U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

46–471 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–807 

SUSTAINABILITY OF 

MAINE’S GROUNDFISH INDUSTRY 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

OCTOBER 14, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 14, 2008 .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Hon. Susan M. Collins, U.S. Senator from Maine, 

submitted by Senator Snowe ....................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Alexander, Terry, Fisherman and Owner .............................................................. 61 

Balsiger, Ph.D., James W., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce ................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Bradley, Edward, President and Manager, Vessel Services, Inc. ........................ 54 

Ciocca, Angelo, President, Nova Seafoods Ltd. ..................................................... 70 

Cunningham, Jr., Colin M. ‘‘Rip’’, Vice Chairman, New England Fishery Management Council ................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Dority, Aaron, Project Director, Downeast Initiative, Penobscot East Resource 

Center .................................................................................................................... 74 

Gerencer, Bill, Member, Groundfish Advisory Panel, New England Fishery 

Management Council; Member, Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory 

Panel; Commercial Fish Buyer, M.F. Foley Company, Inc. .............................. 49 

Hamlin, Cyrus, Author, Preliminary Design of Boats and Ships ........................ 57 

Holland, Ph.D., Daniel S., Resource Economist, Gulf of Maine Research 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Jongerden, Bert, General Manager, Portland Fish Exchange ............................. 78 

Libby, Glen, Chairman, Midcoast Fishermen’s Association and President, 

Midcoast Fishermen’s Cooperative ..................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Linnell, Captain Bill, Lobsterman .......................................................................... 85 

Litteral, Jennifer, Director of Marine Programs, Island Institute ...................... 60 

Mahoney, Sean, Vice President and Director, Maine Advocacy Center, Conservation Law Foundation ................................................................................... 64 

McGee, Sally, New England Fisheries Policy Director, Oceans Program, Environmental Defense Fund; Member, New England Fishery Management 

Council .................................................................................................................. 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Odlin, Amanda, Co-Owner, F/V LYDIA AND MAYA, F/V BETHANY JEAN .... 82 

Odlin, James A., Vessel Owner, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc. ........................ 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Letter, dated September 16, 2008, from Paul Howard, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management Council to Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service ......................... 26 

Letter, dated October 3, 2008, from Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator and Nancy Thompson, Ph.D., Science and Research Director, 

National Marine Fisheries Service to Paul Howard, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management Council .............................................. 28 

Odlin, Captain Robert M., Commercial Fisherman and Owner, F/V MAINE 

LADY III ............................................................................................................... 79 

Pendleton, Craig, Former Coordinating Director, Northwest Atlantic Marine 

Alliance (NAMA); Owner, F/V OCEAN SPRAY ................................................ 59 

Raymond, Maggie, Executive Director, Associated Fisheries of Maine ............... 68 

Page

IV 

Stockwell, Terry, Director of External Affairs, Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine; Member, New England Fishery Management 

Council .................................................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Thompson, Matthew, Commercial Fisherman and Lobsterman, F/V STRIKER 69 

Viola, Willard H., Commercial Fisherman; President, Black Beauty, Inc. ......... 76 

Viola III, Sam, Commercial Fisherman ................................................................. 66 

Williamson, John, Manager, Fish Conservation, New England, Ocean 

Conservancy .......................................................................................................... 62 

(1) 

SUSTAINABILITY OF 

MAINE’S GROUNDFISH INDUSTRY 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Portland, ME. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m. in City 

Hall Council Chambers, Portland, Maine, Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here— 

and I appreciate it—on a critical issue, obviously, to Maine. 

And I want to invite this to be a conversation. I would like to 

read my opening statement because I do think it is an important 

issue and will invite the panelists to do so as well. And I will explain the procedures, but first of all, I just want to welcome everybody here today. 

I now call this hearing to order, as we gather to examine the sustainability of Maine’s historic groundfishery. As Ranking Member 

of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, I am, like all of you, deeply troubled by the trends 

that I have witnessed in this industry. 

And it is unmistakable. If we remain on our present regulatory 

trajectory, it is no exaggeration to say that the industry as a 

whole—particularly in Maine, but ultimately throughout New England—is in terrible jeopardy. 

Before we begin our vital, in-depth discussion and analysis of 

these challenging issues confronting all of us, I would first like to 

thank our witnesses, who have joined us here today—Dr. James 

Balsiger, Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service; 

Terry Stockwell, External Affairs Director of Maine’s Department 

of Marine Resources; Rip Cunningham, Chair of the New England 

Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Committee; Glen Libby, 

representing the Midcoast Fisheries Association and the Midcoast 

Fishermen’s Cooperative; James Odlin, representing Associated 

Fisheries of Maine; Sally McGee, New England Fisheries Policy Director at the Environmental Defense Fund; and Dr. Daniel Holland, Research Scientist and Resource Economist at the Gulf of 

Maine Research Institute. 

2 

I would also like to include in the record of this hearing a statement from my colleague Senator Collins as well. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Snowe, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, for holding this hearing to examine the condition of Maine’s groundfish fishery. The contribution this industry has 

made to the economy of New England over the last 400 years is immeasurable. The 

proud heritage that to this day shapes the economies and culture of many communities throughout our state is now fighting for its survival amid increasingly restrictive management measures and soaring operational costs. 

Today, we rely on science to strike the critical balance between sustainability and 

the harvesting of this historic natural resource. Regulations, management measures, 

and emergency actions are all developed using the best available science. These 

mandates, in turn, determine whether generations of fishermen will continue to 

earn their living at sea. The discouraging fact is that over the past 8 years, the 

hard-working men and women in Maine’s groundfish industry have seen their profits decline by over fifty percent. Many boats have relocated out of state and still 

others struggle to avoid going into foreclosure. 

Making matters worse are proposed changes to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management plan that would severely restrict fishing effort. Because of Amendment 16, fishermen in Maine face cuts to their days-at-sea by as much as seventy 

percent resulting from complex, and perhaps imprecise—scientific modeling. NOAA’s 

scientific modeling to end overfishing has yielded results that, if implemented. 

would leave most fishermen with fewer than 30 days a year to earn a living. There 

can be little doubt that if Amendment 16 is implemented as proposed, Maine’s 

groundfish industry would quickly disappear. 

I, along with Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Kennedy, sent a letter to Dr. James 

Balsiger, NOAA’s Acting Administrator for Fisheries, on May 16, 2008, supporting 

a revised implementation schedule for Amendment 16 that would allow for the appropriate consideration of the 2008 benchmark stock assessments. It is critical that 

the most accurate, up to date science be used to guide the management of an industry that has already made great sacrifices to support many small, family businesses. 

As we note in the letter, sound management of this fishery requires that NMFS 

value scientific data over adherence to an arbitrary time line. The New England 

Fisheries Management Council was right to delay implementation of Amendment 16 

to thoroughly consider the most recent stock assessment data, as Senator Snowe 

and I have urged. With Secretarial Action now needed to manage the fishery in the 

intervening months, it is critical that NMFS implement interim management measures that are balanced, supported by sound science, and not going to unnecessarily 

burden the New England groundfish industry. 

With the hope of fishing families hanging in the balance, it is incumbent on the 

government to set realistic catch limits that are supported by accurate and reliable 

data. After concerns were raised by industry stakeholders suggesting that the 

science underlying proscribed catch limits was flawed, I joined Senator Snowe and 

others in calling for an investigation of NMFS’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NFSC) by the Department of Commerce Inspector General. We have asked the Inspector General to examine allegations that the Center has set catch levels that are 

not supported by historical biomass data, scientific protocol is not followed, and estimates of biomass and allowable fishing rates have varied considerably during fishing seasons. The object of the investigation is to examine the accuracy of the science 

underlying fisheries management measures so that these regulations will be met, 

not with distrust, but with the knowledge and understanding that fish stocks are 

being managed sustainably and responsibly. 

As was expressed to the Inspector General, there are several specific issues that 

require close examination. First, despite the fact that fishing effort for several fish 

stocks is well below NFSC recommended levels, overfishing of these stocks is somehow still occurring. Second, until the third Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting 

on August 29, 2008, the scientific modeling failed to account for the ocean ecosystem’s inability to simultaneously support historically high population levels for 

all 19 groundfish stocks. My concern is that this has led to the mismanagement of 

species like the spiny dogfish, which has become so abundant that it is counteracting the rebuilding efforts of our more valuable groundfish stocks. Third, having 

reached the midway point in the 10-year multispecies rebuilding plan, the stock assessments appear to suggest that even without any fishing effort, some stocks might 

3 

not rebuild in the next 5 years. This calls into question whether fishery rebuilding 

programs should be managed according to a specific target date or according to 

sustainably managed fishing activity. Without the assurance that nature will perform as expected, NMFS must develop a clear and practical methodology for adjusting rebuilding time frames. 

I also want to call attention to efforts by legislators in New England to certify 

the New England groundfishery as a fisheries disaster. I, along with Senator Snowe, 

have repeatedly indicated to the Secretary of Commerce, that a groundfish fishery 

disaster has indeed occurred in the Northeast. On December 4, 2007, the Senate 

passed a resolution that I cosponsored stating the sense of the Senate that the Secretary should declare a commercial fisheries failure for the New England groundfish 

industry. After the resolution passed, I joined Senators Snowe, Gregg, and Sununu 

in writing to the Secretary urging him to reconsider his denial of Federal assistance 

for our struggling fishing fleet. Following NMFS’s announcement on September 22, 

2008, that it would certify a fisheries disaster for the Chesapeake Bay blue crab 

commercial fishery due to a 40 percent decrease in landings value, we again urged 

the Secretary to find that a fisheries failure has occurred in New England, which 

has experienced markedly similar landings decreases. 

In denying Federal fisheries disaster assistance for Maine in October 2007, NOAA 

stated that while there has been significant economic difficulty for groundfish-dependent communities in Maine, the request for a commercial fisheries failure did 

not meet the requirements under Magnuson-Stevens. I strongly disagree with this 

assessment and will continue to work with colleagues to seek opportunities to provide assistance to New England’s groundfish industry. One positive development is 

that the Senate CJS appropriations bill passed out of Committee with $75 million 

designated for national fisheries disaster relief that specifically mentions the New 

England groundfish fishery. While it is unclear whether this important provision 

will be signed into law, I will seek every opportunity to provide emergency assistance to Maine’s struggling groundfish industry. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments about improving the management of Maine’s struggling groundfish industry. Management of one of New England’s oldest and most significant industries must be founded, first and foremost, 

on accurate and reliable science so that sensible regulations can be developed to create a sustainable fishery both for fish stocks and our fishing communities. At this 

critical juncture leading up to the implementation of Amendment 16, preserving 

Maine’s groundfish industry will require developing equitable capacity reduction 

strategies, investing in ways to reduce the discard rate, and working to address the 

shortcomings of the increasingly prohibitive days-at-sea model. 

Senator SNOWE. I believe we all share a mutual goal here 

today—to ensure that we have self-sustaining populations of the 19 

stocks that comprise the Northeast Multispecies Fishery and that 

we do not regulate our nation’s first fishery out of existence. To 

that end, I hope this will be an open dialogue among our panelists, 

allowing them to speak directly with me and one another to get to 

the bottom of this critical issue facing the fishery as we approach 

two major regulatory milestones—the development of the interim 

regulations for fishing year 2009 and Amendment 16 for 2010 and 

beyond. 

I would also thank all the members of the public for attending 

this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from all of you directly. 

Our agenda will begin with opening statements from our panelists. 

Then I will lead a discussion with direct questions to our witnesses 

and subsequently facilitate a conversation among the participants. 

We will then open the floor for your comments and questions for 

consideration by the panelists. If you would like to address me or 

the panelists, you may add your name to the list of speakers at the 

back of the room, and you will be called to the microphone in that 

order. 

I apologize if there is insufficient time to hear from everyone who 

wishes to speak, but I hope that we can accommodate anyone who 

does wish to do so. And if not, you can also include your written 

4 

statements in the record because this will be part of the official 

proceedings of this hearing and of this Committee. 

We are here today to discuss the future of one of our Nation’s 

most historic industries. It was the bounty of Georges Bank and 

the Gulf of Maine that first enticed fishermen to cross the Atlantic 

Ocean more than 600 years ago, fill their boats with cod, salt and 

dry fish on these shores, and return to sell their wares in the markets of medieval Europe. 

Despite the dangers inherent in this trade, known all too well 

even to the fishermen of today, the fishing grounds were so robust 

as to outweigh the risk to life and property. In this regard, the 

groundfishery of today bears little resemblance to that encountered 

by those early European explorers. 

Now, more than ever, Maine’s fishing industry relies on a single 

species. And last week, largely in response to the current economic 

situation, lobster prices fell to levels not seen since the early 1980s. 

I think events such as this only underscore that we cannot continue the trend of consolidating more and more of our eggs in one 

basket. And my thoughts are with the industry as well, as I know 

they are struggling through this very difficult time. 

Today, we are confronted by a fishery trying desperately to survive increasing regulatory restrictions that have reduced the number of days fishermen are permitted to go to sea from an average 

of 116 in 1996 to a mere 48 in 2008. Particularly here, in the State 

of Maine, we have lost much of our fishing heritage in recent years. 

In the 1990s, there were more than 350 active groundfishing 

boats in Maine. Today, the Department of Marine Resources estimates perhaps as few as 70 still land their catch here in the State. 

And there is only one active groundfishing permit east of Penobscot 

Bay. 

Since 2000, the Portland Fish Exchange, right here, has witnessed its volume of fish drop by more than 60 percent. And from 

2000 to 2004, jobs in fish processing and wholesaling in the State 

fell by more than 40 percent. 

As we focus on the short-term impact of regulations, both in 2009 

and 2010, we must also consider the long-term viability of this industry in this State, home to America’s first fishing settlements. 

And regrettably, the horizon before us is ominous. 

Current regulations require at least an 18 percent reduction in 

days at sea for next year, and proposals put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service have suggested that as much as a 

70 percent cut could be forthcoming. As I asserted in my statement 

before the New England Fishery Management Council in June, 

that kind of drastic reduction in fishing effort would be a death 

knell for this historic industry. 

While the future of our fishing industry depends on healthy fish 

stocks, we cannot allow well-intentioned efforts to rebuild those 

stocks to bankrupt the industry now, or they will be left with no 

one to capitalize on the sacrifices of tomorrow. 

I recognize the challenges before us as we attempt to rebuild our 

stocks to healthy levels that can sustain our fishing communities. 

And evidence has shown that, in some cases, the efforts of our fishermen are paying dividends. The haddock population has experienced a resurgence in recent years, for example. But our manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
5 

ment measures have not adapted in similar fashion, preventing 

fishermen from taking advantage of this wealth of fish. 

In fishing year 2006, the total allowable catch of haddock was approximately 36,500 pounds, yet fishermen landed less than 8 percent of that figure due to regulatory restrictions aimed at protecting less abundant species. This kind of lowest common denominated management is clearly not viable. 

As required by Amendment 13, the New England Fishery Management Council has been striving to develop Amendment 16, the 

next major management action for the industry. Unfortunately, due 

to a funding shortfall and a delay in the release of the report from 

the Groundfish Assessment Review Meetings, or GARM, the Council could not act on Amendment 16 in time to develop regulations 

for fishing year 2009, as required by the previous management 

measure, Amendment 13. 

As such, the agency now must take responsibility upon itself to 

issue interim regulations for the upcoming fishing season. I received assurances from Dr. Balsiger, who will testify before the 

Committee today, that his office would work closely with the Council to develop these interim regulations. But last month, the Council passed a recommendation for interim measures, which included 

the mandated 18 percent cut to days at sea. 

The Council’s vote in favor of this measure was 15–1, with the 

lone dissenting vote cast by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

regional administrator, who subsequently dismissed the Council’s 

recommendation entirely and announced that she would develop interim regulations without regard for the Council’s near unanimous 

decision. This is not the way the process is designed to operate. 

To get at the core issue of scientific uncertainty preventing productive management, we must address the science upon which our 

regulations are based. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center has 

recently completed its comprehensive review of all 19 stocks that 

comprise the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. While the GARM report does contain some positive results on the status of certain 

commercially valuable fish populations, it also finds that many of 

the other stocks remain in an overfished state. 

And I am concerned by allegations of mismanagement of the data 

contained in the GARM. Many members of the fishing industry 

have approached me and my staff in recent months to point out 

perceived inaccuracies in the science underlying this report. Their 

arguments have been persuasive. And in order to give them the 

thorough, independent examination that they deserve, I, along with 

Senator Collins and our colleagues from Massachusetts—both Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry—have asked the Department of 

Commerce inspector general to investigate these claims. 

Review by this impartial third party will either confirm or disprove these assertions. And in the end, management based on the 

sound analysis of sound science will be the foundation on which 

this groundfish industry will be rebuilt. 

From some of our witnesses testifying today, you will hear calls 

for an industry-funded buyback to reduce capacity within the fishery. Fishermen from small ports like Stonington and Port Clyde oppose the current buyback proposal because it may increase their 

costs immediately but provide them no appreciable benefit in the 

6 

short term. This may hasten the demise of the industry in those 

communities where it is already struggling to survive, but the concept may have value to other portions of the fishery. 

While I believe that buyouts can be an effective tool, anything we 

pursue must ensure that we are not simply facilitating consolidation of the fishery in a few ports, particularly ports outside the 

State of Maine, and provide a means to bring our traditional fishing communities back into the industry once stocks have rebuilt 

sufficiently. 

I also continue to pursue vigorously a secretarial declaration of 

a fishery failure for the groundfish industry in this State. Such a 

declaration would make the industry eligible for Federal funding to 

alleviate some of the economic impacts of past and soon-to-be 

present regulations. 

When Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, 

we included language to allow such a declaration due to regulatory 

effects. Still, as you know, the Secretary denied such a request that 

was made by the Governors of several states, including Governor 

Baldacci, in 2007. 

But I simply cannot and will not accept that more than a 50 percent decline in landing values here in the State does not constitute 

a disaster or a failure. This designation is now more vital than ever 

as in a spending bill signed into law just a week ago in Congress, 

where we set aside $75 million in funding for fisheries in which the 

Secretary has declared a disaster. 

Well, along with my colleagues in the Senate—Senator Collins, 

Senator Gregg, and Senator Sununu of New Hampshire—we asked 

the Secretary for reconsideration of this denial, along with Governor Baldacci. And we will continue to pursue such a declaration 

and the funding that accompanies it until Maine’s fishermen receive the Federal financial assistance to which you should be entitled to under the law. 

Whatever form the final solution takes, this rule-making process 

is far from over. We all share the goal of giving our fish stocks the 

best possible opportunity to recover. For without viable, sustainable populations, there will be no fishery at all. 

But at the same time, we must ensure that while that rebuilding 

is taking place, we do not inadvertently bankrupt an industry that 

has played such a vital role in our State’s economy and our heritage for centuries. I, for one, am not ready to capitulate on the possibility of achieving that goal. 

So, at this time, I would like to begin hearing testimony from our 

panel of witnesses. I will include your entire statements in the 

record, however you choose to proceed, because I do think it is important to hear from all of you. 

And then we will have questions, and we will open it up to the 

audience to ask questions of panelists or me and to make comments. Because I think it is important to have that interaction so 

that we all have a complete understanding of what the issues are, 

what is at stake, and what do we hope to accomplish in the final 

analysis to save this most critical industry to our State and to the 

entire New England region. So, thank you. 

Dr. Balsiger, would you begin, please? Thank you. 

7 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. BALSIGER, PH.D., ACTING ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. BALSIGER. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. And thank you for being here today. 

And I thank all of you for being here today, everybody. Thank 

you. 

Dr. BALSIGER. I appreciate the invitation to travel to Portland, 

Maine. I never turn down invitations to get out to the coast. So, 

thank you. 

I am Jim Balsiger. I am the director of NOAA Fisheries Service. 

Thanks for inviting me to testify at this important hearing on New 

England groundfish and thank you for your outstanding leadership 

on the ocean and fisheries issues in Maine and in the Nation’s capital. 

The red light is on. Am I too far away? 

I am well aware that commercial fishing for cod, haddock, flounder, and other species has been a long tradition in New England, 

and this fishing history is tied tightly to the culture and the economics of the region. Before serving in this current job, I was the 

Regional Administrator for Fisheries in Alaska, where fishing is 

also of paramount importance. 

So my ultimate goal as the head of the Fisheries Service is to see 

healthy stocks supporting productive fishing livelihoods in coastal 

communities around the Nation. We have some work to do here to 

reach that goal in New England and elsewhere, but we are making 

progress. And I am confident that we will reach that point in the 

not-too-distant future. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the key legislative directive under 

which NOAA manages the Nation’s fisheries. This important legislation requires us to end overfishing and rebuild stocks. We work 

with the New England Fishery Management Council to manage 

New England’s groundfish as part of a 19-stock complex called the 

Northeast Multispecies Fishery. 

In recent years, we have had to sharply reduce fishing levels in 

an effort to rebuild stocks to stay in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 2004, we implemented Amendment 13, which 

substantially decreased the fishing effort on several stocks. This 

amendment also set up further reductions beginning in 2009 to end 

overfishing on the remaining stocks and to keep us on track to rebuild all of the stocks by 2014. 

In an attempt to reduce the economic harm to fishermen, Amendment 13’s fishing reductions were set at the bare minimum bar. It 

was acknowledged they only had a 50 percent chance of success. Inherent in that was a 50 percent chance of failure. Now we are facing the next big change to the Fishery Management Plan, which 

is Amendment 16. 

To prepare for this amendment, we recently completed the comprehensive midpoint evaluation assessing the status of the groundfish stocks. This 2008 groundfish assessment, which we call the 

GARM, represents the work of more than 70 scientists from 

throughout the New England region—including NOAA fishery scientists—from the States, from academia, from industry, from conVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8 

sultants and independent reviewers. This assessment comprises 

hundreds of thousands of observations, records, and measurements 

from 13 different sources, including from the fishing industry itself. 

Results of these stock assessments are mixed but not entirely unexpected, given the probability of success set forth in Amendment 

13. Results show that while there have been large reductions in 

fishing mortality, overfishing is still occurring in 13 stocks. This is 

5 more stocks than in 2004. 

The assessments also documented a decline in productivity in average weight for several species, indicating slower than anticipated 

growth for these stocks. A number of these stocks are not increasing at the rate necessary to meet the rebuilding deadlines identified by the Council in the Fishery Management Plan. 

