driving force in 2002 legislation that “clarified, not amended, Congress’ intent for allowing more time under certain conditions [for stock rebuilding, thus giving fishermen more time].” She has written many letters to the New England Fisheries Management Council with comments and requests, including one in June 1995, urging “that the Council refrain from approving the public hearing document until it prepares fishery impact statements for the alternatives in the document.” While such requests may seem innocuous, the labor involved in carrying out such requests can be high, and bring the decision process grinding to a halt.
Ted McEnroe, Communications Director for Sen. Snowe, agrees that the Senator “has been forceful in trying to reinforce the intent of Congress in its efforts to carry out the intent of the law, and “that Congress has taken an active oversight role.” However, he also notes that “the Council has not appreciated the impact on all fishermen,” and “has lost sight of the National Standards,” which call for, among the conservation goals, an understanding and mitigation of the social impact of regulations.
Senator Susan Collins has also been a force on the national stage, most recently lending her voice to criticism of the Amendment 13 decisions last Thursday, calling them “devastating to the fishing industry in Maine.” In a letter to the Fisheries Service, issued the morning after the Council ended its three-day meeting, she recognized the new rules as “inequitable regulations,” and called for the Service “to promptly perform a complete socioeconomic analysis on Amendment 13.”
Such a process could easily extend beyond the May deadline for implementation of the new regulations. “When the National Marine Fisheries Service interprets legislation in a manner outside of Congressional intent,” Collins wrote, “Congress must exercise its oversight authority to correct this situation. There are ten national standards that each management plan must meet, and it is my responsibility to ensure that each of these standards is given proper consideration.” In the case of Amendment 13, her involvement “was intended to lead to changes such as the restarting of the rebuilding clock. Changes like this are vital to ensure the survivability of our fishermen and related businesses.”
Don’t blame us, blame the lawyers
Avery Day, Legislative Consultant for Sen. Collins, a resident of Vinalhaven and son and brother to fishermen, recognizes the Senator’s strong local interest by saying, “Some of the goals are for this process to recognize regional differences in management goals, and to provide a voice for those excluded from the system.” Sen. Collins has said she “wants fisheries managers to fully consider the social and economic consequences of management plans, for the good of our fishermen and for the good of Maine’s fishing communities.” She recognizes that “the system is probably overly politicized, but even more than that, it is overly litigated.” As litigation has become a major factor in fisheries management, he notes that the senator “has stepped in to strike an appropriate balance and to give a voice to the fishing industry. In regard to helping or hindering the Council, we work with the Council. Often, the requests made of the National Marine the Council has already made.”
Sen. Collins and her staff feel that “the best way to improve our fisheries management system is to eliminate excessive litigation,” Day said. They note that there are roughly 100 court cases pending against the National Marine Fisheries Service, and that this amount of litigation directs the Service’s focus not on our oceans, but into our courtrooms. Sen. Collins points out that in fact, the Senate is currently considering appropriating $5 million to establish a “litigation and settlement fund” for the National Marine Fisheries Service to be used exclusively to fight litigation, noting that “the National Marine Fisheries Service’s primary mission is fisheries management; unfortunately, excessive litigation diverts precious resources away from this mission.”
However, even the considerable political influence wielded by Senators Snowe and Collins over oceans issues may have run into an even more immovable rock, namely U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. It was she who issued the ruling last year in response to a lawsuit by a number of environmental groups, that was highly critical of both the process and the outcome, and sent the Council back to the table with very specific directions. She will be reviewing the most recent decisions, and both fishermen and legislators will have to live by her review. Sen. Snowe, who has been critical of the restrictions imposed by Judge Kessler’s reading of the applicable law, was one of the principal authors of that same legislation.
Legislative pressure has also been employed on the west coast recently, to notably poor public reaction. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has inserted language in a key spending bill that would require crab fishermen to sell 90 percent of their catch to certain processors, many of whom employ Sen. Stevens’ son as a consultant. In the same bill the Senator has inserted language giving exclusive rights to part of the Pollock fishery to a certain native corporation, which also has his son as a board member, and another provision calls for cutting off Federal funds for the designation of sensitive marine areas, which would prevent any moves towards protection of those areas. These moves have been greeted by editorial writers ranging from the Cape Cod Times to the Washington Post as “clever and deceitful legislative mechanisms,” and “noxious provisions … which should be struck from the bill.” While calls like this have not been leveled at Maine’s legislators, and indeed many have hailed their efforts, it points out the pitfalls in exercising legislative influence on a process apparently run, at least on the surface, by an independent Council.
The deadline is real
The Amendment 13 changes to the Groundfish Management Plan are not yet law, but there is almost no doubt that they will be by May 1, 2004, the date imposed by Judge Kessler for the management plan to be in compliance with conservation laws. The Council did vote on measures containing provisions to bring back the stocks of cod, haddock, and other groundfish
by 2014. The basic outline of this plan was put together by the Northeast Seafood Coalition, an industry group. Among other restrictions, the number of days a typical boat can fish will be cut about 40 percent, giving at most about 52 days of unrestricted fishing. Boats without landings within the last six years (like many in Maine, whose owners have been busy lobstering), would receive no days as all. Further regulations would allow limited sale or leasing of the fishing days, allowing some vessels to acquire more allotment than the basic regulations.
The Council refused to consider an alternative plan, put together by a Maine group. The Gulf of Maine Inshore Fisheries Conservation and Stewardship Plan of 2002 was primarily the work of the Stonington Fisheries Alliance, the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance of Saco (www.namanet.org), and the Independent Fishermen Investing in Sustainable Harvesting, know as I-FISH (www.ifish.org). These groups are composed largely of fishermen operating small to mid-size vessels engaged in a number of fisheries. This alternative plan asserted that the current management regime has failed to address the root causes of repeated cod stock collapses in the Gulf of Maine, which include a highly mobile fleet which can direct fishing pressure onto small areas, habitat erosion by fishing gear, and a lack of understanding of what is needed for a fishery to be truly sustainable over a wider area. This plan is “area-based” and proposes decentralized areas for fishing for groundfish, giving local regions more decision making authority, thus allowing local regions to have a voice in limiting access and fishing in these areas.
While the long-term effects of these new regulations are hard to sort out, no one argues that the coast-wide effects will not be significant. Maine fishermen will feel even greater impacts, according to Maine Department of Marine Resources Commissioner George Lapointe, who feels “that many communities could be permanently cut out of a fishery that they have participated in for hundreds of years.” He argued unsuccessfully for a more gradual cutback. “I’m just trying to get some survivability for Maine fishermen,” he summarized. Both Maine’s representatives on the Council voted against the plan, and in fact were the only two to do so. James Odlin, Portland fisherman and New England Fisheries Management Council member, at one point saw it this way “One thing is for certain, that as of May first, no one is going to have enough days at sea to make a living.”
Another thing is also certain: Senators and Representatives will not be silent observers of this process and the changes often cited as unfairly directed at small, Maine fishermen. Sen. Collins, within hours of the vote, called for more socio-economic study. Legislative influence is one of the next recourses, and it can be expected that affected fishermen and others will be making their views known to their elected officials. Those officials, in turn, will surely echo such concerns to the Department of Commerce, the New England Fisheries Management Council, and perhaps even on the floor of Congress itself. Whether one agrees that his is a good way to maintain Maine’s minority presence in these questions, or sees it as a special interest end run, the coming months will surely bring a flurry of comments, requests, strong positions, and demands both on and off the table, ending in the implementation of rules that, this time, seem likely to set a course for the future of groundfishing in Maine.