There is some good news, though. Some stocks that were the 

focus of concern when Amendment 13 was developed have experienced major recoveries. For instance, Georges Bank haddock has 

exceeded its rebuilding target. Gulf of Maine haddock is nearly rebuilt. We also have seen major proportional increases in some 

flounder stocks. 

I want to briefly identify where things stand in terms of management and what we need to do to meet the requirements of the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We must put in place measures to continue rebuilding groundfish stocks. Amendment 16 is 

the tool for this. Council action has been delayed on this amendment, so we need to consider other options for the 2009 fishing 

year. 

The most likely option for this is an interim rule that would be 

in place until Amendment 16 is finalized. I don’t know yet what 

will be in that interim rule. At present, it is clear that some reductions, additional reductions in fishing mortality are probably unavoidable. But we will work with the Council and the industry to 

put those in place. 

In terms of the overarching management strategy for the New 

England groundfish, it is worth noting that the existing management strategy of relying primarily on effort controls, as opposed to 

catch controls, has had mixed success and has not entirely achieved 

the desired results. To reach our ultimate goal of healthy fish 

stocks and a productive fishing industry, I think it is important to 

think beyond the historic management tools, and I am pleased that 

the Council is considering sector management as an alternative. 

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will solve all the 

problems in the fisheries. I think we will need to use a variety of 

traditional and new management tools, probably including catch 

limits, effort controls, and maybe market approaches. We look forward to ideas that may come from this forum to help us solve some 

of these issues. 

I also wanted to point out that fishing is not the only factor that 

can affect fish populations. Our recent stock assessments showed 

a decline in average weight for several species, which means slower 

than anticipated growth of these resources. We consider these factors when we set the rebuilding targets. And as our understanding 

of marine ecosystems improves, we will continue to incorporate this 

information into our models and, ultimately, improve management 

of the fishery. 

9 

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that our goal is the same as 

your goal. It is to have healthy stocks supporting productive fishing 

livelihoods in coastal communities. I want this for New England, 

and I want it for other coastal communities around the country. 

Rebuilding fish stocks is not easy. No one knows this better than 

the men and the women fishing the waters of New England. Nevertheless, we need to achieve this goal so we can revive those communities dependent on groundfish and can continue the fishing traditions that are a foundation of this region’s culture and economy. 

Thank you, Senator Snowe, for holding this hearing. I welcome 

any questions. Most of all, I look forward to any ideas that may 

come out of this panel or this audience. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Balsiger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. BALSIGER, PH.D. ACTING ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. I am Dr. James Balsiger, the Acting Assistant 

Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Department of Commerce. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing on New England groundfish. 

Background 

Commercial fishing for cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish species has been a 

long tradition in New England, and this fishing history is tied tightly to the culture 

and economics of the region. Before serving in my current job, I was the Regional 

Administrator for Fisheries in Alaska where fishing is also of paramount importance. My ultimate goal as the head of Fisheries for NOAA is to see healthy stocks 

supporting productive fishing livelihoods in coastal communities around the Nation. 

We have some work to do to reach that goal in New England, but we are making 

progress and I am confident we will reach that point in the not too distant future. 

NOAA bases its fishery management decisions for New England groundfish on 

key legislative directives, management plans, and scientific assessments. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is the key legislative directive under which NOAA manages the 

Nation’s fisheries. This important legislation requires us to end overfishing and rebuild stocks, among other things. The new Magnuson-Stevens Act, which was signed 

by the President in January 2007, also requires us to implement annual catch limits 

and accountability measures which create an even more conservative management 

system. 

NOAA, together with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), 

manages New England groundfish as part of a 19-stock complex called the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, and various flounders are 

a few of the species that make up the Fishery which has been heavily overfished 

for several decades. In recent years, we have had to sharply reduce fishing levels 

in an effort to rebuild stocks in compliance with the law. 

Amendment 13 

In 2004, the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Plan) was amended to strengthen the work that NOAA and the Council were doing to manage the 

Fishery. Amendment 13 of the Plan instituted major changes in the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery. These changes substantially decreased fishing effort on several stocks and planned for further reductions beginning in 2009 to end overfishing 

on the remaining stocks and keep us on track to rebuild all of the stocks by 2014 

as required by the current Plan. In an attempt to reduce economic harm to fishermen, Amendment 13’s fishing reductions were the bare minimum, and only had a 

50 percent probability of success. In addition, Amendment 13 called for regular adjustments to the Plan (such as Framework Adjustment 42 that further reduced fishing effort) and a comprehensive mid-point evaluation in 2008 to re-assess the status 

of the groundfish stocks given the 2004 fishing reductions. This evaluation was 

meant to provide the data necessary to make any needed changes to the rebuilding 

programs for the beginning of the 2009 fishing year. 

10 

GARM 

NOAA’s work to manage the Nation’s fisheries, including groundfish in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery, is based on sound science. Most recently, regional scientists completed the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting, or GARM. This 2008 

groundfish assessment represents the work of more than 70 scientists from throughout the New England region, including those from NOAA, the states, academia, industry, consultants, and independent reviewers. The process used to develop the assessment was fully documented, open, and public during 4 week-long meetings over 

a year’s time. The meeting’s results were peer reviewed, drawing on the services of 

22 scientists unaffiliated with the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, many 

from outside the United States. The assessments comprise hundreds of thousands 

of observations, records, and measurements from 13 different sources, including the 

fishermen. 

The GARM process was exceptionally rigorous, and the results are consistent with 

NOAA’s obligations under national standard 2 in § 301(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which mandates that management measures be ‘‘based upon the best scientific information available.’’ Northeast region stock assessments are among the 

most scrutinized of any in the world, and the methodologies have been reviewed by 

the National Academy of Sciences. By any measure these assessments set a reliable 

benchmark for the management of New England groundfish. 

Results of these stock assessments are mixed but not entirely unexpected given 

the probability of success set forth in Amendment 13. Results show that while there 

have been large reductions in fishing mortality since 2004, overfishing is still occurring in 13 stocks, five more than in 2004. The assessments also document a decline 

in productivity and average weight for several species, indicating slower-than-anticipated growth for these stocks. A number of these stocks are not increasing at the 

rate necessary to meet the rebuilding deadlines identified by the Council in the fishery management plan. 

There is some good news though. Some stocks that were the focus of concern when 

Amendment 13 was developed have experienced major recoveries. For instance, 

Georges Bank haddock has exceeded its rebuilding target, and Gulf of Maine haddock is nearly rebuilt. We have also seen major proportional increases in two 

yellowtail flounder stocks and southern windowpane flounder. 

Amendment 16 

Now I want to review briefly where things stand in terms of management and 

what we must do next to meet our statutory requirements. 

The next major amendment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management 

Plan is Amendment 16, which was scheduled to be implemented in May 2009. Because of a desire to more thoroughly consider the new stock assessment results, the 

Council delayed action on Amendment 16. Final implementation of this amendment 

is not anticipated until September or October 2009 at the earliest. At its September 

meeting, the Council asked the Secretary of Commerce to take interim action while 

it continues to develop the amendment. At this meeting, the Council also recommended interim measures for NOAA to put in place during the fishing year starting in May 2009. As we look at our options, we are considering the Council’s recommendations but ultimately, we need to ensure that we continue to rebuild stocks 

and comply with the law and it doesn’t appear that the Council’s recommendations 

will get us to where we need to be. At present, it is clear that additional reductions 

in fishing mortality for some of these stocks will be unavoidable. 

Next Steps 

In terms of the overarching management strategy for New England groundfish, 

it is worth noting that the existing management strategy of relying primarily on effort controls as opposed to catch controls has had mixed success and has not entirely 

achieved the desired results. To reach our ultimate goal of healthy fish stocks and 

a productive fishing industry, I think it is important to think beyond the historic 

management tools and I’m pleased that the Council is considering sector management as an alternative. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will solve all 

of the problems in this Fishery. We’ll need to use a variety of traditional and new 

management tools including catch limits, effort controls, and market approaches. 

Our position on these basic management issues is clear. We will support any 

number of conservation and management measures but they need to demonstrate 

a high probability of meeting the fundamental Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates to 

end overfishing and rebuild stocks in a timely manner. 

I also want to point out that fishing is not the only factor that can affect fish populations. Our recent stock assessments showed a decline in average weight for several species, which means slower-than-anticipated growth. We consider these factors 

11 

when we set the rebuilding targets and as our understanding of marine ecosystems 

improves, we will continue to incorporate this information to improve our models 

and ultimately improve our management of the Fishery. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that NOAA’s goal is to have healthy stocks supporting productive fishing livelihoods. I want this for New England, and I want it 

for other coastal communities around the country. Rebuilding fish stocks isn’t easy. 

No one knows this better than the men and women fishing the waters off New England. Nevertheless, we need to achieve this goal so that we can revive those communities dependent on groundfish and continue the fishing traditions that are a foundation of this region’s culture and economy. Thank you, Senator Snowe, for holding 

this hearing. I welcome any questions you may have and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important issue. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that, Dr. Balsiger. Thank you. 

Mr. Stockwell? 

STATEMENT OF TERRY STOCKWELL, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL 

AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES, STATE OF 

MAINE; MEMBER, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

COUNCIL 

Mr. STOCKWELL. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

My name is Terry Stockwell. I am the Director of External Affairs for the Maine Department of Marine Resources and the Commissioner’s designee on the New England Fishery Management 

Council. 

I am speaking today in my role as the Director of External Affairs, and I would like—— 

Senator SNOWE. Could you just speak more into the mike? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. I sure will. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. STOCKWELL. And I guess it is appropriate I would like to 

begin by thanking you, Senator Snowe, for this hearing on the status and future of the groundfishery in the State of Maine. 

Maine’s groundfishing industry is on the verge of collapse. The 

cumulative impact of multiple amendments and framework adjustments have eliminated over three-quarters of Maine’s active 

groundfish fleet since the early 1990s. Currently, there are roughly 

70 active vessels, as compared to nearly 350 in 1990. Over the 

same time period, the overall landings have dropped from a high 

of about 45 million pounds to a little less than 10 million pounds 

in 2007. 

Consequently and concurrently, the shoreside infrastructure associated with the fishery has also greatly declined. There are many 

small ports coast-wide where groundfish vessels no longer moor or 

where groundfish vessels are no longer unloaded. The once prevalent local gear shops and icehouses have closed, and many vessel 

owners are reducing their maintenance and safety schedules to the 

point where there are clear concerns for human safety. 

For a number of reasons, the exodus of large boats from Portland 

to Massachusetts continues. Portland Fish Exchange groundfish 

volume fell from 23 million pounds in 2003 to just under 9 million 

pounds in 2007. The Exchange is forecasting 8 million pounds for 

this calendar year, barely their break-even point. 

I am very concerned that the majority of Maine’s offshore boats 

will eventually relocate and that all the historic groundfish ports 

12 

and related communities will soon cease to exist. Maine has been 

committed to aggressively rebuilding the groundfish stocks in order 

to sustain the future of our fishery and coastal communities. 

However, the overall news from the final GARM III report is extremely grim. With the exception of haddock, plaice, and redfish in 

the Gulf of Maine, the report concludes that 11 of the multispecies 

stocks are now both overfished and experience overfishing as compared to 7 in 2004. 

In the Gulf of Maine, pollock, witch flounder, winter flounder, 

and northern windowpane have seriously deteriorated in status. 

The mortality reductions needed for the Gulf of Maine are in the 

40 percent range. 

The combination of two-vessel permit buybacks, severe cuts in 

the days at sea, large area and rolling closures, increased mesh 

sizes, and trip limits have greatly reduced the fishing effort. But 

with the exception of haddock, they have not successfully rebuilt 

the Gulf of Maine stocks. 

Maine’s strong support for the development and implementation 

of sector management in Amendment 16 clearly underscores the 

need for measures that sustain the fishing industry while rebuilding the groundfish stocks. But the implementation of sectors has 

been delayed until 2010. Guidelines on revisions to the National 

Standard 1 are not yet available, and the devil in the details of the 

costly reporting and monitoring program are still not yet determined. 

At the September council meeting in Providence, the regional administrator stated that the upcoming need for an interim action 

was a result of the failure of the Council to do its work. But there 

are a number of reasons, including the delay of GARM III and the 

lack of adequate agency resources, that contributed to the need for 

this interim action. 

And while the Council voted to request that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service initiate an interim action in order to remain compliant with the court-ordered rebuilding goals, the proposed measures will have a significant impact on the fishing fleet and industry 

that is already under huge pressure. 

My sense is that Maine’s groundfish industry is on the edge of 

changes that they can’t recover from and that many in the fleet 

have already crossed that threshold. Next year’s interim management measures may push many others to a similar point. And 

while we continue to reduce fishing mortality and to make progress 

toward accomplishing the biomass targets, the question to ask is 

‘‘at what cost?’’ 

In Maine, we have already lost a significant portion of our fleet. 

The interim regulations will further exacerbate this trend, weakening the position of the industry in coastal communities to survive. Maine obviously isn’t alone in this situation. The entire 

groundfish fishery is in grave condition. 

Some individuals in two-permit banks have had the foresight and 

ability to acquire additional permits and days at sea to help them 

through this very difficult time. But they are also in the same position of less fish available to land, significantly increased operating 

expenses, and fish prices that haven’t significantly increased over 

the last 5 years. 

13 

*Total Allowable Catch. 

The State of Maine and Maine’s groundfishery cannot survive another round of days-at-sea reductions. Amendment 16 and the upcoming Amendment 17 must implement output control-based management to enable the stocks to recover without requiring the demise of Maine’s remaining groundfish industry. The movement toward sector management should increase fishermen’s profitability 

while greatly reducing discards and ensuring that TACs * are not 

exceeded. 

However, the high costs associated with the necessary monitoring requirement are jeopardizing its implementation. Fishermen 

who are barely breaking even can’t be expected to pay costs estimated at $1,200 a day to meet the sector monitoring requirements. 

While some early sectors have been successful in getting grant 

funding for implementation and monitoring, I don’t think that this 

strategy can be relied on for future sectors. 

NMFS must follow through on their commitment to provide the 

staff and resources necessary to implement sector management in 

a timely manner. With additional measures, Maine, the Council, 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service can come up with a solution to this problem. While sector management assigns responsibility to the sectors for the development and implementation of 

their operations plans, given the continued decline of the multispecies resources, a centuries-old way of life cannot disappear for the 

lack of administrative resources. 

New England’s groundfish stocks will eventually recover and will 

provide viable economic rewards for the fishing industry’s substantial sacrifices. But to achieve this goal, we need a renewed commitment to New England’s entire groundfishery. That means paying 

attention to Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

and Connecticut. 

It means we need to think about and discuss new management 

ideas and be able to act in a much more timely way than we have 

been able to do in the past. To be honest, the management system 

that we have all had a hand in creating and implementing hasn’t 

served us well in this regard. As I mentioned before, we need 

thoughtful development and consideration of new sector proposals. 

In addition to sector management, there are other options, which 

will help ensure Maine’s future and that of the entire New England 

fleet in the groundfishery. This should include, but not be limited 

to, consideration of an industry-funded buyout, thoughtful discussion and deliberation on whether individual fishing quotas would 

better serve industry in the future, and a workable area management concept. 

An industry buyout would help reduce overcapacity, increase 

profitability for those who remain, and provide an opportunity for 

future community-based actions through an associated permitbanking component. But there are concerns about how already 

cash-starved vessels would pay the tax on landings when everybody 

in the fishery would be subject to the current drafts of the idea. 

Additionally, there are concerns that an industry-funded buyback 

may exacerbate the shift of permits and vessels out of Maine. So 

we have got much work to do with this idea, but it certainly merits 

14 

* Individual Fishing Quota. 

timely consideration as one part of assisting the groundfish industry through this incredibly difficult period. 

Within Amendment 17, individual fishing quotas could further 

increase fishermen’s profitability. This has been a taboo subject in 

the groundfishery in the past. But again, I believe that this concept 

may help some industry sectors to survive in the future. 

Making it work might mean having an in-shore and offshore 

component that allows the folks in these areas to choose whether 

or not to move toward an IFQ * system. This would recognize that 

different solutions would likely be tailored for the unique circumstances facing different parts of the groundfishery. This is a 

huge shift in position for Maine and for New England, but it must 

be considered to see what will help us do a better job for the 

groundfish industry and the resource. 

Within Amendment 17, area management could help revitalize 

and preserve Maine’s small fishing communities, particularly in the 

Midcoast and Down East areas. The recovery of multispecies complex should not be dependent upon the sacrifice of an entire State’s 

fishing industry. Area management holds promise in providing a 

future for small-scale, locally based components of the groundfish 

fishery, but there are issues of how areas under area management 

fit within an entire fishery, how to share among subdivisions available stock, how to pay for the management costs associated with 

area management. But nonetheless, like these other ideas, area 

management must be part of the deliberations on how to revitalize 

the New England groundfish fishery. 

As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we are in danger of losing much of Maine and New England’s groundfish fishery. If management continues on the traditional path, I suspect that will be 

the result. Maine is committed to working with you, the other New 

England States, the New England Fishery Management Council, 

the Fisheries Service to make sure that this doesn’t happen. 

I ask that you continue your great work with the Maine fisheries 

to do whatever is necessary to secure long-term funding to ensure 

that sector management is fully implemented as soon as possible 

to promote an industry buyout for those who wish to get out of the 

fishery, to enable a viable monitoring system for those who wish 

to remain, and to make sure the management process works for 

stock rebuilding in a vibrant New England groundfish fleet. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stockwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY STOCKWELL, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES, STATE OF MAINE; MEMBER, NEW ENGLAND

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

My name is Terry Stockwell; I am the Director of External Affairs for the Maine 

Department of Marine Resources, and I am the Commissioner’s designee on the 

New England Fishery Management Council. I speak today in my role as the Director of External Affairs. I’d like to begin by thanking Senator Snowe for this hearing 

on the status and future of the groundfish fishery in Maine. 

Maine’s groundfishing industry is on the verge of collapse. The cumulative impact 

of multiple Amendments and Framework Adjustments has eliminated over threequarters of Maine’s active groundfish fleet since the early 1990s. Currently, there 

are roughly 70 active vessels as compared to nearly 350 active vessels in 1990. Over 

15 

the same time period, the overall landings have also dropped from a high of 44.8 

million pounds (worth approximately $33 million) in 1991 to 9.7 million pounds 

(worth approximately $10.3 million) in 2007. Consequently and concurrently, the 

shore-side infrastructure associated with the fishery has also greatly declined. There 

are many small ports, coast-wide, where groundfish vessels no longer moor or where 

groundfish vessels are no longer unloaded. The once prevalent, local gear shops and 

ice houses have closed, and many vessel owners are reducing their maintenance and 

safety schedules to the point where there are clear concerns for human safety. 

For a number of reasons, the exodus of large boats from Portland to Massachusetts continues. The Portland Fish Exchange’s groundfish volume fell from 23 million pounds in 2003 to just under 9 million pounds in 2007. The Exchange is forecasting 8 million pounds for this calendar year—barely their break-even point. I am 

very concerned that the majority of Maine’s off-shore boats will eventually re-locate 

and that all the historic groundfish ports and related communities will soon cease 

to exist. 

Maine has been committed to aggressively rebuilding the groundfish stocks in 

order to sustain the future of our fishery and coastal communities. However, the 

overall news from the final GARM III report is extremely grim. With the exception 

of haddock, plaice and redfish in the Gulf of Maine (GOM), the report concludes that 

11 of the multispecies stocks are now both overfished and experiencing overfishing 

compared to 7 in 2004. In the GOM, pollock, witch flounder, winter flounder and 

northern windowpane flounder have seriously deteriorated in status. The mortality 

reductions needed for the GOM are in the 40 percent range. The combination of two 

vessel/permit buybacks, severe cuts in days at sea, large area and rolling closures, 

increased mesh sizes and trip limits have greatly reduced the fishing effort, but 

with the exception of haddock they have not successfully rebuilt the GOM stocks. 

Our strong support for the development and implementation of sector management in Amendment 16 clearly underscores the need for measures that sustain fishing industry components while rebuilding groundfish stocks. But the implementation of sectors has been delayed until 2010, guidance on the revisions to National 

Standard 1 is not yet available, and the devil in the details of the costly reporting/ 

monitoring programs are still not yet determined. At the September Council meeting in Providence, Rhode Island; the Regional Administrator stated that the upcoming need for an interim action was the result of the failure of the Council to do its 

work. There are a number of reasons, including the delay of GARM III and lack of 

adequate agency resources that have contributed to the need for this interim action. 

While the Council voted to request that NMFS initiate an interim action in order 

to remain compliant with the court ordered rebuilding goals of Amendment 13, the 

proposed measures will have a significant impact on a fishing fleet and industry 

that is already under huge pressure. My sense is that Maine’s groundfish industry 

is on the edge of changes that they cannot recover from, and that many in the fleet 

have already crossed that threshold. Next year’s interim management measures will 

likely push many others to a similar point. 

While we continue to reduce fishing mortality and to make progress toward accomplishing the biomass targets the question to ask is ‘‘at what cost’’? In Maine, 

we’ve already lost a significant portion of our fleet. The interim regulations will further exacerbate this trend weakening the position of the industry and coastal communities to survive. Maine obviously isn’t alone in this situation; the entire groundfish fishery is in grave condition. Some individuals and two permit banks have had 

the foresight and ability to acquire additional permits and DAS to help them 

through this very difficult time. But, they’re also in the same position of less fish 

available to land, significantly increased operating expenses, and fish prices that 

haven’t significantly increased over the last 5 years. 

The State of Maine and Maine’s groundfishery cannot survive another round of 

days-at-sea effort reductions. Amendments 16 and the upcoming Amendment 17 

must implement output control based management to enable the stocks to recover 

without requiring the demise of Maine’s remaining groundfish industry. The movement toward sector management should increase fishermen’s profitability while 

greatly reducing discards and ensuring that TACs are not exceeded. However, the 

high costs associated with the necessary monitoring requirements are jeopardizing 

its implementation. Fishermen who are barely breaking even cannot be expected to 

pay costs estimated at $1200 a day to meet the sector monitoring requirements. 

While some early sectors have been successful in getting grant funds for implementation and monitoring, I don’t think that this strategy can be relied upon for future 

sectors. NMFS must follow through on their commitment to provide the staff and 

resources necessary to implement sector management in a timely manner. With additional resources; Maine, the NEFMC and NMFS can come up with a solution to 

this problem. While sector management assigns responsibility to the sectors for the 

16 

development and implementation of their operations plans, given the continued decline of the multispecies resources, a centuries-old way of life can not disappear for 

lack of administrative resources. 

New England’s groundfish stocks will eventually recover, and will provide viable 

economic rewards for the fishing industry’s substantial sacrifices. To achieve this 

goal, we need a renewed commitment to New England’s entire groundfish fishery. 

This means paying attention to Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. It means that we need to think about and discuss new management ideas and be able to act in a much more timely way than we’ve been able 

to do in the past. To be honest, the management system that we’ve all had a hand 

in creating and implementing hasn’t served us well in this regard. 

As I’d mentioned before, we need thoughtful development and consideration of 

new sector proposals. In addition to Sector Management, there are other options 

which will help ensure Maine’s future, and that of the entire New England fleet, 

in the groundfishery. This should include, but not be limited to, consideration of an 

industry funded buy out, thoughtful discussion and deliberation on whether individual fishing quota (IFQ) systems would better serve the fishery in the future, and 

a workable area management concept. 

An Industry Buyout would help reduce overcapacity, increase profitability for 

those who remain, and provide an opportunity for future community based access 

through an associated Permit Banking component. But, there also concerns about 

how already cash starved vessels will pay for the tax on landings that everybody 

in the fishery would be subject to in the current drafts of this idea. Additionally, 

there are concerns that an industry funded buyback may exacerbate the shift of permits and vessels out of Maine. So, we’ve got much work to do with this idea but 

it certainly merits timely consideration as one part of assisting the groundfish industry through this incredibly difficult period. 

Within Amendment 17, individual fishing quotas could further increase fishermen’s profitability. This has been a taboo subject in the groundfishery in the past 

but, again, I believe that the concept may help some industry sectors to survive in 

the future. Making it work might mean having an inshore and offshore component 

that allows the folks in these areas to choose whether to move toward an IFQ system. This would recognize that different solutions will likely be tailored for the 

unique circumstances facing different parts of the groundfishery. This is a huge 

shift in position for Maine and for New England but I believe it must be considered 

to see if it will help us do better than we’ve done for the groundfish industry and 

resource. 

Within Amendment 17, Area Management could help revitalize and preserve 

Maine’s small fishing communities—particularly in Midcoast and Down East areas. 

The recovery of the multispecies complex should not be dependent on the sacrifice 

of an entire state’s fishing industry. Area management holds promise in providing 

a future for small scale, locally based components of the groundfish fishery. There 

are issues of how areas under area management fit within the entire fishery, of how 

to share among subdivisions of available stock components, e.g., how do you parse 

out Gulf of Maine cod to areas, sectors, etc.; and how to pay for the management 

costs associated with area management. None the less, like these other ideas, I believe area management must be part of the deliberations on how to revitalize the 

New England groundfish fishery. 

As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we are in danger of losing much of 

Maine, and New England’s, groundfish fishery. If management continues on the traditional path, I suspect that will be the result. Maine is committed to working with 

you, the other New England States, the New England Fishery Management Council, 

and NMFS to make sure that this doesn’t happen. I ask that you continue your 

great work with Maine’s fisheries to do whatever is necessary to secure long-term 

funding to ensure that Sector Management is fully implemented as soon as possible, 

to promote an industry buyout for those who wish to get out of the fishery and to 

enable a viable monitoring system for those who with to remain, and to make sure 

the management process works for stock rebuilding and a vibrant New England 

groundfish fleet. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Mr. Stockwell. Hopefully, 

we can work together on that goal. 

Mr. Cunningham? 

17 

STATEMENT OF COLIN M. ‘‘KIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR., VICE 

CHAIRMAN, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. On behalf of 

the New England Fishery Management Council, I am both pleased 

and honored to be here. 

I have served for 5 years on the Council and 3 terms as Vice 

Chairman. I currently serve as the Chairman of the Groundfish 

Committee. My comments represent my opinion, not the official 

council position. But I will try to convey the sense of the Council. 

The Council is currently preparing Amendment 16 to the 

Groundfish Management Plan to continue the rebuilding adopted 

in 2004 with Amendment 13 to meet time lines mandated in Magnuson. Planning for Amendment 16 began in the spring of 2006. 

The Council, the Northeast Regional Office, and the Science Center 

met a number of times to coordinate. It became obvious that completing Amendment 16 in time to implement new regulations in 

May 2009 would be difficult. 

Further, the Science Center was being asked to do something 

never before attempted—to conduct complete benchmark assessments for 19 stocks at the same time through the GARM. This was 

a Herculean task, and the Center and the staff deserve a lot of 

credit for accomplishing it. However, in June, it became apparent 

that the Service would need to implement an interim action in May 

2009, and Amendment 16 would be implemented in May 2010. 

With all the amendments, the Council, the Regional Office, and 

the Science Center coordinate their efforts. The Council would be 

at a loss if not for the expertise of the Service’s assessment and social scientists that perform the majority of the technical analysis 

for our actions. However, this cooperative spirit tends to take a 

backseat once the Service begins preparation on an interim action, 

as is currently the case. 

We expect the combination of the interim action and Amendment 

16 to continue the groundfish building. And in spite of all we hear, 

in spite of all of the gloom and doom, real progress is being made. 

Georges Bank haddock and Gulf of Maine haddock are rebuilt 5 

years before the plan deadline. Redfish is nearly rebuilt 40 years 

before the deadline. Gulf of Maine cod is no longer overfished and 

is at a stock size that has not been seen in 30 years. 

Many of the stocks that are still overfished are seeing increases 

in stock size for the first time in nearly a decade. Fishing mortality 

has been reduced. Groundfish landings increased in 2007 for the 

first time in 6 years. The take-home message is that groundfish 

stocks are being rebuilt. 

Progress has been difficult at times because stock status has 

been dramatically revised. The confidence of fishermen in the management system suffers each time this happens. But as discouraging as that may be for all of us, more and better science is essential to crafting effective management measures. 

Looking at the future, groundfish stocks, when rebuilt, should 

produce nearly triple the current catches. But managing a rebuilt 

fishery will have its own set of problems. There are a number of 

ideas circulating to accomplish this, such as rights-based management and output management regimes. It is safe to say that the 

industry and the Council believe that input management controls 

18 

need to be replaced. The inefficiencies required with input controls 

no longer work. 

Looking down the road to recovery, it has to be recognized that 

the industry is not likely to be the same. There may be fewer landing ports. There may be fewer boats. They will land where it is advantageous to do so. The recent experience of the State of Maine 

may be illustrative. 

Groundfish landings for vessels that claim Maine home ports declined by 27 percent between the fishing year 2001 and 2007, less 

than for other groundfish states. But boats are often landing their 

catches outside the State. So groundfish landings in Maine declined 

63 percent over the same period. Yet Maine vessels have actually 

seen their share of groundfish landings increase. 

At least two organizations with strong ties to Maine communities 

are acquiring permits to preserve future access. This is a model 

that can be used without changes in the current management system. Programs such as groundfish sectors and other rights-based 

systems provide current participants the opportunity to preserve 

future access. 

Despite the revised timetable, I personally feel that Amendment 

16 must go forward to continue the important stock rebuilding we 

have achieved to date. I also feel that the Council and fishermen 

are developing innovative management strategies scheduled for 

consideration in Amendment 17 that will adjust to changing resource and economic conditions. 

Senator Snowe, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 

and we look forward to working with you to continue the rebuilding 

of these important resources. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Good morning Senator Snowe. On behalf of the New England Fishery Management Council, I am both pleased and honored to respond to your invitation and hope 

that I can be helpful to you as well as those members of the fishing community who 

are here today. 

Background 

Before I begin, I would like to offer a few details about my background. I have 

served for 5 years on the Council and 3 terms as its Vice Chair. I am currently 

Chairman of the Council’s Northeast Multispecies or Groundfish Committee and 

have served in that position for 4 years. Prior to my appointment to the Council, 

I was the owner, Publisher and Editor-In-Chief of Salt Water Sportsman, the world’s 

largest sport fishing magazine, with approximately four million readers. I am privileged to have made a living by working with and for our valuable marine resources. 

With 18 voting New England Fishery Council members, there often are 18 different opinions about the problems we face and their solutions. As a result, my comments may not represent the opinion of any individual member or the official position of the Council, but I will try to convey the sense of the Council as a body. I 

will address three broad topics: the relationship between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council during the development of Amendment 16 and the 

pending interim action, the long-term future of the groundfish fishery and how communities can ensure future access to the fishery. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Development of 

Amendment 16 

The Council is currently preparing Amendment 16 the Groundfish Plan. As a 

quick review, the amendment was designed to continue the formal rebuilding programs first adopted in 2004 as part of Amendment 13. These programs were designed to meet the strict rebuilding time lines called for in the Magnuson-Stevens 

19 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Also included in Amendment 13 was 

a mid-term review to assess the progress of the programs following several years 

of implementation. The National Marine Fisheries Service recently completed this 

multi-year effort by assessing each of the 19 groundfish stocks at a series of meetings called the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting III, or GARM III. (Interestingly, in Norse mythology GARM is the dog that guards the land of the dead, a coincidence that did not go unnoticed.) 

Planning for Amendment 16 began in the spring of 2006. The leaders of the Council, the Northeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

Service’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center met several times to coordinate time 

lines for development of the amendment. It was immediately obvious that completing Amendment 16 in time to implement new regulations by May 2009 would 

be nearly impossible. Further, the Science Center was being asked to do something 

never before attempted—to conduct complete ‘‘benchmark’’ assessments for 19 stocks 

at the same time. This was a herculean task, and the NEFSC deserves a lot of credit for that accomplishment. 

Simultaneously, the Council and its staff were asked to digest the assessment information and develop revised management measures in an unrealistically short 

time frame. To facilitate this process, the Council had to begin its work before knowing what the new mortality objectives would be. With the receipt of preliminary information from the GARM in June 2008, it became obvious that there would have 

to be a change in strategy. In response, the Council and the Regional Office agreed 

to delay developing the amendment until after all the assessment information was 

final and released in September 2008. At that point, it also became apparent that 

the Service would need to prepare an interim action by May 2009, and Amendment 

16 would be implemented at a later date. We now expect the amendment to be in 

place by May 2010. 

Throughout the development of Amendment 16, as with all amendments, the 

Council, the Regional Office and the Science Center coordinated their efforts. The 

Council would be at a loss if not for the expertise of the Service’s assessment and 

social scientists that perform the majority of the technical analyses that form the 

basis of our actions. At times our different perspectives required a healthy exchange 

on the issues and compromise by each party. This cooperative spirit tends to take 

a backseat once the Service begins preparation of an interim action, as is currently 

the case. While the Council discussed and provided suggestions for measures that 

the Service might adopt, the Service’s need to complete the action has resulted in 

a loss of technical support for the Council’s amendment until work on the interim 

action is completed. In addition, the need to maintain the Secretary’s independence 

means that almost no dialogue occurs between the Council and the Regional Office 

concerning the design of measures for the interim action. 

We expect the combination of the interim action and Amendment 16 will continue 

the groundfish rebuilding that has been documented. Make no mistake, in spite of 

all the rhetoric, in spite of all the gloom and doom, real progress is being made. 

Let me cite some examples. Georges Bank haddock and Gulf of Maine haddock are 

rebuilt, 5 years before the planned deadline. Redfish is nearly rebuilt, forty years 

before the deadline. Gulf of Maine cod is no longer overfished and is at a stock size 

that has not been seen in thirty years. Many of the stocks that are still overfished 

are seeing increases in stock size for the first time in nearly a decade, and fishing 

mortality has been reduced. 

Now, in many instances stocks are not growing rapidly enough to comply with the 

law, or fishing mortality is still too high, but we are in a much better position now 

than in the past. Progress also has been difficult at times because reports of stock 

status have had to be dramatically revised, even over relatively brief time periods. 

The confidence of fishermen in the management system suffers each time this happens, but as discouraging as that may be for all of us, more and better science is 

essential to crafting effective management measures. 

It is equally important to recognize the sacrifices made by the fishing industry, 

both commercial and recreational, and their communities. In order to comply with 

requirements to rebuild, groundfish landings were reduced by 44 percent between 

fishing year 2001 and fishing year 2007. Gross revenues, adjusted for inflation, declined by 35 percent. The number of vessels landing groundfish declined from over 

1,300 in fishing year 2001 to about 750 in fishing year 2007. I could go on, but the 

picture is clear—the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks has forced many fishermen out of the groundfish fishery, and the situation has not been helped by rising 

energy costs. Nonetheless, there is a glimmer of hope. Groundfish landings increased in 2007 for the first time in 6 years. 

I hope, though, that there is a take-home message here that is not lost. I firmly 

believe groundfish stocks will be rebuilt, but we cannot afford to mismanage them 

20 

again because of the unacceptably high price paid by fishermen and their families 

and the negative effects on the infrastructure that supports their activities, as well 

as the communities in which they live. 

Future of the Groundfish Fishery 

Looking at the future, groundfish stocks, when rebuilt, should produce nearly triple the current catches. Managing a rebuilt fishery will have its own set of problems 

as current legal requirements tend to force us to manage for the weakest stock, sacrificing yield from abundant stocks. There are a number of ideas circulating for 

ways to improve management: individual fishing quotas or other limited access 

privilege programs, sectors and area management are a few. The Council is exploring these ideas, but it is premature to know which will be selected in the future. 

It is safe to say that the industry and the Council believe that input management 

controls need to be replaced with output controls. The inefficiencies required with 

input controls, no longer can be overcome. 

We also cannot ignore that there is much we do not know about the ecosystem. 

How are changing temperatures affecting fish stocks? Are there effects from declines 

in inshore water quality? Has the very act of fishing changed the genetic composition of the stocks? These and other questions often are forgotten by the public. We 

may ultimately find that the answers to these and similar questions contribute as 

much to stock health as fisheries management. 

Future Access to the Fishery 

How do communities cope with the rebuilding program so that they can benefit 

in the future? It has to be recognized that the industry is unlikely to return to its 

recent past. There may be fewer landing ports, there will be fewer boats and they 

will land their catch where it is advantageous to do so. The recent experience of the 

state of Maine may be illustrative. Groundfish landings for vessels that claim Maine 

homeports declined by 27 percent between fishing year 2001 and fishing year 2007 

(less than for some other important groundfish states), but boats are often landing 

their catches outside the state. In fact, groundfish landings in Maine declined 63 

percent over the same period. At the same time, Maine vessels have actually seen 

their share of groundfish landings increase slightly. So while the catch is not being 

landed in Maine, Maine vessels remain a key component of the groundfish fishery. 

How do these vessels remain active? At least two organizations with strong ties 

to Maine communities are acquiring permits to preserve future access. This is a 

model that can be used even without changes in the current management system. 

While not universally supported and difficult to implement, programs such as 

groundfish sectors or other rights-based systems provide current participants the opportunity to preserve future access. A carefully designed individual quota program 

should be able to address concerns over excessive consolidation. Some suggest that 

area management, which restricts access to an area to a specific group of fishermen, 

may be another option. The details of such a system have yet to be worked out, and 

often these proposals are resisted by many other fishermen who prefer the flexibility 

to move between areas. 

I suspect that until our capacity to catch fish more closely matches the available 

resource, all of these systems will struggle. Some of them, however, allow fishermen 

to make more rational business decisions to determine their future. The current approach to reducing capacity, a Darwinian survival of the fittest, is not the preferred 

method, but industry support for a capacity reduction program tends to hinge on 

external funding. While some Council members may disagree, I think that capacity 

reduction has to occur if we are to achieve the most benefit from the groundfish fishery. 

Summary 

Simple answers are not always available to any of us within the context of a regulatory framework; and evolving science is necessary but often difficult to understand. Despite the revised timetable, I personally feel that Amendment 16 must go 

forward to continue the important stock rebuilding we have achieved to date. I also 

feel that the Council and fishermen are developing innovative management strategies, scheduled for consideration in Amendment 17, that will help them adjust to 

changing resource and economic conditions and begin to reap the benefits of their 

sacrifices. 

Senator Snowe, on behalf of the New England Council, I hope my comments are 

helpful to you as you continue to engage in discussions about the groundfish fishery. 

I am available now or in the future to answer questions. 

21 

1014CUNN1.eps 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham, for 

your input. 

Mr. Odlin? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ODLIN, VESSEL OWNER, 

ATLANTIC TRAWLERS FISHING, INC. 

Mr. JAMES ODLIN. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the future of the groundfish industry 

here in Maine. 

My name is James Odlin. I am a second-generation commercial 

fisherman. I have 40 years experience fishing for groundfish. I am 

Vice President of the Associated Fisheries of Maine, and my comments today are trying to represent the Associated Fisheries of 

Maine. 

I won’t repeat what we have all heard about the drop in groundfish landings and the number of boats in the State of Maine. I am 

going to move right to the interim rule. 

The council forwarded to National Marine Fisheries Service an 

interim rule that was backed by a number of industry participants 

to try and address the problem of the Amendment 16 delay. At that 

time, it was clearly stated by the National Marine Fisheries Service that the proposal did not go far enough. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the Secretary can implement interim rules to reduce or address overfishing. It does not 

necessarily have to end overfishing, nor does it give the authority 

to address F-rebuilds. 

The council has requested an 18 percent cut in days at sea. And 

to be quite honest, I do not think that the Maine groundfish boats 

that are left here today will ever be able to handle the 18 percent 

cut without mitigating measures, which will not be implemented in 

an interim rule. 

22 

I actually think the way the economy is, the crisis in the banking 

system, unemployment rising, low fish prices, high fuel prices, we 

need a complete freeze in any reduction in days at sea until 

Amendment 16 can be implemented, and the mitigating measures, 

such as they are, put into place and a buyback plan implemented. 

At that point, Amendment 16 should go in place, and that would 

be May 2010. 

Next I would like to talk a little bit about the science. I first 

want to say that I am not critical or attacking any of the people 

at the Northeast Science Center. I agree that they work very hard, 

but their task is impossible. It is impossible to have an absolute 

number of fish in the ocean and an absolute number that can be 

taken out. It just cannot be calculated. 

The industry has very little confidence in the science, and I, too, 

see a lot of alarming issues. There was absolutely no consistency 

in the peer review in the process of the GARM III, and it is quite 

clear that this has caused problems. If we look at the 19 stocks, 

we can see that the industry brought in Dr. Butterworth, and he 

was able to look at only two stocks, white hake and the Gulf of 

Maine cod. 

He had major impacts on white hake assessment, and if the 

Northeast Science Center assessment would have been allowed to 

stand, it could have effectively shut down the groundfish industry 

right away. Dr. Butterworth pointed out an error in the assessment, and this was corrected. He also pointed out some problems 

with the Gulf of Maine cod, and this was also corrected. To me, the 

question is how many more mistakes are there? 

We then started to look at pollock, and we found a huge mistake 

in the pollock assessment. This was after the peer review was completed. The assessment used one data point to come up with its 

conclusions. Common practice in all GARM—its index-based assessments is that they should use three data points. We only used 

one. Again, after peer review, the Council staff pointed this out. 

Now the Northeast Science Center, in my opinion, is trying to defend the determination that pollock was overfished by stating that 

even if we wait and use the 2008 survey data, it is still likely to 

be overfished. My question is how do they know the outcome of the 

2008 survey that hasn’t been done yet? And how can a mistake like 

this get by the peer review and be pointed out by the Council staff? 

Even if the next data point is lower, maybe this is actually the 

average. The index that you use for this assessment could be 

wrong. Indexes, to me, seem to be a best guess. 

Next I will talk a little bit about Georges Bank cod. The Northeast Science Center has done what they call ‘‘splitting the time series,’’ which back a few short years ago, they would have never considered. One of their longstanding claims to fame was that they 

had the longest time series in groundfish management in the 

world. 

Now, for some reason, in 1994, the trawl surveys all of a sudden 

started catching more fish. Same gear, same boat—just started 

catching over 100 percent more fish. Then by splitting the time series, they are saying that the fish changed and the catchability of 

the fish became much easier. 

23 

As someone that has spent 20-plus years working day and night 

with fishing gear to make it as effective as possible, this has never 

happened to me. And I doubt that it has ever happened to any fisherman in this room, that all of a sudden, without any gear changes, 

catches went up over 100 percent and was sustained. Maybe, just 

maybe, the explanation of catchability is that there are just more 

fish being caught in the survey because there are more fish out 

there. 

These are just a few examples where I feel there are problems 

with the science. Of course, the scientists will try to explain most 

of these issues away. 

Finally, as far as the future of the Maine groundfish industry, I 

have to say it is very bleak at this time. However, I ask Congress 

to look at the science. It is just not accurate enough to meet the 

demands of the current MS—Magnuson-Stevens Act and still have 

an industry left. Congress needs to amend the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to provide flexibility in a multispecies fishery and especially address the arbitrary 10-year rebuilds. 

Congress must insist on a new stock assessment on Georges 

Bank on pollock, on Gulf of Maine winter flounder, and witch 

flounder. I want to talk about witch flounder for a minute. 

Witch flounder, in the last assessment, was not overfished. Overfishing was not occurring, and the stock was fully rebuilt. We have 

a new assessment that says the stock is overfished, and overfishing 

is occurring. Yet the industry never caught more than one third of 

what the scientists said we could catch in the interim period. How 

did it become overfished? 

Next, Congress must provide for a vessel buyback to stabilize the 

industry and let some people stay in and supply the market and 

the infrastructure on a steadier basis to allow us to get our markets back and stabilize the infrastructure in the industry as a 

whole. Congress must clarify the intent of flexibility of stocks that 

are under international fishing agreement or understanding. Otherwise, U.S. fishermen are going to lose further quota to Canada. 

Senator Snowe, in a time of many crises, I am extremely grateful 

for your attention to this crisis facing our groundfish industry. It 

seems clear that continued aggressive oversight of groundfish management is warranted. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James Odlin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ODLIN, VESSEL OWNER, 

ATLANTIC TRAWLERS FISHING, INC. 

Good morning, Senator Snowe. My name is James Odlin. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to provide an industry perspective on several questions you have raised with regards to groundfish management in New England. 

Interim Measures 

When the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) imposed an interim rule for 

the NE groundfish fishery in 2006, they chose a broad-brush management approach 

that was in complete conflict with the more proper approach ultimately chosen by 

the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). The interim rule imposed 

differential counting of days-at-sea on all management areas, with the result that 

one management area (western Gulf of Maine) and two stocks (Gulf of Maine cod, 

and Gulf of Maine yellowtail) were under-protected while other areas and stocks 

24 

were overprotected. The Council approach (FW42) ultimately imposed more appropriate restrictions with a focus on problem areas and stocks. 

The need for interim rule for 2006 was repeatedly characterized, by NMFS, as a 

failure of the Council to develop management restrictions within the necessary time 

frame. What is left out of the discussion is the fact that the NMFS did not provide 

to the Council the scientific information it needed in time to develop those management recommendations. 

Today, the Council and the industry face the same timing conundrum. At the September meeting of the Council, the Regional Administrator reported that the NMFS 

is preparing an interim rule for 2009 because the Council had ‘‘failed to do its job’’. 

However, NMFS has known since 2004 that an assessment of all groundfish stocks 

(GARM III) was pending for 2008. Still, the final meeting of GARM III was scheduled for mid-August 2008, instead of an earlier time frame, which may have afforded adequate time for the Council to develop recommendations. 

At a special meeting in September to receive the GARM III advice, the Council 

did develop a recommendation for interim measures, and by a vote of 15 to 1, the 

Council did approve that recommendation. However, the Regional Administrator has 

unilaterally determined that the Council recommendation is not acceptable, and reported that the NMFS would begin work on different, more ‘‘simple’’ interim measures. 

The industry is concerned that the NMFS will, in the interest of ‘‘administrative 

simplicity’’, impose inappropriate restrictions for 2009—restrictions that will once 

again cause unnecessary economic harm to the industry without providing adequate 

protection to appropriate stocks and areas. The industry supports the process outlined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which empowers the regional Councils 

to develop fishery management recommendations, and we do not support unilateral 

action by the NMFS. 

NMFS personnel have suggested that an interim rule would need to achieve Frebuild for some or all stocks. However, section 304(e)(6) of the rebuilding provisions 

of the MSA does not include any requirement for interim measures promulgated by 

NMFS under section 305(c) to achieve F-rebuild. In fact, section 304(e)(6) plainly 

states that interim measures may be implemented even though they are not sufficient by themselves to stop overfishing. 

‘‘(6) During the development of a fishery management plan, a plan amendment, 

or proposed regulations required by this subsection, the Council may request the 

Secretary to implement interim measures to reduce overfishing under section 305(c) 

until such measures can be replaced by such plan, amendment, or regulations. Such 

measures, if otherwise in compliance with the provisions of this Act, may be implemented even though they are not sufficient by themselves to stop overfishing of a 

fishery.’’ (16 USC 1854(e)(6)). 

Section 305(c) clearly states that the objective of interim measures is to ‘‘reduce’’ 

or ‘‘address’’ overfishing; not to achieve F-rebuild or end overfishing immediately. 

NMFS personnel have also signaled a plan to use the interim rule to impose additional restrictions for stocks that have been newly declared ‘‘overfished’’ by the 

GARM III even though existing and proposed guidelines allow the Council 1 year 

to develop an appropriate rebuilding plan. Amendment 13 made it clear that status 

determination criteria are not effective until adopted by the Council, therefore 

NMFS is going beyond its authority if the interim rule includes restrictions for those 

stocks newly declared overfished by GARM III. 

Today, the industry is faced with the overwhelming uncertainty of what kinds of 

measures will be implemented in the interim rule, but we can be certain that there 

will be no measures to mitigate the economic impacts. 

Amendment 16 

The NMFS has been putting extreme pressure on the Council to comply with the 

provisions of the recently reauthorized MSA, yet the agency has failed to provide 

the final guidance necessary to comply with those provisions. It is quite possible 

that the Council may develop policy and management measures that will need to 

be redeveloped at a later date. The NMFS is also pressuring the Council to develop 

rebuilding plans, in Amendment 16, for those stocks newly declared ‘‘overfished’’ by 

GARM III, even though they otherwise would have 1 year to develop rebuilding 

plans. This takes staff and Council time away from developing potential mitigation 

measures for the severe cutbacks anticipated in Amendment 16. 

Science 

The industry has no confidence in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Science 

Center) stock assessments for groundfish. 

25 

This year, the industry engaged the expertise of Dr. Doug Butterworth, University 

of Cape Town, South Africa, to participate in GARM III. Due to limited resources, 

the industry engaged Dr. Butterworth’s attention to only the Gulf of Maine cod assessment and the assessment for white hake. In both cases, his intervention produced significantly better results in terms of calculating current biomass and fishing 

mortality levels as well as biomass and fishing mortality reference points. We believe that had we the resources and time to engage his attention to all 19 stocks 

we would have improved results for several other stocks. 

I will list several examples of our concerns. (Please also note the attached letter 

from Council Executive Director Paul Howard to NMFS Regional Administrator Pat 

Kurkul that also expresses concerns about the results of GARM III, as well as a 

copy of Administrator Kurkul’s response.) 

1. According to the 2005 groundfish assessment—witch flounder—a highly valuable stock that comprises a significant part of groundfish landings by Maine 

boats—was determined by the Science Center to be nearly rebuilt. In the intervening years, the industry caught about 1/3 of the ‘‘scientifically determined’’ 

total allowable catch, and the fishing mortality was well below the ‘‘scientifically determined’’ target. However, GARM III now declares the stock as overfished and overfishing is occurring. 

2. The GARM III assessment for Georges Bank cod produced different results 

than those produced by the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee 

just a few short weeks prior to GARM III. 

3. With regards to the Gulf of Maine winter flounder assessment, the GARM 

III panel noted that the ‘‘analysis could not be used to provide management advice nor stock projections’’, yet the Science Center did just that to recommend 

a drastic reduction in fishing mortality. 

4. The pollock assessment is an index-based assessment meaning it is dependent on the amount of fish caught in the trawl survey. For that type of assessment, scientists typically use a 3-year running average of survey indices. However, in GARM III the Science Center used only 1 year of data instead of 3, 

which has resulted in a determination of overfished. As you know, once declared 

overfished, a rebuilding program is required, and as I’ve stated earlier, NMFS 

is proposing to take action for this stock in the interim rule. Once the 2008 data 

is available, a 3-year calculation may show that the stock is not overfished, 

which would again reverse the status of this stock. 

5. For the white hake assessment the Science Center used proxy age data for 

the time period of the 1960s and 1970s, which was obtained by assuming that 

the average relationship between age and length over the 1980s and 1990s applied to every year of the earlier period. However the Review Panel rejected this 

assumption because of a potential to introduce errors. Instead the Panel preferred Dr. Butterworth’s assessment, which avoided the need to make this questionable assumption for the earlier years. 

6. You will recall that in 2005 the biomass targets for several stocks were dramatically increased—in some cases doubled—and in at least one case, the target 

was set higher than any observed level of abundance. In 2008, many of those 

same targets have been reduced; others have been increased. As you know, 

these wildly divergent ‘‘estimates’’ become the determining ‘‘facts’’ on which new 

management restrictions are based. 

The industry cannot continue to withstand this constant whipsawing of scientific 

information. 

The groundfish assessment process itself was problematic. A panel comprised of 

scientists external to the Science Center, developed final recommendations on the 

basis of analyses presented by Center staff, at each of a series of 4 week-long meetings. However of the 5-member Panel for the last meeting, which provided the final 

management advice, only the Chair (Dr. O’Boyle) and Dr. Butterworth were present 

at all meetings. At each of the meetings, as many as 19 different stocks were discussed. The industry believes that this provided insufficient time to discuss any of 

the stocks at the level of depth required for reliable recommendations. 

Vessel Buyout 

A buyout is crucial to lessening the negative impacts of Amendment 16. The industry has advanced a proposal to Congress for an industry-funded buyout. A 

buyout would remove excess capacity, give those who wish to leave the industry a 

dignified way to exit, and allow those who wish to remain the opportunity to succeed. A West Coast groundfish buyout has provided increased profitability for fishing businesses and stability for fishing communities. 

26 

Sectors 

The industry has been working for a long time on developing groundfish sectors. 

This has been a costly endeavor in terms of time and financial resources. Sector allocations will be based on landings histories of each vessel in the fleet, yet the industry has had considerable difficulty retrieving landings data from the NMFS. The 

Sustainable Harvest Sector submitted a roster of vessels with a data request nearly 

2 years ago, and we have still not received the data. Sectors seem to be the only 

alternative to massive cuts in DAS and/or derby style fishing. At every step of the 

way during the development of Amendment 16, the NMFS has thwarted the Council’s ability to develop sectors. 

If we are to be forced to adhere to a catch based management system (as opposed 

to DAS) the industry believes that ITQs, for several reasons primarily related to 

cost, would be preferable to sectors. According to the current draft of Amendment 

16, sectors will be held responsible for the costs of dockside monitoring, at sea monitoring, development of an environmental assessment (yearly) as well as a sector 

manager salary. In addition, NMFS has decided that sector members will also be 

held joint and severably liable for ANY violation of the management restrictions, 

even though this type of liability was never recommended by the Council. However, 

it is unlikely that the Council would ever seriously contemplate development of an 

ITQ proposal for groundfish because of the onerous requirements proposed for the 

referendum process. 

Recommendations 

The future of groundfishing in Maine is bleak. 

The State no longer has very many medium and no large vessels necessary to 

maintain a year-round landing stream, which is then necessary to maintain the 

shore-side infrastructure. 

However, there are some actions that Congress could take to improve the outlook. 

First and foremost, Congress must amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a way 

that clearly articulates the flexibility necessary for fisheries managers to restore 

fisheries resources while preserving fishing communities. The most recent reauthorization, at least from the draft guidelines proposed by the NMFS, will most likely 

decrease the flexibility manager’s desperately need. Congress must also remove the 

requirement for a referendum for ITQ management as the referendum process 

serves only as a major obstacle to ITQ management. 

Congress must insist on a new benchmark assessment for Georges Bank cod, pollock, and winter flounder. 

Congress must insist on a complete analysis of the appropriate natural mortality 

estimate for each stock, instead of defaulting to a natural morality rate of 0.2 for 

all stocks. 

Congress must provide the funding necessary for a buyout, or alternatively advance the industry-funded buyout. 

Congress must provide funding for the costs of sector monitoring. In other fisheries where dockside and at-sea monitoring are required, the cost to industry is 

more than 10 percent of the landings value. The NE groundfish fishery cannot sustain those costs now, or anytime in the near future. 

Congress must clarify that when stocks are jointly managed by the U.S. and Canada this be considered an agreement under MSA. 

Congress must work more closely with the executive and legislative branches of 

Maine government to encourage the State to focus more resources on improving 

groundfish science and to make involvement in groundfish management a State priority. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Newburyport, MA, September 16, 2008 

Ms. PATRICIA KURKUL, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Gloucester, MA. 

Dear Pat: 

Your letter of September 2, 2008 notified the Council of the results of the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). It also reported changes in stock status as a result of those assessments. I have some concerns that I want to bring to 

your attention. 

27 

According to the letter, GOM winter flounder has been determined to be overfished and subject to overfishing. The GARM III report does not provide any support 

for this conclusion. While it is true that the Executive Summary of the GARM III 

report includes this listing, the actual chapter on GOM winter flounder does not. 

In fact, the Peer Review Panel (Panel) summarized its conclusions in the following 

paragraphs (emphasis added): 

‘‘Given the problems encountered, the Panel agreed that none of the models put 

forth gave a clear picture of the status of the resource. Further, the Panel noted 

that until these issues were resolved, the proposed analysis could not be used to 

provide management advice nor stock projections. 

While the Panel was unable to determine the stock’s status relative to the BRPs, 

it agreed that the current trend in the population was very troubling. The Panel 

generally agreed that it is highly likely that biomass is below BMSY, and that 

there is a substantial probability that it is below 1⁄2 BMSY. The Panel noted that 

other stocks in the area of this mixed fishery were also at low levels.’’ 

Given the Panel’s unequivocal rejection of any of the models presented, the Executive Summary errs when it presents estimates of fishing mortality and stock biomass for this stock from an explicitly rejected assessment model. The report also 

erred by providing projections results, again contrary to the clear language of the 

Panel. The status of this stock should be reported as unknown. This is not to suggest there are no concerns for this stock, as noted by the Panel, which is clearly 

not rebuilt and may indeed be overfished. 

Your letter also reports that pollock was overfished and overfishing was occurring 

as of 2007. The biomass reference point for pollock is an index-based proxy first recommended by the Reference Point Working Group in 2002. Significantly, that document determined biomass status by using a centered three-year moving average of 

the fall survey index. As an example, status in 2005 is based on the average of the 

survey indices for 2004, 2005 and 2006. This means that status cannot be determined for 2007 until the 2008 fall trawl survey index is available. The 2007 value 

reported in Table 2 of the report is 0.754 kg/tow. This does not appear be the average of anything—it is the same value reported for the 2007 fall survey in Table M.1. 

There is no justification in the report, and there was no discussion at the meeting 

suggesting that a single year of the trawl survey index should be used as a biomass 

proxy. 

This error results in an incorrect determination of status for pollock. The centered 

three- year average of the trawl survey index for 2006 is 1.42 kg/tow, more than 

half the GARM III recommended Bmsy-proxy of 2.0 kg/tow. As I said previously, consistent with the approved reference points, the status for 2007 cannot be determined 

until the fall survey is completed in 2008. The relative exploitation index is also 

based on a centered three-year average of the trawl survey index. As a result, the 

2007 relative exploitation index cannot be determined. In 2006, the relative exploitation index, based on a centered three-year average, was 5.03, less than the Fmsy

proxy of 5.66, and overfishing was not occurring. However, given the recent decline 

in the trawl survey index, pollock should be reported as approaching an overfished 

condition. 

Finally, please note that Amendment 13, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, 

made it clear that status determination criteria are not effective until adopted by 

the Council. (‘‘Over time, development of new analytic techniques or additional data 

may result in scientific advice recommending changes to the status determination 

criteria parameters. In order to comply with M–S Act requirements that status determination criteria be determined by the Council, a Council action is necessary to 

change the status determination criteria parameters.’’) Further, Amendment 13 

made it clear that any changes to numerical estimates of parameters that resulted 

from the GARM III review would only become effective when adopted by the Council 

(‘‘For this review, any updated numerical estimates will be adopted through a Council management action—amendment or framework adjustment.’’) This is essentially 

the same stance taken by NMFS on the recent change in monkfish reference points 

that resulted from an assessment in August 2007. NMFS continued to report stock 

status based on the old status determination criteria until the new reference criteria 

were formally adopted by the Council in a change to the fishery management plan. 

In conclusion, I recommend the following: 

1. That the status of GOM winter flounder be reported as unknown in the quarterly status report, consistent with the GARM III peer review Panel’s rejection 

of all assessment models presented and the Panel’s explicit statement that they 

could not determine status with respect to the biological reference points. 

28 

2. That the status of pollock be revised to approaching an overfished condition 

and overfishing not occurring as of 2006, the last year that this determination 

can be made in a manner consistent with recommended status determination 

criteria. 

3. And for the quarterly status reports, that a more consistent policy be considered for when status determination criteria become effective. 

I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL J. HOWARD, 

Executive Director. 

cc: Nancy Thompson, NEFSC 

October 3, 2008 

United States Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region, 

Gloucester, MA. 

Mr. PAUL J. HOWARD, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management Council, 

Newburyport, MA. 

Dear Paul: 

Thank you for your September 16, 2008, letter in which you highlighted important 

issues with respect to the results of the recent Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III), In addition, you requested consideration of a consistent policy pertaining to when new status determination criteria become effective. 

You are correct in pointing out that there are inconsistent statements in the 

GARM III report about whether the Gulf of Maine (GOM) winter flounder stock status can be determined. These statements resulted from the fact that this assessment 

was very uncertain, a point that was clearly made in the GARM III Report by both 

the assessment scientists and the GARM III Review Panel (Panel). Because there 

was so much uncertainty, the Panel had a difficult time deciding whether a status 

determination was possible, as reflected in their statements. Although the models 

did not fit well, the Panel concluded that ‘‘it is highly likely that biomass is below 

BMSY, and that there is a substantial probability that it is below 1⁄2 BMSY,’’ and offered this input as guidance to managers. However, everyone agrees that the results 

are very uncertain. At this stage, it is largely a policy decision that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) must make as to whether to use the 

results from the final model (as was done in the GARM III report), or to conclude 

that the status is unknown. 

Regarding pollock, you are also correct in pointing out that the GARM III report 

(Table 2 on page xiv) incorrectly used the single fall survey biomass index from 2007 

as a basis for making a status determination about whether the pollock stock is 

overfished. To be consistent with approaches used by the Plan Development Team 

in the past, the appropriate method for determining stock status should have been 

based on an average of recent fall survey biomass indices. There are several ways 

to compute the average based on the recent data, and different formulas for the average (lagged vs. centered; latest 3 years vs. latest 2 years) lead to different conclusions about whether the stock is overfished. For instance, the centered average 

based only on the two most recent surveys (2006 and 2007) is 0.856, which indicates 

the stock is overfished (BTHRESHOLD = 1 kg/tow). In contrast, the average biomass 

index based on the last three surveys (2005, 2006, 2007) is 1.42, which indicates 

the stock is not overfished. This high sensitivity to the inclusion of a particular data 

point suggests that it is uncertain whether the stock is currently overfished. 

Even though there is uncertainty about whether the stock is overfished, there are 

several signs in the recent fall survey indices and in the annual landings that indicate that the average biomass of the stock will decline to a level approaching an 

overfished condition and that the threshold will be breached within 2 years. For example, the high 2005 survey biomass index value will be dropped from the calculation of average biomass as soon as an additional year of data from 2008 becomes 

available. The value from 2005 was the highest in the last 25 years, and the value 

from 2008 is unlikely to be greater than the 25-year maximum; so the updated 3- 

year average is likely to decrease and be close to, or less than, BTHRESHOLD. Likewise, landings have been increasing since 1995, and the highest value in the time 

29 

series (1995–2007) occurred in 2007. Thus, the relative fishing mortality rate (F) is 

likely to be much higher the next time it is calculated. Both of these factors will 

push the stock status calculation in the direction of being overfished and overfishing 

occurring. 

In addition, uncertainty exists in determining the overfishing status for pollock 

because the 3-year centered average cannot be fully computed without the 2008 survey biomass index. However, two calculations can be made involving the 2007 landings: 2007 landings over the average biomass from 2005–2007 = 6.64 for Relative 

F; and 2007 landings over the average biomass from 2006–2007 = 10.98 for Relative 

F. Both of these calculations suggest that overfishing is occurring, as FMSY proxy 

for this stock = 5.66 for Relative F. 

Much of the uncertainty over which formula to use for average biomass and for 

Relative F for pollock is caused by not having the 2008 fall survey index yet. When 

it becomes available, likely in January 2009, that value could be used to compute 

the centered average biomass index and Relative Fishing Mortality Index for 2007 

based on data from 2006, 2007, and 2008. Therefore, based on the most recent information, the pollock stock is best categorized as approaching an overfished condition 

and overfishing is occurring, as you suggest. However, this revised conclusion does 

not alter the responsibility of the Council to take action to prevent overfishing from 

occurring, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and highlighted in Pat Kurkul’s September 2, 

2008, letter regarding the status determinations of several stocks. Should the stock 

become classified as being overfished with the addition of the 2008 fall survey index, 

the Council will be required to develop management measures that rebuild the 

stock. 

Finally, your letter requested a more consistent policy regarding when status determination criteria become effective. As you note, Amendment 13 to the Northeast 

(NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) clearly states that changes to 

such criteria only become effective upon the implementation of a management action 

by the Council. Under normal circumstances, the preferred approach would be to 

use existing status determination criteria until revised criteria become effective 

upon the implementation of a Council action. As you know, this is the approach 

taken for recent stock status changes in the Monkfish FMP and is consistent with 

the requirements of other FMPs managed by the Council. However, due to the 

length of time it will take before Amendment 16 becomes effective (Amendment 16 

is scheduled to become effective 1.5 years after GARM III was released), should 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement an interim action for 

fishing year 2009, NMFS intends to rely on the new status determination criteria 

and updated estimates of stock status outlined in the GARM III. We feel this approach is appropriate in order to develop interim management measures that are 

based on the best available scientific information, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Although the new status determination criteria and numerical estimates of stock 

status may be included in an interim action, it is still necessary for the Council to 

formally integrate such criteria and estimates into the FMP under Amendment 16 

and develop measures under the amendment that end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, as identified by the best available scientific information from GARM 

III, in order to maintain compliance with approved rebuilding plans and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. We look, forward to continuing to work with the Council in developing effective measures under Amendment 16 that will continue rebuilding depleted groundfish stocks. 

Sincerely, 

PATRICIA A. KURKUL, 

Regional Administrator. 

NANCY THOMPSON, Ph.D., 

Science and Research Director, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much for your testimony and for 

reflecting the industry. Thank you, Mr. Odlin. 

Mr. Libby? 

30 

STATEMENT OF GLEN LIBBY, CHAIRMAN, 

MIDCOAST FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION AND 

PRESIDENT, MIDCOAST FISHERMEN’S COOPERATIVE 

Mr. LIBBY. Thank you, Senator Snowe. I am honored to have 

been invited to testify here today. 

My name is Glen Libby. I am a life-long, second-generation fisherman from Port Clyde, Maine. I am currently Chairman of the 

Midcoast Fishermen’s Association and President of the Midcoast 

Fishermen’s Cooperative. I additionally serve on the board of the 

Portland Fish Exchange and on the Maine Marine Resources Advisory Council. 

From our point of view, the current management system for 

groundfish, days-at-sea, is a dismal failure and has fallen short of 

its original intent to meet requirements of the Magnuson Act. 

While there are a few successes outlined in the latest stock assessment, we have seen a steady decline of fish in the near-shore areas 

of Down East Maine over the past decade. 

This landscape, coupled with fuel prices rising to historical levels 

while the wholesale price for fish remains flat, is a recipe for disaster to an industry that has been in this State long before the 

country was founded. I am always the first person to say, ‘‘If it 

ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ Our current management system is broken. It needs to be fixed before the last fisherman leaves Maine. 

Those of us with a vested interest in healthy resources and sustainable fishing communities see an opportunity to attain this with 

alternatives to current management within the Amendment 16 

process. Two alternatives that hold great promise as a way to leave 

behind the failing days-at-sea system are area or community-based 

management and sectors. 

Sectors are now being promoted by the New England Fishery 

Management Council and are planned for implementation in time 

for the 2010 fishing season. Sectors will need diligent work by the 

Council and the agency over the next year. However, they could 

still be stalled in the Amendment 16 process while we debate the 

science, which would only be to the detriment of the resource and 

the fishermen. 

We now also face interim action by the National Marine Fisheries Service for the 2009 fishing year that will most likely lead to 

even greater cuts in days at sea. This action will continue to cripple fishermen, which is why it is critical to have a new management structure in place for 2010. 

This turmoil has also led to the proposal for an industry-funded 

buyout—a Federal loan to be paid back by remaining active fishermen. Many fishermen are struggling, for all of the aforementioned 

reasons, and this would be a means for them to retire from the industry with financial security. 

However, their retirement would be funded on the backs of the 

remaining fishermen. The concept behind the industry-funded component is that if you remove a certain number of permits from the 

fishery, the stocks will eventually rebound, and a portion of that 

effort can be redistributed to the remaining fishermen. 

Since 1994, we have had multiple buybacks, and the groundfish 

fleet has gone from more than 1,000 boats to less than 600. Yet 

31 

stocks have not rebuilt because the days-at-sea system does not 

work. 

While we are struggling with an overcapacity issue in other 

areas of New England that demands a capacity reduction, we certainly do not have an overcapacity issue in Maine. There is one 

boat left that is actively fishing between Port Clyde and the Canadian border, where at one time there were hundreds. 

According to DMR, only 70 boats actually landed their catch in 

Maine in 2007. Already this year, several Maine fishermen have 

sold out of the fishery forever. Maine cannot and should not lose 

access to this industry. It is essential that we keep this critical food 

source and industry here in Maine now and for future generations. 

In spite of all this, the fishermen I have the privilege to work 

with have found hope. Although in its infancy, the initial success 

of this working model holds great promise for the replication for 

fishermen everywhere. We currently have a fishery whose market 

structure is based on volume. Fishermen catch high volumes of fish 

that flood the market, resulting in lower prices. Depleted stocks do 

not allow for the industry to be economically viable. 

However, if the market structure is changed to catching low volumes of high-quality fish that are sold at a premium price, economic viability can be reached. By increasing profit, this model 

achieves conservation of the resource by reducing the fishing effort, 

thus redefining overcapacity and maintaining access to the resource for fishermen and the people of Maine. 

To groundtruth this theory, the fishermen of the Midcoast Fishermen’s Cooperative created a Community-Supported Fisheries, 

CSF, based on the successful agricultural model of CommunitySupported Agriculture, CSA. By selling directly to the people of 

Maine using this model, we have established a way to keep Maine’s 

fishermen fishing as well as creating a bond with our customers. 

Our CSF customers feel a sense of ownership for the fishery and 

the fishermen. They know that they are helping to preserve one of 

Maine’s last remaining traditional fishing communities while supporting environmentally sustainable fishing, which will restore the 

resource and strengthen Maine’s local economy. 

We have altered our gear to reduce bycatch and lessen the impact on habitat. By branding a product caught in a sustainable 

manner off Maine waters and landed in our harbor, we are able to 

market it at a higher price than that of wholesale prices. 

This model has piqued the interest of people all over the country 

as a potential way to avoid consolidation of the fishery, to help restore the resources, strengthen local economies, and create a local 

food supply. This was pioneered in Maine, and Maine could lead 

the way by example. 

Through our CSF program, the people of Maine have sent a clear 

message that they want ‘‘their’’ community-based fishery to remain 

and prosper. The fishermen that I work with are determined to 

leave this fishery in better shape than it is right now for their children and grandchildren. 

I would ask you, Senator, to give your full consideration to this 

model, along with an alternative management plan, like area management and sectors, as sound tools that would benefit Maine and 

New England for generations. 

32 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Libby follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLEN LIBBY, CHAIRMAN, MIDCOAST FISHERMEN’S

ASSOCIATION AND PRESIDENT, MIDCOAST FISHERMEN’S COOPERATIVE

Thank you, Senator Snowe, I am honored to have been invited to testify here 

today. My name is Glen Libby, I am a life long, second-generation fisherman from 

Port Clyde Maine. I am currently Chairman of the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association and President of the Midcoast Fishermen’s Cooperative. I additionally serve on 

the board of the Portland Fish Exchange and on the Maine Marine Resources Advisory Council. 

There are many issues currently confronting the groundfish industry right here 

in Maine. Myself, and the fishermen I represent thank you for providing us with 

this opportunity to speak about those concerns as well as the positive efforts that 

our two organizations, the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association and the Midcoast Fishermen’s Cooperative, are doing to insure that groundfishing will continue with sustainable resources and a thriving industry along the coast of Maine today and for 

future generations. 

From our point of view the current regulation system we are operating under, 

Days-at-Sea, is broken and has fallen short of its original intent to meet the requirements of the Magnuson Act. While there are a few successes outlined in the latest 

stock assessment, the reality of fishing in our area has been, to use a Maine phrase, 

tough sledding lately. Over the past decade, we have seen a steady decline of fish 

in the near shore areas of Down East Maine. This decline has led to a loss of fishing 

opportunity and continual cuts in Days-at-Sea that fail to restore our resource. This 

landscape coupled with energy prices rising to historical levels while the wholesale 

price for fish remains flat, is a recipe for disaster to an industry that has been in 

this state long before the country was founded. 

The current allocation of Days-at-Sea (48 days in most cases) barely provides 

enough time to make a living fishing in the spring, summer and fall. We are fortunate that our shrimp fishery carries us through the winter months. The shrimp fishery, while well managed, carries its own set of problems: the rising costs of fuel, 

the historically low wholesale prices for shrimp and competing efforts with imported 

farm raised shrimp. 

When you consider all these variables it is remarkable that there are any fishermen left in Maine who pursue anything but lobster. The lobster fishery has been 

the one bright spot for Maine’s fishing economy but that fishery is beginning to suffer from the same set problems that have plagued other fisheries. The real danger 

to Maine’s fishing economy is that we are becoming a single species fishery dependent solely on lobster. If all other fisheries fail due to depletion or market forces, that 

leaves us in a precarious position of having all of Maine’s fishing related economy 

dependent on one resource and this is not sustainable. 

I am always the first person to say ‘‘if it ain’t broke—don’t fix it’’, our current 

management system for groundfish is broken and needs to be fixed before the last 

fisherman leaves Maine. Those of us with a vested interest in healthy resources and 

sustainable fishing communities saw an opportunity to attain this with new alternatives to fisheries management within the Amendment 16 process. Amendment 16 

could be our light at the end of a dark tunnel. Fishermen, conservational and fishing advocacy groups aligned to propose innovative and tried and true alternatives 

to New England’s current management system. 

Two examples that my organization has and still supports, are Area or Community Based Management and Sectors. Area Management assigns fishing opportunity 

to fishermen as well as allocating a portion of fish to a specific area. Each area is 

recognized as unique and is managed accordingly. This form of management also 

advocates for changes in fishing technology that reduces bycatch and impact to habitat. These concepts are radically different from the way that the groundfishery has 

been managed in the northern Gulf of Maine, but is strikingly similar to how our 

lobster fishery is managed. 

The second management structure that my organization supports is Sectors. The 

development of sectors, a tool with strong accountability measures, hold great promise as a way to get away from of the failing Days-at-Sea system. Sector management, now being promoted by the New England Fishery Management Council, is 

planned for implementation in time for the 2010 fishing season. Monitoring of the 

catch and the costs involved are the biggest hurdles facing the Council, which may 

require innovative approaches and fast action within a process that is cumbersome 

at best. Sectors will need diligent work by the Council and the agency over the next 

33 

year. Although, they could still be stalled in the Amendment 16 process while we 

debate the science, this would only be to the detriment of the resource and the fishermen. We are now facing a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service that will 

guide fishing effort for the 2009 fishing year. This interim action will most certainly 

put additional pressure on an already fragile industry with even greater cuts in 

Days-at-Sea. The council, with credit to those who serve, has tried to balance the 

rebuilding goals of our stocks with the needs of our fishing communities. The two 

are directly linked, for fishing communities to prosper healthy resources and a 

streamlined management system that can act in a timely fashion are needed. These 

impending cuts for 2009 will continue to cripple fishermen to the point of no return, 

which is why it is critical to have a new management structure in place for 2010. 

This recent turmoil in the fishing industry has lead to another proposal, an Industry Funded Buyout, a Federal loan to be paid back by active fishermen. The rationale supporting this buyout is two fold: when Magnuson was enacted the 200-mile 

limit was established and an enormous amount of money was pumped into the fishing industry around the country. The government played a large role in this by 

making funds easily available to build a domestic fleet to harvest the seemingly limitless bounty of fish along our coast. As we have painfully learned the supply was 

not limitless. We are still struggling with an over capacity issue in some areas that 

demands capacity reduction. The other issue is the fact that many fishermen are 

struggling for all of the reasons that I have already mentioned and this would be 

a means for them to retire from the business with financial security. Both of these 

reasons make sense for a buyout, but there are aspects of this proposal that the 

fishermen I represent feel would not be in the best interest for the State of Maine. 

The concept behind the industry funded component is that, if you remove a certain number of permits from the fishery then a portion of that effort can be redistributed to the remaining fishermen. This is based on the assumption that this 

amount of effort reduction will result in a recovery of fish stocks due to the buyout. 

If this recovery does not happen as quickly as hoped and no new reallocation of effort is possible then you have then saddled the remaining fishermen with an additional burden of a tax on their landings that could last for thirty years. Consider 

that the average age of a fisherman in New England is 50 years of age, that fisherman would be well into his 80s before this loan was paid back. If profits do not increase as hoped and more fishermen leave the business during this time the debt 

may fall to the remaining few fishermen, creating a heavier burden and spinning 

the industry into a vicious cycle. These considerations seem to warrant caution and 

careful analysis of its direct impact to Maine. 

We certainly do not have an overcapacity issue in Maine. There is one boat left 

that is actively fishing between Port Clyde and the Canadian border, where at one 

time there were hundreds. According to the DMR, only 70 boats actually landed 

their catch in Maine in 2007. Already this year several Maine fishermen have sold 

out of the industry and with impending further cuts in Days-at-Sea there may be 

many more fishermen not far behind to sell out of this fishery forever. Maine cannot 

and should not lose access to this industry. If the remaining permits are sold to interests outside the state of Maine or are simply taken out of the fishery, we may 

never regain access back to the fish right off our shores. It is essential that we keep 

this critical food source and industry here in Maine now and for future generations. 

In spite of all this the fishermen I have the privilege to work with have found 

hope. By taking one of the criteria from the buyout equation, the market structure 

and changing the parameters, we have found a solution for the short and long term 

sustainability of this fishery. Although, in its infancy, the initial success of this 

working model holds great promise for replication for fishermen everywhere. 

Consider that we currently have a fishery whose market structure is based on volume. Catch high volumes of lower quality fish for a low price. We have a depleted 

fish stock here in Maine that does not allow a sufficient volume to be taken for the 

industry to be economically successful. There are two ways to fix this, consolidate 

the number of fishermen, which increases the volume of fish that can be taken thus 

allowing the remaining fishermen catch more fish. This leads to a consolidated fishery putting many out of work and leaving Maine’s communities vulnerable, this is 

the Industry Funded Buyout plan. Or, you change the market structure; you catch 

low volumes of high quality fish and sell it at a premium price. By increasing profits, this model achieves conservation of the resource by reducing the fishing effort 

thus redefining overcapacity and maintaining access to the resource for fishermen 

and the people of Maine. 

To ground truth this theory, the fishermen of the Midcoast Fishermen’s Cooperative created a Community Supported Fisheries (CSF) based on the successful agriculture model a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). By selling directly to the 

34 

people of Maine using this model we have established a way to keep Maine’s fishermen fishing as well as creating a bond with our customers. With this bond, they 

now feel a strong sense of ownership for the fishery and the fishermen in the Gulf 

of Maine. Our CSF customers are helping to preserve one of Maine’s last remaining 

traditional fishing communities while supporting environmental sustainable fishing 

which will restore the resource and strengthen Maine’s local economy. We have altered our gear to reduce bycatch and lessen the impact on habitat. By branding a 

product caught in a sustainable manner off Maine waters and landed in our harbor 

we are able to market it at a price as much as ten times that of wholesale prices. 

This model has piqued the interest of people all over the country as a potential 

way to avoid consolidation of the fishery, to help restore the resources, strengthen 

local economies and create a local food supply. This was pioneered in Maine and 

Maine can lead the way by example. 

Through our CSF program the people of Maine have sent a clear message that 

they want ‘‘their’’ community-based fishery to remain and prosper. The fishermen 

that I work with are determined to leave this fishery in better shape than it is right 

now for their children and grandchildren. I would ask you Senator, to give your full 

consideration to this model, along with alternative management plans like Area 

Management and Sectors as sound tools that would benefit Maine and New England 

for generations. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Libby. Great idea. Yes, very innovative. Thank you. 

Dr. Holland? 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. HOLLAND, PH.D., RESEARCH 

ECONOMIST, GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Dr. HOLLAND. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to testify 

before this committee. It is an honor to be here. 

These are very difficult times for the groundfish fishery, as we 

heard, and I am grateful that the Subcommittee and particularly 

you, Senator Snowe, is focusing attention on the needs of the industry at this time. 

Please note that my statements today reflect my own opinions 

and research experience. They don’t represent the New England 

Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Plan Development 

Team on which I do serve as a member. My remarks today are focused primarily on Amendment 16 to the Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan and, in particular, on the development and implementation of groundfish sectors. 

Sector management in New England and similar types of management elsewhere in the world has been a primary focus of my 

work for several years, and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

is now deeply involved in providing technical assistance to groups 

developing sectors. It appears likely that to meet mortality reductions required by law, the regional administrator will need to implement further and possibly deep effort reductions. 

Indications are that such cuts will continue under Amendment 

16 for those that remain under effort controls. While there may be 

limited flexibility to mitigate these cuts in the next fishing year, 

Amendment 16 provides some potential relief in 2010 and beyond 

in the form of sectors. 

Sectors offer fishermen an opportunity to increase profitability 

and access to healthy fish stocks and to improve safety at sea. 

Community-based sectors combined with permit banks may provide 

an opportunity for fishing communities in smaller ports, such as 

Port Clyde, to maintain their fleets and, hopefully, grow them as 

fish stocks rebuild. 

35 

Although sectors may offer opportunities for fishermen, they also 

impose new responsibilities and financial burdens on the industry 

at a time when most are struggling to survive. One of the greatest 

new costs of sectors is monitoring. A good monitoring system is 

critical to ensure that all catch is accounted for. 

However, a report commissioned by GMRI found that an adequate monitoring system will be expensive, and it will be difficult 

for the industry to bear the full cost of this initially. An investment 

made by the Government now to support the implementation of 

monitoring systems and help defray the cost in the initial few years 

should pay dividends as it will both support a more profitable fishery and improve data quality for stock assessments. 

Sectors present an opportunity to fishermen, but also a potential 

threat to fishing communities and fishermen in smaller ports, such 

as Port Clyde or communities Down East that have lost access to 

the fishery. I say this for two reasons and present some ways to 

mitigate this threat and to turn it into an opportunity. 

First, the per-vessel cost of developing, implementing, and operating a sector may be higher for smaller sectors in smaller ports 

because costs will be shared between fewer vessel owners and because monitoring costs may be higher for more remote ports with 

fewer landings. If the public desires to preserve these fishing communities, it may be necessary to provide them with some particular 

assistance. An example would be to defray higher monitoring costs 

for the small ports. 

I do not wish to suggest that sectors based out of larger ports do 

not also face financial difficulties. There is a need for assistance 

with sector implementation costs throughout this industry. 

A second threat to small fishing communities and small independent operators may actually result from the economic success of 

sector management. If sectors succeed in increasing the profitability of members, the value of permits is likely to rise. This may 

make it an expensive proposition to maintain or gain access to the 

fishery. 

The reason for the expected increase in the value of permits 

under sectors would be a belief by permit buyers that the long-term 

profitability associated with the fishing privilege is higher and 

more secure. Those with access to capital could reap the rewards 

of a more profitable fishery, but those without access to capital are 

left on the outside. 

A potential solution to this problem may be the creation of financing mechanisms for individual fishermen to get low-interest 

loans to buy permits. It may also be useful to create financing 

mechanisms that would allow community trusts to purchase permits to be affiliated with community-based sectors. Something 

along the lines of this has been done in Alaska in the halibut fishery and sablefish fishery. 

In conclusion, I would urge this committee to consider the pressing needs of the groundfish industry not only to survive the next 

year, but to thrive in the coming years. An investment now in improving monitoring systems may be critical to the success of sector 

management and should pay dividends in future years. Providing 

new financing tools to fishermen and fishing communities will also 

36 

be critical to the continuation of small owner-operator fishing businesses, and small fishing communities. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. HOLLAND, PH.D., RESOURCE ECONOMIST, 

GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. It is an honor to 

be here. These are difficult times for the groundfish industry, and I am grateful that 

the Subcommittee and particularly the Senators present today are focusing their attention on the needs of this industry. Please note that my statements today reflect 

my own opinions based on my research and experience and do not represent the 

New England Fishery Management Council Groundfish Plan Development Team on 

which I serve. 

My prepared remarks today are focused primarily on Amendment 16 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and, in particular, on the development and implementation of groundfish sectors. Sector management in New England, and similar 

types of management elsewhere in the world, has been a primary focus of my work 

for several years, and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute is now deeply involved 

in providing technical assistance to groups developing sectors. 

It appears likely that, to meet mortality reductions required by law, the Regional 

Administrator will need to implement further and possibly deep effort reductions. 

Indications are that such cuts will continue under Amendment 16 for those that remain under effort controls. While there may be limited flexibility to mitigate these 

cuts in the next fishing year, Amendment 16 provides some potential relief in 2010 

and beyond in the form of sectors. Sectors offer an opportunity to increase profitability and access to healthy fish stocks, and to improve safety at sea. Communitybased sectors combined with permit banks may provide an opportunity for fishing 

communities in smaller ports such as Port Clyde to maintain their fleets and hopefully grow them as fish stocks rebuild. 

Although sectors may offer opportunities for fishermen they also impose new responsibilities and financial burdens on the industry at a time when most are struggling to survive. One of the greatest new costs for sectors is monitoring. A good 

monitoring system is critical to ensure that all catch is accounted for. However, a 

report commissioned by GMRI found that an adequate monitoring system will be 

expensive, and it will be difficult for the industry to bear the full costs initially. An 

investment made by the government now to support the implementation of monitoring systems and help defray costs in the initial few years should pay dividends 

as it will both support a more profitable fishery and improve data quality for stock 

assessments. 

Sectors present an opportunity to fishermen but also a potential threat to fishing 

communities and fishermen in smaller ports such as Port Clyde or communities 

Down East that have lost access to the fishery. I say this for two reasons and 

present some ways to mitigate this threat and turn it into an opportunity. 

First, the per vessel costs of developing, implementing and operating a sector may 

be higher for smaller sectors in smaller ports because costs will be shared between 

fewer vessel owners and because monitoring costs may be higher for more remote 

ports with fewer landings. If the public desires to preserve these fishing communities, it may be necessary to provide them with some particular assistance. An example would be to defray higher monitoring costs for small ports. I do not wish to 

suggest that sectors based out of larger ports do not also face financial difficulties— 

there is a need for assistance with sector implementation costs throughout the industry. 

A second threat to small fishing communities and small independent operators 

may actually result from the economic success of sector management. If sectors succeed in increasing the profitability of members, the value of permits is likely to rise. 

This may make it an expensive proposition to maintain or gain access to the fishery. 

The reason for the expected increase in the value of permits under sectors would 

be a belief by permit buyers that the long term profitably associated with the fishing 

privilege is higher and more secure. Those with access to capital can reap the rewards of a more profitable fishery, but those without access to capital are left on 

the outside. A potential solution to this problem may be the creation of financing 

mechanisms for individual fishermen to get low interest loans to buy permits. It 

may also be useful to create financing mechanisms that would allow community 

trusts to purchase permits to be affiliated with community based sectors. 

37 

In conclusion, I would urge this Committee to consider the pressing needs of the 

groundfish industry not only to survive the next year, but to thrive in the coming 

years. An investment now in improving monitoring systems may be critical to the 

success of sector management and should pay dividends in future years. Providing 

new financing tools to fishermen and fishing communities will also be critical to the 

continuation of the small owner-operator fishing business and small fishing communities. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Dr. Holland. 

Ms. McGee? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY MCGEE, NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES 

POLICY DIRECTOR, OCEANS PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND; MEMBER, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Ms. MCGEE. Thank you, Senator Snowe. I am honored to be invited to testify today. 

My name is Sally McGee. I am the New England Policy Director 

for Environmental Defense Fund’s Oceans Program. I have also 

served for 5 years as a member of the New England Fishery Management Council. 

Environmental Defense Fund’s motto is ‘‘finding the ways that 

work.’’ We are committed to grounding solutions in science to protect natural resources and the communities that depend on them. 

Our six-person New England team is 100 percent focused on reforming our fishery management system to support a robust, sustainable fishing economy. 

There is a proven solution that can address each of the concerns 

that you have raised today. That solution is catch shares, or essentially cap and trade systems for fish. As the name implies, catch 

shares dedicate a percentage of the annual catch to an individual 

fisherman, groups of fishermen, or to a community. The catch 

share system of greatest interest in New England is sectors, where 

quotas are allocated to groups of fishermen. 

On the heels of a study published by Environmental Defense 

Fund in 2007, just last month, the journal Science published a survey that looked at more than 11,000 fisheries worldwide of which 

121 were managed using catch shares. The results were clear. 

Catch share fisheries were 50 percent less likely to be collapsed 

than traditionally managed fisheries. And the longer a catch share 

system is in place, the less likely it is to collapse. 

The researchers in Science concluded that the difference between 

catch share and traditional management systems was so clear that 

their results showed ‘‘the potential for greatly altering the future 

of global fisheries.’’ 

In New England, advocating for a catch share approach has 

meant lending my strong support for groundfish sector allocations. 

One of the most memorable Council meetings for me was in Newport, Rhode Island, last November. Fishermen from throughout the 

region packed the room. They all came to say the same thing. ‘‘We 

want sector allocations, catch shares.’’ 

In exchange for fishing under fixed quotas, they understood that 

they would gain regulatory relief from wasteful and ineffective 

rules, like trip limits, while improving the economic performance of 

their businesses. We have the means right now to get beyond this 

decades-long struggle to restore the region’s fisheries. 

38 

The sector approach that we have been working to develop in 

New England will be a win-win all around once we get there. The 

fishermen win. The Government wins. The public and the resource 

win because the fishery will finally be managed sustainably. 

There are currently 19 proposals for new or revised sectors in 

front of the Council, all developed by fishermen. If implemented, 

these sectors will cover a large portion of the groundfish fleet. Others in the groundfish fishery, including many in Maine, are interested in individual transferable quotas, another type of catch share. 

Either way, catch shares, designed correctly, address community 

and conservation needs and hold the key to addressing the concerns you raise today. 

I do not believe that further delaying action to redo what was a 

highly rigorous and thoroughly peer reviewed stock assessment will 

further our shared goals. We need to continue our work through 

Amendment 16 to transition away from the failed days-at-sea system. Further delays in corrective action will only increase the balloon payment that fishermen will ultimately have to pay while taking control even further away from a far more democratic Council 

process. 

I do believe the fishery needs significant Government investment, and I hope to work with your office on securing the needed 

aid. Specifically, an effective monitoring system is critical to successful catch share programs. An appropriation to establish such a 

monitoring system is vital to help fishermen through this transition period and to improve our understanding of the status of fish 

stocks. 

Focusing on solutions like catch shares will let stocks rebuild, let 

fishermen fish knowing their businesses will be there for the long 

term. 

I thank you for your attention and look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SALLY MCGEE, NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES POLICY

DIRECTOR, OCEANS PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; MEMBER, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Thank you Senator Snowe. I am honored to be invited to testify today. My name 

is Sally McGee. I am the New England Policy Director for Environmental Defense 

Fund’s Oceans Program. I have also served for 5 years as a member of the New 

England Fishery Management Council. 

Environmental Defense Fund’s motto is ‘‘finding the ways that work’’. We are 

committed to grounding solutions in sound science to protect natural resources and 

the communities which depend on them. Our six-person New England team is 100 

percent focused on reforming our fisheries management system to support a robust, 

sustainable fishing economy. 

There is a proven solution that can address each of the concerns you have raised: 

Amendment 16, the future of the industry and fishing communities and scientific 

uncertainty. That solution is catch shares, or essentially cap-and-trade systems for 

fish. As the name implies, catch shares dedicate a percentage of the annual catch 

to an individual fisherman, groups of fishermen, or a community. The catch share 

system of greatest interest in New England is called ‘‘sectors,’’ where quotas are allocated to groups of fishermen. 

Just last month the journal Science published a study that looked at more than 

11,000 fisheries worldwide, of which 121 were managed using catch shares. The results were clear. Catch share fisheries were 50 percent less likely to be collapsed 

than traditionally-managed fisheries. And the longer a catch share system is in 

place the less likely it is to collapse. The researchers concluded that the difference 

between catch share and traditional management systems was so clear that their 

results showed ‘‘the potential for greatly altering the future of global fisheries.’’ 

39 

In 2006, Environmental Defense Fund released a report called ‘‘Sustaining America’s Fish and Fishing Communities,’’ which studied existing catch-share systems in 

North America. The results were dramatic. 

Not only did overfishing stop, but average revenues per fishing boat increased by 

80 percent due to higher yields and dockside prices. Safety at sea improved significantly and fishing effort dropped by twenty percent, leading to greater profits and 

lower environmental impacts. Bycatch was reduced by more than forty percent. And, 

a key point regarding the subject of this hearing, the science was greatly enhanced. 

Catch shares improve monitoring, data quality, and accuracy of allowable catch limits. 

In New England, advocating for a catch share approach has meant lending my 

strong support for groundfish sector allocations. One of the most memorable council 

meetings for me was in Newport, Rhode Island last November. There were at least 

fifty fishermen from throughout the region packing the room. They all came to say 

the same thing—we want sector allocations—catch shares. In exchange they understood that they would gain regulatory relief from wasteful and ineffective rules, like 

trip limits, while improving the economic performance of their businesses. 

We have the means—right now—to get beyond this decades-long struggle to restore the region’s fisheries. The sector approach that we have been working to develop in New England will be a win-win-win once we get there. Fishermen win— 

gaining assurance of access and increased flexibility to fish when the economic and 

weather conditions are right. The government wins—since the fishery will be in 

compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The public and the resource win because the fishery will finally be managed sustainably. 

There are currently 19 proposals for new or revised groundfish sectors in front 

of the Council, developed by fishermen. If implemented, these sectors will cover a 

significant portion of the groundfish fleet. Others in the groundfish fishery are interested in individual transferrable quotas, another type of catch share. We believe 

that catch shares, designed correctly, address community and conservation needs 

and hold the key to addressing the three concerns you raise today. 

I do not believe that further delaying Amendment 16 or the interim rule to redo 

what was already a highly rigorous and thoroughly peer-reviewed stock assessment 

will further our shared goals. We need to continue our work through Amendment 

16 and to transition away from the failed days-at-sea system and implement catch 

shares. 

I do believe the fishery needs significant government investment, and I hope to 

work with your office on securing the needed aid. Specifically, an effective monitoring system is critical to successful catch share programs. An appropriation to establish such a monitoring system is critical to help fishermen through this transition period. 

The Magnuson Stevens Act mandates that NMFS end overfishing. They will do 

so in their interim regulations for 2009. While the results are likely to be severe, 

further delays in corrective action will only take control away from the far more 

democratic Council process. And, the longer corrective action is delayed, the greater 

the economic cost fishermen will have to pay to get groundfish back on track. 

Focusing on solutions like catch shares will let stocks rebuild and fishermen fish 

knowing their businesses will be there for the long term. By aligning economic incentives with the conservation goals, our fishermen become effective front-line stewards in rebuilding our fisheries. 

I thank you for your attention and am glad to answer any questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Ms. McGee. 

Just to ask you a question on that point about appropriations for 

monitoring such a system. What would your estimate be? Do you 

have any idea? 

Ms. MCGEE. That is something that I have been talking with a 

number of people, including those at this table, to come up with a 

number that makes sense. The transition period that a number of 

people mentioned is critical. The cost is going to be significant at 

the beginning, in the beginning years. And then, as the fishery recovers, presumably the fishery will be able to take on—industry 

will be able to take on a larger percentage of the cost. 

40 

I am not comfortable giving you a number today but would very 

much welcome the chance to come back with some other people at 

this table with a firm number. 

Senator SNOWE. Would peer review assessments—you are suggesting that there shouldn’t be any additional between now and 

then? That we should just proceed based on what we know? 

Ms. MCGEE. As far as the stock assessment? 

Senator SNOWE. As they appear? Yes, the stock assessment. 

Ms. MCGEE. Correct. Yes. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. Well, obviously, I think the question is getting from there to here, or here to there, in terms of 2009 and then, 

obviously, to 2010. And obviously, the first major challenges are the 

interim measures that are put in place before we can even get to 

the 2010 scenario. 

Dr. Balsiger, in trying to ascertain exactly what is going to happen with this interim measure, can you give us an idea in terms 

of what you are thinking, what the agency is thinking about a time 

frame, substance? I mean beyond the Council’s recommendation of 

18—reducing the days at sea by 18 percent, which is onerous 

enough. 

And if you are saying that it isn’t sufficient, then that is obviously raising some serious concerns about what that means and 

suggests for the industry that is already struggling. And so, I 

would really like to have you give us some idea today of how the 

agency intends to proceed on this question now. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

We haven’t quite figured out how to do this yet. So I can’t give 

you concrete responses on exactly what we will do. But of course, 

we will start with the Council’s recommendations. We will look at 

that, and the driving principle is the need to end overfishing, as 

the Magnuson Act requires us to do. 

So, if the recommendations from the Council do not end overfishing, we may have to make some different changes to it. But I 

will assure you, we won’t do those by ourselves. It won’t surprise 

anyone. But we will develop these, and there will be a proposed 

rule. We will work with the Council and others and take public 

comment on this and try to do it as cooperative and coordinated as 

we can. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I gather from what you are saying is that 

you might take some of their recommendations overall, but not necessarily the issue of days at sea? I mean, I think that was illustrative of the regional administrator in terms of rejecting what the 

Council had done, which is another issue unto itself. 

But right now, what can we expect in the industry? I mean, if 

this is not sufficient, what is left for the industry if you go deeper 

in cuts in terms of days at sea, for example? I mean, how much 

more can they bear? 

Dr. BALSIGER. Senator, again, we will use the Council’s recommendations as much as we can. But if they don’t meet the requirement to end overfishing, some additional changes would have 

to be made. 

We haven’t yet worked out what those additional measures 

might be or what they might have to be. We are working very hard 

41 

to make the impact as minimal as we can, of course, but driven by 

the need to end overfishing. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Cunningham, do you have any points, or 

Mr. Stockwell, on this question? Because, obviously, it is the central issue here now what we can expect, how severe those cuts will 

be, what approach is taken. This is for May 2009, and I know that 

the regional administrator indicated, in rejecting the Council’s assessment when it was a 15–1 decision, that the Council’s approach 

was too complex. 

Well, I gather it would be if you are talking about 19 species, and 

perhaps that is part of the problem here is that there is no individualized recognition of how we should treat one versus the other. If 

the haddock population, for example, has been rebuilt, the fishing 

industry ought to be able to take advantage of that without spilling 

over to the other species or having to achieve the lowest number 

possible because of the other fish that have been—that aren’t in 

abundance and need to be rebuilt. 

Yes, Mr. Cunningham? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Senator. 

I think there are a couple of issues here. First, as I indicated in 

my testimony, the Council is not informed as to what the interim 

measures are going to entail. Obviously, we made our recommendations to the service what we thought would be some measures to 

be included. 

I think the problem that we are faced with was also indicated by 

Sally McGee, and one is whatever shortfall is given during the interim measures, that is going to have to be made up unless we see 

a change in Magnuson or a change in the flexibility of how we rebuild these stocks. It is just going to be harder for the industry to 

actually make up those shortfalls in the fewer years that they have 

left in the rebuilding period. 

What we are faced with is a situation where, essentially, we are 

forced to manage to the weakest stock. And until we can get 

around that or come up with another management strategy, that 

really sort of handcuffs what we can do. 

Senator SNOWE. Ms. McGee, you are on the Council and obviously agreed with the recommendations of the Council. I gather 

then you agreed that the assessment was sufficient for rebuilding? 

Ms. MCGEE. I agreed that it is good—I support the Council process. And I agreed with the final vote on that measure as much because of the contents of it as because I feel like the deliberative nature and the very public process that the Council goes through is 

important to establishing rules that are actually going to stick and 

be abided by the industry because the industry is involved in developing them. 

Senator SNOWE. And so—yes, Mr. Stockwell? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. Importantly, too, the industry agreed, as part of 

the deliberations we made for proposing interim action, to a payback in 2010, when sector management was implemented, when we 

had a workable process. Much of the conversation was based upon 

the interim action being a band-aid until we get to sector management. 

The common issue we have all been referring to about the reporting and monitoring issues, we have a common pool that we are 

42 

very concerned about incorporating into this also for reporting and 

monitoring. So we are band-aiding our way also from Amendment 

16 into Amendment 17. 

But there are a couple of issues. In a letter that the executive 

director of the Council wrote to the Fisheries Service that addressed the status of the Gulf of Maine winter flounder and the 

status of pollock being revised to overfished condition and overfishing not occurring in 2006. And these are—it is a very—it is an 

ongoing dialogue between the Council and the Fisheries Service 

right now, and I feel comfortable that we are going to be able to 

work our way through this. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, you had mentioned, I gather, that there 

are alternatives to days at sea. I mean, is that something that 

could be possible in an interim measure rather than the drastic 

cuts of days at sea? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. Well, the Council itself, with concurrence from 

the industry, proposed the 18 percent default reduction just because we knew we weren’t in a position to be able to move ahead 

in alternative management at this point. We made collectively, 

throughout this room, great efforts to try to move ahead implementation of sectors in 2009, but for a number of reasons, we weren’t 

able to do it. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, Mr. Cunningham? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you. 

Just one comment on the 18 percent reduction in days at sea. 

That was actually part of Amendment 13. That was scheduled out 

as part of that. So it is not something that we, as the Council, just 

pulled a number out of the thin air. 

Senator SNOWE. Right, right. No, that is actually a very good 

point. 

How would the industry be able to absorb even this 18 percent? 

Would it? I mean, that is the issue here. It is the real central question about maintaining the viability of the industry in order to 

overcome these challenges and be on the other side and be able to 

take advantage of their efforts now. 

Mr. JAMES ODLIN. As I stated earlier, I think it is going to be 

very difficult because in an interim action, you can’t put any mitigating measures in the action, and that 18 percent reduction is 

going to take a lot of people out of the State of Maine. 

I would further like to comment out that Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Section 304(e)(6) states that during the development of the Fisheries Management Plan, a plan amendment, or proposed regulations, the Council may request the Secretary to implement interim 

measures necessary to reduce overfishing under Section 305(c) 

until such measures can be replaced by such plan, amendment, or 

regulations. Such measures, if otherwise in compliance with provisions of the Act, may be implemented even if they are not sufficient 

by themselves to stop overfishing of the fisheries. 

So, for me, that says we could do the 18 percent reduction, even 

if it is not enough to completely end overfishing. It will reduce it, 

and then that would let you get to Amendment 16. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, Dr. Balsiger, do you read it that way? I 

mean, is that a point here that the ultimate objective at this point, 

43 

this interim measure would not be, according to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to address the overfishing and to achieve the final goal? 

Dr. BALSIGER. Senator, I don’t know that our lawyers have 

looked at that or not. I have made some notes here. I would say, 

though, that I think the agency will still work hard to end overfishing, even if there may be this loophole there. But I understand 

the question. We will take a look at that and get back to you. 

Senator SNOWE. I think that would be helpful and useful because 

I know that Mr. Odlin cites many examples in his testimony as 

well. So I think it would be worthwhile to really evaluate them, 

and is that another avenue? Because there is very little time, in 

the final analysis, in order to absorb draconian cuts. Based on what 

has happened, based on the fact that they didn’t have the assessment in time, and for all of those reasons, and also to support an 

industry because some of those species certainly have been rebuilt. 

And I think that we have got to find a way to mitigate this situation so that we just don’t impose a very harsh sentence on the industry with no flexibility, with no means of minimizing the adverse 

impact in this period of time. There is no way to rebound from 

that. 

And I just wonder what this process is going to be. Because the 

agency, as you are suggesting, is obviously going to come up with 

another rule, is what I gather. And you are going to issue it for 

public comment. But the period—the time in which it is going to 

turn around is going to be very limited and how can the industry 

respond to that and what are the mitigating measures that might 

be necessary to offset that? 

So I just wonder how this is all going to work in such a short 

period of time, not knowing what it is going to be. 

Dr. BALSIGER. I appreciate your concern, Senator Snowe. And we 

will try to enhance our communication with you and with the industry as much as we can as we go through this process. There are 

no great solutions to this, but I do appreciate your comment that 

this is a way to get to the next management regime, and we have 

to keep that in mind. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, I see that as sort of a bridge. And so, the 

fact that it is an interim measure. The fact is that we didn’t get 

the benefit of the report until recently from GARM on the stock assessments, there was very little time in which to respond, and the 

requirements—the time frame in which you are required to respond. And the agency has rejected the Council’s recommendation, 

at least ostensibly by the fact that the regional administrator did, 

which is another issue in the sense of what is the role of the Council in that regard? 

I mean, if you have a 15–1 decision that is a broad-based decision because it includes many stakeholders, as Ms. McGee represents environmental stakeholders, for example. It is broad-based. 

How is it that, unilaterally, that decision can be rejected and vetoed? Because then you are not getting the input that is necessary 

to make these decisions and build confidence in the decision that 

is ultimately rendered. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Senator, I greatly appreciate that and Ms. 

McGee’s comment that a recommendation that goes through the 

public process is vastly superior to anything that the Federal GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
44 

ernment is going to make up on its own. We are a bureaucracy, 

and we suffer from the slowness therein. 

But—and it is not so much of a rejection or a veto of the Council’s action, it is a question as to whether legally it accomplishes— 

whether it will accomplish what we believe we are legally required 

to accomplish by the Magnuson Act. If it doesn’t accomplish that 

and we get sued, we could lose. So if that would happen, the industry would lose. 

So we want to make sure that what we do do implementing the 

interim rule is defensible so that we can have some way to bridge 

over to the new regime. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, and I understand what you are saying because it has to be sustainable, the decision. I just wonder, though, 

when you have the sort of wrenching process by which you have 

something established with the Council and to go through that 

whole public process. They have a broadly-based representation on 

the Council. Everybody offers their views, gets the input, makes 

the decision 15–1, which is, you know, all of us would like to have 

those kind of decisions with such almost unanimity. 

So that suggests to me that a consensus was reached on that 

question, and then it is to be ultimately rejected because it was— 

in her view, I guess it was insufficient, too complex, or whatever. 

But the point is it puts the industry in a very difficult position. 

And it seems to me there is something in between all of that. I 

mean, you go through the process and say, well, one person gets 

to veto it in the final analysis because she is obviously the regional 

administrator for the agency. But on the other hand, how does that 

build confidence for the overall process, and what is the point of 

the process? 

I think that is one of the issues here that I hope that we could 

sort of resolve at some point because I think we have to—not to 

say that everybody is going to agree with every decision, but when 

you get a 15–1, it seems to me that should really be the basis of 

a decision. I know you have the issues regarding legal interpretations and being able to sustain that in a court of law. And the 

agency has been sued many times. So I understand all that. 

But I think in the meantime there has got to be some kind of 

bridge between the Council and the agency when these decisions 

are being made so that you don’t get to the end of the process and 

somebody says, ‘‘Well, sorry. It is not going to work that way.’’ And 

I think that is the point here on something so important, so critical, and ultimately represents some grave consequences for an industry in a state of unknowing and uncertainty. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Thank you, Senator. 

I think that we could say that around the country, the instances 

where the Fisheries Service has disregarded or rejected recommendations from the Council are very, very few. And they are 

all based on those cases where we believe that the action taken 

was not—would not allow us to put a regulation in place that allowed us to meet our legal mandates. 

But I take your point, and it is excellent, that once a decision 

goes through that great public process, all of the constituent subcommittees, advisory bodies, that that is the way we want recommendations to come to the agency, and we don’t change those. 

45 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Dr. BALSIGER. We accept them. We don’t actually have a legal capability to change those unless they don’t stand up legally and let 

us meet our legal requirements. We don’t get to add to the recommendations of the Council. We don’t get to take away from the 

recommendations unless they don’t achieve what we think the law 

says we have to achieve. 

Senator SNOWE. But isn’t that something you determine beforehand? I don’t know, Mr. Cunningham, you know certainly far more 

than I do about the process. I mean, all of you have been involved 

in that process. But what is it that we could do better in that regard so that we don’t get to this point and we are left not knowing, 

ultimately? When a decision is made, it is reflective of broadlybased interest for the groundfishery. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am actually not sure how to answer that 

question. 

Senator SNOWE. I assume that you have to meet the same objectives as are under the law in terms of being sustainable and meeting the rebuilding requirements. So I think you are all governed by 

the same statute, the same requirements. So is there a different interpretation, or is there no interpretation when it comes to a legal 

analysis? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, we—in a number of instances, we make 

recommendations like these kinds to the service, and the service 

has the legal staff to look at it. We don’t have our own legal staff. 

We actually rely upon the service. 

Senator SNOWE. Does anybody else—yes, Ms. McGee? 

Ms. MCGEE. I think one of the problems that a number of people 

have pointed out already today is the timing issue and the problem 

with the new stock assessments coming out and the Council having 

to make a decision just very shortly after the stock assessments 

were published. 

Senator SNOWE. Which were in August, right? Wasn’t that in August? 

Ms. MCGEE. It was completed in August, and the Council received that 1,000-page report in September. There is not enough 

time for anybody to be able to make good sense of that. But the 

fact was that Amendment 13—or sorry, Framework 42, which was 

subsequent to Amendment 13, set up that time line. We knew that 

was coming. 

And I argued several years ago that we needed to make sure that 

we are getting the science and giving ample time for the Council 

to develop meaningful measures that don’t put National Marine 

Fisheries Service in the awkward position of saying, well, what you 

have done in a very short period of time isn’t going to cut it. 

So it has been—everybody has been in a bind in the last couple 

of months. The council has—that vote that you have cited a number of times I know was not comfortable for a number of people, 

including myself. But it is kind of like what are you going to do 

when you only have a week to read something that is 1,000 pages 

long? And the Council set it up that way, and that was a mistake. 

We need to figure out a way to get the science, have confidence 

in the science, build that monitoring system so that the confidence 

is built because fishermen are having more direct input into the 

46 

monitoring system that the stock assessments are based upon, and 

that the outputs from the stock assessments are done far enough 

in advance—not too far in advance so you are not using old information, but far enough so that people can make sense of it. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Holland? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes, I think one reason or potential reason for sort 

of a difference of opinion is not necessarily purely legal. But it has 

to do with the fact that since you are using an effort control management system rather than an output control system, there is a 

lot of uncertainty about whether you will actually accomplish your 

objective in terms of fishing mortality. 

So I think Jim Odlin mentioned that in a number of cases for a 

number of stocks, the catches have been actually well below what 

were supposed to be the target TACs. We come to find later on or 

were told later on that there was overfishing occurring. 

So, to some extent, you could say, OK, we are going to take a cut 

that the model does not tell us, the model that they are using for 

predicting what the catches are going to be. It doesn’t appear to get 

you there all the way. And you might get there anyway. If you 

don’t get there, then you have to pay it back the following year, 

which is, I think, what the Council was saying that they would pay 

that back, the overage back. So—— 

Senator SNOWE. Well, do you have any—how much more could 

the industry absorb and still be economically viable? 

Dr. HOLLAND. I am sure that is—— 

Senator SNOWE. Do you have any models or analysis on that? I 

mean, I think that is the real question. 

Dr. HOLLAND. I don’t. I think the economist at the Northeast 

Fishery Science Center, they do have the wherewithal, the information on costs and earnings and some models to look at how profitability is going to be affected. My guess is that there are some fishermen that are going to survive and that are profitable at this 

point, but there are a lot that are right on the margin or maybe 

have been making losses in recent years. And those ones will go 

over the edge. 

Senator SNOWE. How many people do we have—oh, 19? Wow, a 

lot of people want to speak. All right. I think we might as well 

begin that process, and we can always—yes, Dr. Holland? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Before we do that, could I just make one comment—— 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Dr. HOLLAND.—related to your earlier question, your first question to Sally regarding the additional cost for monitoring. 

Senator SNOWE. Right. 

Dr. HOLLAND. We hired some consultants to do a study of monitoring costs, and they came up with an estimate in terms of actually building the system and implementing, just implementing the 

system, which includes buying electronic monitoring equipment 

and such, of around $7 million for implementation. 

And then to actually operate the system, we are looking at potentially $800,000 to $1.6 million a year more than what they are 

doing now for dockside monitoring. And then when they implement 

an at-sea monitoring component, that could be anywhere from anVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
47 

other $5 million to $10 million more annually above what the cost 

that the industry is bearing right now. 

So they may be able to absorb that. The industry may be able 

to absorb that with higher profitability down the road, but it will 

be difficult. 

Senator SNOWE. Certainly at the outset, it would be difficult to 

absorb. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Right. 

Senator SNOWE. Not to mention the other costs that might be associated with it. So that would be on an ongoing basis? 

Dr. HOLLAND. On an ongoing basis. If they have the full at-sea 

monitoring program that has been proposed by the Council, it is 

another $5 million to $10 million a year, and that is on a fishery 

that has been running at under $100 million a year recently. So 

we are talking about 6 to 10, 12 percent of the value of the fishery, 

which is a significant amount. 

Senator SNOWE. So would that money have to be in place before 

an alternative management system was in place? I mean, for example, in the sector management, would that not have to be in place 

before? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Well, the current model is that the industry has 

to build this themselves and pay for it themselves. So right now, 

the onus is on the industry to actually pull it together and pay for 

it as they go. So we were hoping, we had come and put some proposals earlier that it would be helpful to have some additional, 

some Federal funding to help implement that in the first place and 

not put all those costs on the industry at the beginning. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. One other question, Dr. Balsiger, that I 

want to make sure that I get in here because it was something that 

I mentioned in my opening statement about the secretarial declaration of disaster. I am concerned about that, as I indicated earlier, 

as is the Governor and Senator Collins and many of us who continue to write to the Secretary and express our views on this matter. 

Because we have now included $75 million in the continuing resolution, our concern is that that money is going to evaporate before 

he ever decides, if he decides, to declare a disaster for the 

groundfishery. And I don’t understand why he wouldn’t, given the 

circumstances. I know that recently they did in the Maryland and 

Virginia crab fisheries, that we have lost a value of 5 to 6 times 

of that fishery. 

And so, I don’t understand what the standard is, and I know that 

NMFS is working, the agency is working on developing a standard 

to put into law. But in the meantime, we want to make sure that 

we are not excluded from the opportunity, although it does depend 

on getting the Secretary of Commerce’s declaration that the fishery 

is a disaster or it has failed. 

So what can we expect on that? Because I could see, this money 

being gone, and we are not going to have any opportunity because 

it is based on these regulatory restrictions. And I want to make 

sure there is some consistency and fairness and equity in these appropriations and the declaration that obviously has to occur first. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Thank you, Senator. 

48 

The Governor asked for a similar finding of disaster in 2006, 

which the agency and the Secretary did not find a disaster. So they 

didn’t support that. But we don’t—the circumstance is reasonably 

close to the same in the current request for disaster from Governor 

Baldacci. But we are looking at that very closely, particularly, as 

you point out, in light of the other disasters we have declared. 

So we do have that fairly recently, that request to examine it. So 

we are looking at it. There are two things we have to find, of 

course—a commercial fishery failure and the resource disaster. And 

so, those are the bars that we need to get over, and we have people 

working on it as we speak. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, well, just last week—it was about last 

week, he did declare the Chesapeake blue crab fishery, citing a 41 

percent decline in landing values, a drop overall of $6.5 million. 

And then what I said in my letter to the Secretary again last Friday, we said our industry has experienced obviously a 32 percent 

decline in landings, more than $30 million shortfall in the same period and $41 million from its peak. 

So I mean we have lost more than half of our groundfish landings in 10 years. So I don’t know what is the threshold for declaring a disaster. Frankly, I think that there has got to be fairness 

involved here and not an inconsistent interpretation of what constitutes a disaster when it is clear, abundantly clear that Maine 

has suffered even disproportionately to the entire fishery in New 

England, that, without question, it has been the hardest hit. 

So I want to be sure that fairness is applied in that declaration, 

and I don’t want the money to disappear and then the Secretary 

decides to declare it and we have no money. 

Dr. BALSIGER. I understand, Senator. And we are looking at it 

now. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. I would appreciate that. We all believe the 

whole New England groundfishery is in jeopardy. Maine is just 

even more so. So I think that is illustrative of the problem and the 

depth of the problem that we are facing here. 

Do you think it would be helpful to have a definition on the book 

what constitutes a disaster? 

Dr. BALSIGER. Senator, we are working on a proposed rule that 

would identify the criteria more specifically. I look forward to that 

point in time when we have that. I understand there is a debate 

about how useful that would be, but personally, I think that we 

should have that and it would be helpful. 

Senator SNOWE. No, I think it would be, both for Maine and New 

England, the entire industry. And we want to make sure that a 

portion of that funding is available for that declaration and for the 

New England groundfish industry. So that is what our concern is 

that, all of a sudden, the sectors will make declarations on other 

industries, and we are going to be excluded. 

I just don’t understand why he is refusing to do so. I really don’t. 

Given the numbers, given the dimensions of it, this should be a 

slam-dunk, frankly, and I just don’t understand it. 

But we are going to continue to ask for it, and I know the Governor is, too, and the governors in New England. But we are going 

to insist on it. It is a matter of fairness in analyzing the statistics 

49 

and the value of the loss certainly to Maine and to the entire New 

England region. OK? 

And I hope that I can hear back, and we have all sent letters. 

We are going to keep sending letters and talking to him about it, 

but I hope that you could reinforce that view with the Secretary. 

Thank you. I appreciate it. 

OK. Why don’t we begin to have those who want, more importantly, to hear from the public here and the industry. So I will be 

going by number. Number one. Did people get numbers? Yes. And 

up in the balcony, you just have to turn, when it is any of your 

turns, just turn on the microphone. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BILL GERENCER, MEMBER, GROUNDFISH 

ADVISORY PANEL; MEMBER, ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY 

SPECIES PANEL; COMMERCIAL FISH BUYER, M.F. FOLEY 

COMPANY, INC. 

Mr. GERENCER. Somebody has got to go first. Thank you, Senator. Thanks, everybody. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. GERENCER. My name is Bill Gerencer. I have made my living 

in the seafood business for 28 years as a lobsterman, fisherman, 

and in seafood buying and sales. 

I spent 10 years on the board of directors of the Portland Fish 

Exchange, including 6 as treasurer and a term as president. I have 

also served on the Groundfish Advisory Panel for over 10 years and 

on the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel for more than 8, 

giving thousands of hours of my time at AP meetings, attending 

committee and council meetings, and making visits to Woods Hole 

to become better qualified to serve through ad hoc training sessions 

with Northeast Science Center staff. I still serve on both advisory 

panels. 

First and foremost, I want to say about the employees at National Marine Fisheries Service Woods Hole, those that I know personally, I believe to be decent, honest, dedicated, and hard-working 

public servants. However, I grow increasingly concerned with stock 

assessments, lack of information, critical proper fisheries management, and management itself. 

Back in June, we were looking toward a 77 percent cut in effort 

because of hake, a devastating blow to the industry. Now, a few 

months later, hake is no longer the issue, and months of work on 

the amendment had to be scrapped. Flatfish are currently—some 

flatfish are currently the problem, a finding I do not disagree with. 

However, it is not only almost impossible now to run a business, 

given the rapidly changing nature of the scientific advice, it is now 

apparently impossible to craft a management plan. We spent over 

a year developing a plan that had to be thrown out because the assessment report came out late and nearly at the same time as the 

completed plan was due. The over 900-page GARM report has yet 

to be fully digested. 

On my first visit to Woods Hole as an AP member, then-chief of 

the Population Dynamics Branch Steve Murawski impressed upon 

me that the random stratified design for collection of stock assessment data was one of the best in the world, in part based on the 

50 

continuous data collection time line stretching back to 1931. But he 

also stressed that while the system was an excellent tool for determination of relative stock abundance, it was probably not a great 

management tool. 

Perhaps this has been manifested in the increasing problems we 

currently face, some of which include the following—and I will try 

to gloss over the redundant ones—the pollock assessment, where a 

single data point was used as opposed to the 3-year center average. 

A 3-year center average would have resulted in defining the stock 

as not overfished, and overfishing not occurring. We have noticed 

that the best thing we can say about a stock is something negative. 

It is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. And even that 

sounds bad, even though it is good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GERENCER. Using the most recent year, the stock is half of 

that. Overfished and overfishing is occurring. And I question how 

is it that the peer review either did not comment on the use of a 

single year or that those comments never made it into the report? 

To accept the northern windowpane flounder assessment, you 

must believe the industry discarded over 800 metric tons of these 

legally saleable fish valued at close to $400,000. The peer review 

comments recommended that the Gulf of Maine winter flounder 

stock assessment not be used. It was used anyway. It was left to 

the industry to point this out before any explanation was given. 

And gray sole landings are a third of the recommended total allowable catch, and the stock dropped by two thirds. Gulf of Maine 

cod was routinely overfished by large amounts, according to the 

data, and is now considered not overfished and close to be recovered. How are we supposed to follow management advice? It becomes very confusing. 

The primary modeling tool used to manipulate data collected by 

the random stratified design survey in New England is called virtual population analysis. VPA models are designed to assess single 

stocks that are fished without restrictions because landings are the 

primary determinant of stock size. In New England, we use them 

to assess an interactive multispecies complex stock by stock as if 

they were single stocks, with fishing effort and presumably landings restricted by closed areas, mesh sizes, TACs, trip limits, days 

at sea, et cetera. 

Not surprisingly, the model started to fail about the same time 

effort controls were put into place. This is important because these 

are meant—the model depends on complete access to the stock, unfettered fishing ability throughout the time of the year, the range 

of the stock, et cetera, and we are inputting data that is full of restrictions. So it is going to affect the model. 

I recently downloaded the VPA model used by the National Marine Fisheries Service in altered landings up and down and reran 

the assessments myself. And admittedly, my knowledge and experience with VPA modeling is preliminary, but the results were as expected. Inputting lower landings into the model result in a decreased stock estimate, and increased landings did the opposite. 

The attempts to fix the VPA models include a retrospective pattern analysis, used a factor called ‘‘Mohn’s rho’’ developed by a Canadian, Bob Mohn. Bob sat in the meeting when the use of his rho 

51 

factor, which was an adjustment factor, was discussed. It didn’t 

seem to bother anyone that he objected to the way it was being 

used. 

The other part of the solution of the VPA problem was to split 

the time series and essentially throw out all the data prior to 1994, 

when effort controls came into place. I am still trying to learn how 

this model accounts for the intentional reduction in landings when 

it uses landings as a primary determinant of stock size. 

The value assigned to natural mortality in the VPA models used 

is assumed to be the same for all stocks. In single stocks not interacting with each other, this assumption may hold water. But with 

19 stocks in the complex interacting with each other and interacting with populations of many other species, these assumptions 

may require a second look. 

Intuitively, if fishing mortality is lowered, then fish are going to 

die of something else, we call that natural mortality. If we are assuming that every stock has a constant natural mortality and it 

doesn’t change, then that is something we might want to take another look at. 

In order to compensate for reduced fishing effort and constant 

natural mortality, some other explanation must be considered to 

make the models work. That explanation apparently assumes significant additional discards. Based on private conversations with 

employees at the Science Center and in Silver Spring, I find this 

assumption to be widely held. To my knowledge, although our recorded and estimated discards are significant and point to a severely mismanaged fishery, they are also accounted for as part of 

fishing mortality. 

In order to account for the discrepancies in the model, considerable additional unobserved discards have to be assumed. When the 

fishing industry offers that kind of information, it is usually referred to as ‘‘anecdotal.’’ 

Both the monkfish and scallop fisheries perform their own surveys and assessments and use these to effectively manage their industries. In both cases, stock assessments improved compared to 

NOAA assessments, and both stocks seem to be well managed with 

concurrent NOAA and industry assessment and oversight. 

The groundfish industry was able to afford to hire Dr. Doug 

Butterworth to assess the Gulf of Maine cod and hake. He was able 

to change the cod assessment by showing it was significantly larger 

than the original GARM assessment. He made some impact on the 

hake assessment as well. Where would the other 19 stocks be if 

fishermen could have afforded to pay him to do the rest? 

The Canadian DFO assessed the eastern Georges Bank cod stock 

using the same data that we used and concluded there was twice 

as many cod as the U.S. assessment found. This, of course, has 

caused problems with the transboundary resource sharing agreement. 

In my opinion, there is also several key pieces of information 

that we continue to do without. What is the actual size of the fleet 

in 1988 versus what exists today? That information is there but 

has never been tabulated and compared. 

I did get the impression that what exists today is assumed to be 

equally powerful as what existed in 1998 because of advances in 

52 

technology. Again, that is a big assumption, and I would be much 

happier to see that actually investigated. We need more than assumptions here. Without an accurate accounting of how much effort really has disappeared, we can never accurately understand 

how much effort has actually been reduced and apply the correct 

adjustments we need to manage this fishery. 

What is the total biomass today versus what existed in 1988? 

What is the carrying capacity of the ecosystem? Are there better 

assessment models we could be using? And of course, how much 

more can the industry take before we go out of business? 

I think the real problem is that we are using tools not suited for 

the job we are trying to accomplish. Dr. Brian Rothschild, professor 

of marine science at UMass Dartmouth, points to the overfishing 

definitions as sometimes arbitrary and overly precise. Not a problem until you remember that once we cross them, we have to act 

or we get sued. 

If we continue to accept the term ‘‘best available science’’ as a 

placeholder for staying the course in spite of correctable shortcomings, then it doesn’t matter what tools are placed in our fishery 

management toolbox. Without refinements in our scientific approach, we will be back here 4 years from now, crying about the 

failure of catch shares, LAPPs, and the like. 

Listening to some of the scientific advice given to the Council, 

one could easily, but incorrectly, assume that each stock lives in a 

near vacuum and is minimally affected by another. Similarly, we 

manage the same way, with a hammer. It is no wonder we failed 

to catch our haddock TAC and discard more cod, haddock, and 

yellowtails than we actually land from eastern Georges Bank. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates we use the best available 

science. To me, that means using stock assessment models best 

suited for a given fishery and including actual facts about fishing 

power, discards, biomass, and economic viability over assumptions. 

The every species at optimum yield approach of Magnuson completes the problem puzzle. In a recent article of National Fisherman, Neil Stopay writes that while effort and landings have decreased, relative total biomass in the Gulf of Maine and Georges 

Bank, as indicated by the trawl surveys, is now close to those seen 

in the 1980s. Yet we continue to cut effort. 

And Mr. Cunningham said the same thing, and when I was visiting with Paul Rago. If you just read the report, it looks bad until 

you realize that all these stocks are moving in the right direction. 

And effort has been cut severely, but all we can think to do is cut 

it some more. So it is time to really think about that. 

The problem is we have an ecosystem that was once depleted and 

is fast returning to the past total biomass levels, but it is out of 

balance. Dogfish, haddock, redfish are at historic levels. No one has 

ever seen, according to the assessment, as many haddock as we 

have in the ocean right now, and the dogfish stock is considered to 

be 60 percent larger. And yet other stocks aren’t coming back in 

the same kind of balance. 

Well, it is entirely possible that some stocks are thriving in part 

at the expense of others. And when viewed in this light, the situation becomes more understandable. The problem is the fishery, scientific, and regulatory tools we have aren’t the right ones for the 

53 

job. It is no surprise to me that science is problematic. Fishery 

management doesn’t work, and we are always getting sued. 

Thanks for your time. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, we appreciate that. And I appreciate your 

comments. I think they are very well said, and that is one of the 

big challenges is obviously avoiding what Dr. Balsiger talks about 

on the legal issues. But also what we have got to recognize is focusing on the best science possible. 

I mean, I agree with you. I think that has been the source of our 

problem, and the final analysis is that we have got to decide—we 

have got to make the investments in the research that gives confidence to the fishing industry that we are making these decisions 

based on the best science available. And that is one of the issues 

that I think would be even helpful to hear any of the panelists. 

Anybody have any ideas about what we should do to focus our 

efforts? Yes, Mr. Odlin? Jim? 

Mr. JAMES ODLIN. Yes, I have one important one, and I think 

that we need to have industry-based surveys side by side with 

these Northeast Science Center surveys. That would do two things. 

It would take away the argument of catchability. It would give you 

the—make sure that the surveys are getting a good cross-section 

of the year classes, put scientists on the fishing boats. The survey 

ship does a tow, and the fishing boat is there doing the same tow. 

It also will build confidence and give the industry the confidence 

it needs to go forward. It was done in monkfish, done in scallops. 

It needs to be done in multispecies groundfish. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, we have—yes, Dr. Holland? I think we certainly have to have continuity. This has been a longstanding issue, 

and somehow we have got to resolve it. I would agree. Thank you. 

Dr. Holland? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes, no matter how much we invest in stock assessments and surveys, there is still going to be a lot of uncertainty 

in stock assessments. Even the best stock assessments anywhere in 

the world have high degree of uncertainty. 

And one way to deal with that or to try to deal with that is to 

use something called management strategy evaluations or management procedures, which are you design rules and you test them 

with simulations, computer simulations to come up with rules for 

changing total allowable catch over time that are robust to that uncertainty and that directly try and meet objectives like keeping the 

TAC stable over time. 

And that is an area I think that it would be wise to invest in. 

I know that there is interest in doing that at the Science Center, 

but a lack of resources to do that. But I think they are moving in 

that direction. 

Senator SNOWE. Is that something that—yes? Yes, go ahead, Mr. 

Libby. 

Mr. LIBBY. Yes, I think it is important to consider that I know 

there is a lot of talk about science, and there is—I have some 

issues with some of it, like the pollock, for example. We couldn’t get 

away from the things all summer. 

But it is important to consider an area component, too, because 

there are vast stretches along the coast of Maine where there 

54 

hasn’t been anything for a long time. So it is not just totally an assessment problem that is hurting the industry in Maine. It is the 

lack of fish. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Thank you. Yes? Oh, yes. Then I have to move on because there 

are so many others. 

Mr. GERENCER. I think it is interesting that there is considerable 

uncertainty in any assessment, but we have little uncertainty of 

what we have to do once an assessment is actually delivered. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I think that 

is something that we certainly have to look at and do something 

about. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD BRADLEY, PRESIDENT AND 

MANAGER, VESSEL SERVICES, INC. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Good afternoon, Senator. 

Senator SNOWE. Good afternoon. 

Mr. BRADLEY. My name is Ed Bradley. Senator, I can’t think of 

any elected official who has done more for the groundfish sector, 

the industry in Maine in the last 30 years. So thank you for this, 

and thank you for your continued attention. 

Senator SNOWE. You mean I was here 30 years ago? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BRADLEY. Started. I have only been here 30 years. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADLEY. I am here representing Vessel Services. I am the 

president. I am, unfortunately, currently the manager. Since May, 

I have gotten a close look at the microeconomics of the groundfish 

fishery in a way that I had never fully appreciated before. 

And if we are talking about what is really going on on the waterfront—and I will limit it to Portland because that is truly all I 

know about—I checked our numbers before I came here so I would 

have something quantitative to say. And in the last 3 years, we 

have had a 40 percent reduction in the gallons of fuel and the tons 

of ice we have sold to fishing vessels in the State of Maine. 

There is no question from the perspective of this canary that 

there is danger in the mine, that the collapse is imminent, and 

whether we can survive the next spate of regulations I don’t think 

is an issue for us. If it continues to go the 10 or 15 percent reduction that we are experiencing without the next set of reductions, 

were they to occur and were they to affect Maine vessels the way 

they have been affecting them in the past, then a critical point or 

component of the infrastructure in Portland will disappear. 

Two or 3 years ago, I was a member of the fisheries task force 

that the Governor set up, and we dealt with all the issues affecting 

the groundfish fishery. To me, it is a little bit amazing that we are 

here asking what can we do when the groundfish industry has answered that with 30 recommendations if you don’t take care of lobster, but one if you do. 

And I know nobody wants to talk about it, but vessels have left 

Portland, have left Maine in a disproportionate rate because—in 

large part because of that issue. If you can’t deal with it politically, 

nobody can, and I understand you can’t, then you have to deal with 

55 

the other recommendations that would support the groundfish industry. 

They didn’t cost $109 million for monitoring. They cost $3 million, and they ran the gamut from things like subsidize the fuel 

tax, take care of permit acquisition in the State of Maine so that 

we don’t lose the right to the resources it recovers to Massachusetts 

and other states that are doing it. 

None of these things have been done by the State or by the Federal Government. So we are essentially an industry on our own, 

you know, subject to the regulatory process that you have all 

talked about in great depth. But economically, there is very little 

attention being paid to what is actually happening other than to 

say it is a disaster and to what specific economic steps could be 

taken to hold the fort so the industry is here still when the thing 

turns. 

So my first recommendation would be get all these people who— 

at the Federal level, the State level, and in the industry together, 

take a look at those groundfish task force recommendations, ask 

which ones make sense? Which ones could we implement in this 

crisis situation to make sure that the industry stays? 

Senator SNOWE. Good point. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Unfortunately, in my old life, I was a lawyer. So 

my ears were just ringing when I heard all the conversation about 

the law. And if you are looking not at the small issues, the management issues that are in front here, this gentleman, Mr. 

Balsiger, is absolutely right. I mean, he has no choice but to do 

what the courts have told him that that law says he has to do. 

So if he can’t make in good faith or his legal staff can’t in good 

faith make the determination that Magnuson permits more than 

the 18 percent—or less than his determination the 18 percent the 

Council has developed, then he is stuck. So, again, with an idea of 

hopefulness, what could be done? 

Well, and my question is if we can get $700 billion in about a 

week to bail out Wall Street, can’t we get a Senate resolution that 

authorizes in an interim period the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to adopt, as you say, this publicly developed and confident 

recommendation for an 18 percent or less reduction to get us to the 

point where all of these great ideas that these people are coming 

up with can be implemented? 

I know I am taking a lot of time. I want to say one more thing. 

This year, Vessel Services was presented with a lot of concerns 

raised by a number of people in this room in the Maine industry, 

and they have suggested that once you get beyond the basic determination as to what is MSY, what is the mortality, how many days 

at sea, the basic conservation recommendations, there is a huge 

range of discretion that gets exercised with respect to the individual rules. 

And that cumulatively over a period of 10 years, those rules have 

been adopted in a way that disadvantages Maine fishermen, Maine 

groundfishermen. And as a result, our attrition has been greater 

than the attrition of other groundfish vessels in other states. 

I thought that was an interesting idea. I didn’t know whether it 

was true or not. 

56 

Senator SNOWE. Well, what are the reasons why it is disproportionate here in Maine? 

Mr. BRADLEY. The suggestion from the industry was that as you 

adopt rules and regulations to implement the conservation requirements that are set by Magnuson, those that are—you can’t change 

because the law says you can’t. But you have a lot of discretion as 

to what rules you use to implement them. And that over a long period of time, rules have been adopted to disadvantage the Maine 

fleet. 

We looked at three different specifics, and I don’t want to get 

into it because it is technical and legal. But the determination of 

independent counsel, public counsel—not us—was that, yes, you 

can look at the record of the Council and see over a period of time 

that the rules that have been adopted have disadvantaged the 

Maine fleet and put them in a situation where they can’t compete 

with Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 

And there are a lot of reasons for that. I don’t say that they are 

evil. But it is a fact. And so, all I would suggest is we go forward 

and we talk about the things that are going to change this process, 

which are really allocation issues. Once you start talking about 

area management, when you start talking about sectors, when you 

start talking about almost any rule within the confines, you are 

talking about who gets the pie. 

And given the fact that Maine has been disadvantaged, as demonstrated by the current situation, that everybody pay close attention to the fact that we have been. You are starting with Maine underwater, and as you adopt rules, make sure we don’t go further 

underwater. When you adopt the rules, you have discretion to 

adopt within the range of discretion you are given. 

So thank you for the hearing. 

Senator SNOWE. That was very helpful. I thank you. On all those 

issues, very helpful. 

And I think it just illustrates the problem you are talking 

about—40 percent less in fuel, 40 percent less in ice. I mean, it is 

just the breadth of the problem that we are experiencing right 

here, which is certainly, I think, stark. And we recognize it, and 

we have got to do something to turn it around. 

I think the real question is, is how do you get this process that 

seems to be consolidated in a very short period of time, very little 

time to review the assessments, the stock assessments that were 

given back in August of, what, you are saying like a week for 1,000 

pages. Much of which, I think, is an indication that it is an unrealistic timetable, time-frame to make these very difficult, intractable 

decisions because they are irreversible. I mean, certainly the implications and the consequences are irreversible once they are imposed. 

And if Dr. Balsiger, as he said, is constrained by the legalities 

in upholding the law, and obviously, it is up to one lawyer’s interpretation versus another. But in the final analysis, you end up in 

court. I mean, so much of what we have done has been determined 

by the courts in the final analysis. It has been one of our greatest 

sources of frustration, and we have just got to figure it out. 

I am just thinking about 2010. Well, we are here doing the interim, how are we going to get to this 2010 with an alternative 

57 

management process and all that that requires is what I am thinking. I am sure you are all thinking it because you are there. But 

how are we going to put that together? 

It is a very difficult process, to say the least. And I just don’t 

know that there has been any room for flexibility. There may be 

flexibility somewhere in that law, but it doesn’t seem like the way 

in which it has been implemented that it is. But the rules, that is 

an interesting point. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you for listening. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

OK. Next? Number three. I am sorry. It is number three. We will 

move faster. That is right. 

STATEMENT OF CYRUS HAMLIN, AUTHOR, PRELIMINARY 

DESIGN OF BOATS AND SHIPS 

Mr. HAMLIN. My name is Cyrus Hamlin. I am a naval architect. 

I came to Maine in 1939 to work for Henry Hinckley. I have been 

here ever since. 

Although my specialty is naval architecture, about a half of my 

time has been spent in fisheries matters, both in this country and 

in various countries around the world. 

Are you getting the signal OK? 

And for a time, I was involved with—I had a corporation called 

Ocean Research Corporation, which did several things. Among 

them, it was the—did the layout for the fish pier here, which we 

worked with Parsons Brinkerhoff, and I think at the time that fish 

pier was built, it was the best in the country. I don’t think there 

was anything like it. And it saddens me to see it ignored by such 

low throughputs of fish. 

I am here because about 3 years ago, I began to question the fact 

that so little progress was being made by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and the bureaucracy that it spawned. And it seemed to me that 

with generations of the fish being around 3 or 4 years that in 30 

years, there should have been considerably more progress than 

there has been. 

So I have spent 3 years examining the Magnuson-Stevens bill 

and the present bureaucracy, which is trying to carry out its dictates, its mandate. Oddly enough, the first problem I ran into was 

that there is no name for this huge project, which is extending— 

I don’t know how many people know, but there is a 4.5 million 

square miles contained in our EEZ along with the shore. We have 

to manage that. That is part of the management process. 

So the name is a small one, but a small item here. If people have 

the handout, I left a few of them around. It has nine items in it, 

which I will briefly go through, if that is OK? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, just not too long because I have got so 

many people. So if you can go through it quickly, yes, please. 

Mr. HAMLIN. It will be quite short. 

Senator SNOWE. OK, thank you. 

Mr. HAMLIN. The first item is that it has no name. It should have 

a name. It should have something like ‘‘New Deal’’ or ‘‘Manhattan 

Project.’’ 

There is no clear-cut statement of goals and purposes. There is 

one in the published book, but it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t 

58 

specifically cover all the areas in which this important work should 

be aimed. 

There are no baselines or specific goals established. There are no 

numbers, no quantification. There are no—they say this stock is 

improving or this stock is not improving, or it is not as big as it 

was in 1996 or it is bigger than it was in 1996. Those are really 

not very useful ways to describe progress or lack of it. 

Leadership is required. There is, so far as I know, not one person 

who is in charge of this or one person that we would recognize. 

How many in this room would know who the leader was of this 

whole big venture? Maybe there isn’t one leader. Maybe it is just 

an amalgam of all these small efforts. It seems to be very inefficient. 

Governors are important. The governors, we must not forget that 

all the people in the State own the resources. These are common 

resources. The governor is, therefore, the one who should be intimately involved in all negotiations, all work such as this being 

done here. 

Maintaining the fishing industry is a big one that has been 

touched on here. We are going to have—we have had and we will 

have more downtime of the fishing industry. What do you do with 

these? Do you just sell everything off? Do you get rid of it? Do you 

get rid of the industry? 

It has been pointed out this is one of the oldest manufacturing 

industries in the country. It is the oldest, as a matter of fact. So 

there has to be something done to keep fishing vessels and their 

infrastructure viable, to keep them going, so that when the fish 

come back to the levels of, let us say, 1900 that there will be a 

structure there, both the infrastructure on shore and the vessels 

and gear required to catch them. 

The council’s makeup should be improved. It should include some 

private citizens who are not otherwise associated with the fishing 

industry. I think the Council has done a very fine job, but I think 

it is focused in such a way that it does not include the actual owners of the resource. 

In Maine, when there are a million pounds of sea urchins, one 

pound of that belongs to me. And one pound belongs to the potato 

farmer and so forth. That should not be forgotten. Because they are 

the ones who issue the licenses to the fishermen. 

A major flaw is to increase the use of graphics in all the work 

that this nameless body does. They turn out loads of texts, reports. 

Reading one of those, reading anything from the Federal Register, 

it is very difficult to make any sense of it without some kind of 

graphics. 

In this handout of mine—I think there are a few out there— 

there is a graph here. Nobody else got one of these? There is a 

graph here, which shows the progress of fishing after World War 

II, and this is important to know how this all came about. This 

starts down here. This, by the way, this line across here is the 

maximum sustainable yield curve. It is not—who knows whether it 

is accurate or not, but it would be somewhere in there. 

So the Canadian and the United States fishermen went 

gangbusters after the war and caught fish very busily. And they 

got up and pretty soon they started having the foreign vessels come 

59 

in and help them catch the fish so that we have this one curve 

here, which shows the catch by the Canadian and United States 

vessels, and then the foreign vessels added onto that. I don’t know 

if those quantities are anywhere near right, but it is close enough. 

It shows what happened. 

And right there, where that crosses the maximum sustainable 

yield curve, is a vital point because from that point on, all the fish 

caught are coming out of the brood stock. And what happens when 

they come out of the brood stock? The egg supply is smaller. They 

do not reconstitute the resource so that your maximum—the number of fish drops, declines. So that it is very important for the fishermen to be stopped when they get to that point and level out their 

fishing effort so that they stay below that maximum sustainable 

yield. 

This is obviously an idealized version. This goes up and down 

like that. Excuse me. But the principle is the same. You can’t exceed the maximum sustainable yield and maintain a sustainable 

industry. 

Senator SNOWE. Excuse me. I am going to have to move on because I have got so many other people that want to talk. One more 

point? OK. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I have one more. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, and we are glad to have a copy of that as 

well. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Yes. I would like to—one more point is, where am 

I? One more point is I think that the—I would like to relate a brief 

story to you, which you are all familiar with. 

During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt was told about the 

atom bomb. And he was told that if he didn’t get it quickly, Germany would have it first, and we would lose the war. So being a 

man of action, he set it up, and he set it up within the Beltway 

in the Washington style. 

And after a short while, he realized that at that rate of progress, 

they were going to lose. So that he cut that off and set up the Manhattan Project, which was a semi-military operation under General 

Groves. It was probably the biggest and most complicated and most 

sophisticated industrial effort this country ever undertook. And in 

3 years, General Groves was able to drop 2 bombs on Japan. 

Our fisheries are in this State now. We should be treating fisheries as something that is more urgent than having the typical 

Beltway of doing it. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, thank you. And I appreciate your comments, and I hope to have a copy of your paper. OK, thank you. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Yes, I have some copies here. Incidentally, this is 

my full report of what I have been doing, and there are a few copies here I have. And I will be—if somebody, anybody leaves their 

name, I will be—— 

Senator SNOWE. Well, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG PENDELTON, FORMER COORDINATING 

DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST ATLANTIC MARINE ALLIANCE 

(NAMA); OWNER, F/V OCEAN SPRAY 

Mr. PENDLETON. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. 

60 

I am Craig Pendleton, and I am from Saco. I came here to talk 

to you today because of my friendship and my deep respect for you. 

I came here today to testify as a casualty. I currently am under 

contract to sell my permit, and I have four individuals looking to 

buy my boat. 

I will be the last Pendleton fishing out of Saco. And while that 

may not be economically important, from a heritage point of view, 

it is a big deal. 

My business has been regulated down to a small window of opportunity. During that window of opportunity, we faced mediocre 

prices. Forty cents for pollock is near criminal. My 48 days were 

actually 24 days because my backyard is in the middle of the 2-for1 area. 

Add that to the high cost of doing business, where fuel prices 

rose to $4.68 a gallon at our fuel facility, and low inventories in the 

repair shops actually caused us to lose more valuable time every 

time we have a breakdown. At the end of the day, there was no 

money. My family and I got tired of living one breakdown away 

from a disaster. 

And similar to some of the symptoms the current economic crisis 

in front of us has, I had no confidence to invest in more equipment 

for other fisheries or my own fishery. I am not allowed to operate 

at a deficit like some of the big banks. 

One of the things I wanted to talk to you about today, as I 

worked closely with your staff and Congressman Allen’s staff during the reauthorization, one of the things we talked about a lot was 

accountability. That seems to have turned into accountability 

measures for fishermen. I just wanted to remind you that a lot of 

the discussions were around accountability to the agency and to the 

managers. 

This is not a one-sided equation. It is not only my fault that 

there aren’t any fish. In a recent letter that I sent and is probably 

the last letter I sent, I actually asked for resignations of some of 

the managers. No longer should it just be us. 

Ultimately, I did not agree with the way management was headed, and my efforts over 20 years had far more losses than victories. 

And so, I have chosen to leave. I couldn’t wait for a buyback. I 

couldn’t wait for a disaster declaration. And hopefully, some day 

this profession will be turned back to being the honorable profession that it used to be. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. I deeply regret that you are a casualty of all 

this, and I want to say because I know you have been so hardworking, as I have known you over the years and about your family’s generations. It is truly a tragedy that you are at this point and 

having to make that decision, given the circumstances of the 

groundfishery today. 

Yes? 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER LITTERAL, DIRECTOR, 

MARINE PROGRAMS, ISLAND INSTITUTE 

Ms. LITTERAL. Thank you, Senator Snowe. Jennifer Litteral from 

the Island Institute. 

61 

I think you really put your finger on the pulse of this today that 

it is very overwhelming. Which piece do you tackle? Do you tackle 

the interim action or the plans for 2010 or the transition packages? 

And it is really all of it. 

I really commend you for recognizing what happened at the recent council meeting. That decision, seeing it firsthand, was very 

surprising to know that not only the Council was in support of it, 

but behind the scenes as well, the industry and other interest 

groups that were there. 

And a credit to the Council, in addition to that, for being able 

to balance that tightrope between rebuilding the goals of the stocks 

in addition to working with the fishing communities. 

The thing I wanted to highlight was that not to get stuck in this 

band-aid year, and I do not mean to slight that term for the 2009 

fishing year, but we really hope that this 2009 fishing year doesn’t 

turn into a band-aid year for 2010 because that will be even more 

devastating. 

We are moving toward output management. Sectors is just one 

of those that the Council is and just recently, last week, has moved 

forward. I know that looking at the uniqueness of Maine, sectors 

may not be the only output management that is going to suit everybody in Maine. It is the first one coming up the dock, and it is 

ready to be implemented in 2010. But it is a big transition, and we 

are going to need help with the transition, transition packages, 

transition assistance. 

And I just wanted to leave it with bringing it back to Maine and 

our ports. And I think it is really a critical thing that the gentleman from Vessel Services highlighted the loss of people in Maine 

not only due to lobsters, but I think that looking at other states 

and why is it it is so enticing, outside of the lobster realm, for fishermen to move to a different state or to fish in a different state and 

land there? 

What is it that we can bring them back with and keep them here 

and keep them viable? The fuel tax is a perfect example. We had 

that up until July of this year. How do we find money to bring 

things like that back? And again, additionally, supporting, having 

permits available to keep fishing in Maine. 

And I just thank you for all of your support. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that. And thank you very much. 

Great suggestions. 

Who’s next? That’s six? 

STATEMENT OF TERRY ALEXANDER, 

FISHERMAN AND OWNER, F/V JOCKA 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Hi, I am Terry Alexander from Cundys Harbor. 

I am a fisherman. 

I have a question for Dr. Balsiger. Is that OK to ask him a question directly? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. When you are talking about the interim measures and you are talking about implementing new ones, are you 

talking about basing those measures on the old numbers or the 

newly defined overfished fish? 

62 

Dr. BALSIGER. I am not certain where we are in that process. I 

think that we have to adopt a new status of stocks document. So 

I think that we have framed it. We are looking at the new overfishing definitions that we are going to have to live with. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. But according to the law, the Council actually 

has a year to develop a plan on the new stock. So you would have 

to basically base it on the old—old defined overfishing stocks? Am 

I correct in that or—— 

Dr. BALSIGER. There may be a nuance here that I am missing, 

but I would be more than happy to get back to you on very short 

notice to say what we are doing in that. I don’t want to misspeak 

just now. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. OK. All right, thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. We will get the name and address so that you 

can respond to him. Yes, thank you. 

Go ahead, number seven. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLIAMSON, MANAGER, 

FISH CONSERVATION, NEW ENGLAND OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I think I am next. This is John Williamson 

with the Ocean Conservancy, and I am speaking also as a former 

fisherman, 9 years as a council member, now working for an environmental organization. 

I attended portions of the GARM III meeting over a couple of different sessions. It was very impressive, a total of 20 meeting days 

over a 10-month period, dozens of top section scientists from 

around the world, working on various aspects of the plan. I talked 

to people in the Ocean Conservancy’s Fish Conservation Team from 

around the country. We have never seen anything like it anywhere 

in this country. 

It was very impressive. It was unprecedented, and there is every 

reason we should have faith that it is the best science that can be 

available for managing groundfish at this point. 

The science is not our problem here. It is how we use the science. 

I think Dan Holland made a very good point in that the task of 

fishery management, the challenge for fishery management is managing risk. It is managing the inevitable uncertainty, the inherent 

uncertainty in the data. 

And so, it falls to management to make the science work, to use 

the science and make it work for the fishing communities. And unfortunately, we have seen groundfish play out as a tragedy over 20 

years. It is just that—and that responsibility falls to management. 

We have some of the best science in the country here in the Northeast for managing. But managers are human, and we have made 

mistakes over the years. 

For all the communities, fishing communities, groundfish communities in the region have suffered from groundfish management 

as the way it has played out over the 20-year period. Geographic, 

economic, ecological reasons—the burden seems to have fallen disproportionately heavily on the Maine groundfish communities. 

I think if we were looking at this in retrospect and we would say 

that 20 years ago, at least in the early 1990s when the overfishing 

problem first was identified, if the Council had taken decisive action then, we wouldn’t be talking about the loss of Maine groundVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
63 

fish communities now. The burden would have been much more 

equally shared because the history of groundfish fishing in times 

of abundance would have been the history that you would have 

been managing around. 

Instead, depletion has settled heavily on these Maine communities. And you know, Glen Libby has identified that problem in his 

testimony this afternoon. And that depletion is what has gradually 

over the years compounded and used up his resources, used up people’s borrowing power and has compounded the problem of dealing 

with the loss of fishing opportunity to the point where people have 

simply dropped out of the business. 

The longer we delay groundfish rebuilding, the more likely that 

management is going to continue to select against Maine fishing 

communities. Ocean Conservancy supports staying the course on 

rebuilding for this reason. We do recognize that there are some improvements in biomass that we are seeing in the numbers, and 

that is not—but that is not a reason to back off of a strong rebuilding program. 

We support NMFS’s strong interim action this coming fishing 

year. I was at the Fishery Management Council meeting last 

month when the Council requested interim action and put forward 

an industry-developed plan built around an 18 percent cut in days 

at sea. I wanted to support that plan because it was an industry 

plan, but there were some obvious faults with it. 

The one is that it was a long way from tackling overfishing, and 

at this point, in the law, that is illegal. We have to address overfishing. We have to eliminate it. 

And two, even if there was a technical loophole to be followed to 

get through that for 2009, the—falling that far short in taking action in 2009 would compound the challenge for managers in 2010. 

Compound it to the point where to address the overfishing problem 

in 2010 would probably mean that any action the Council took 

would be a virtual shutdown of the fishery certainly in southern 

New England and very possibly in the Gulf of Maine. 

That has to be avoided. The way to avoid that is to take strong 

interim action in 2009, and that responsibility is now on the service. 

I will say that one of the mistakes I think that has been made 

in the past is that in attempting to do a rebuilding program, it was 

not also a requirement—there was a requirement for rebuilding 

stocks. It is a biological requirement. The managers did not have 

the same mandate required to—for a rebuilding program for the industry as well. 

So when Amendment 13 was done, it was an attempt to rebuild 

stocks, but there was not a commensurate plan for rebuilding communities, for distributing the rebuilding of—the biological benefits 

of rebuilding and designating to whom those benefits would flow. 

What I see happening now is the development of sectors, programs 

for catch shares, and other possible programs are an after-the-fact 

attempt to deal with this economic distribution of these benefits. 

And for that reason, I think there is a need to make an investment. The costs that have been identified for monitoring and for 

administration are going to be substantial, the startup costs to 

make the transition, and I think that that is something that the 

64 

Senator could be very constructive in helping to address. Ocean 

Conservancy pledges to work with your office and other organizations to make that happen as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. How do you maintain a viable industry, though, 

if the measures are so drastic? I mean, for example, you are saying 

very strong interim measures—— 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. How do you maintain a viable industry if people’s resources have been completely exhausted? The longer we prolong rebuilding this resource, the less likelihood that the people 

that are in it now will make it through to the end. 

Senator SNOWE. Do we have to paint a broad brush with all of 

the stock? For those that had been rebuilt? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I think there are some real deficits in the 

groundfish plan’s use of days at sea that have created this—that 

have exacerbated this management for the weakest stock. I think 

it is very difficult for people to take advantage of the stocks that 

are now strongly rebuilding, the few that are strongly rebuilding, 

such as haddock. But in the end, Georges Bank cod is at 12 percent 

of its target biomass, and we are in danger of losing that stock. 

So making that balancing act happen effectively under days at 

sea has proven to be an insurmountable challenge for managers 

using the days at sea system. Now it is very possible that there 

may be other systems other than days at sea that could facilitate 

access to haddock. But unfortunately, that is not on the books right 

now. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. Thank you. 

Any questions, anybody? No? 

Number eight? All right. Number nine. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN MAHONEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

DIRECTOR, MAINE ADVOCACY CENTER, CONSERVATION 

LAW FOUNDATION 

Mr. MAHONEY. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. My name is Sean 

Mahoney. I am from Falmouth, Maine, and I am Vice President of 

the Conservation Law Foundation, which is often the proverbial 

skunk in the woodpile when it comes to the legal compliance conversations we have been having earlier today. 

But I am here today to talk about our focus on sustainable management of the resource. I think one thing that is important to recognize is we are here today because the resource was fished too 

hard historically. We are not here because of a regulatory problem. 

The basic fact is that we fished the resource too hard, and we need 

to rebuild the resource. 

There is no dispute that the current days-at-sea system is broken. It is the worst-case scenario for fishermen because it—in 

terms of the economics and in terms of the safety, and it is worst 

case for the resource, particularly the failure to address the critical 

issues of bycatch and discards. 

As Glen Libby and Craig Pendleton talked about earlier, challenging the science of the GARM won’t change that reality. Even 

if the current days-at-sea system doesn’t change at all and we are 

left with 48 days or 24 days, depending on where you fish, the 

65 

groundfish industry, particularly here in Maine, will still be in crisis mode. So we need to do something. 

I am not really sure what to do about the interim measures. It 

is a problem. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was recently reauthorized. Everybody in this room was part of that process, and the law 

is what the law is unless Congress chooses to change it. 

But I think our focus should be on 2010 because we can’t put off 

changing the regulatory system for Amendment 17, which is anticipated but undefined. We have to look at the new management proposals that are being tested by the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association, or put out there by Ms. McGee’s organization, or the research 

that Dr. Holland has been doing, supports. 

But we cannot put off a new direct management structure as opposed to the indirect method that hasn’t worked. If we do put it off, 

then I predict if we have an Amendment 17 that deals with this, 

we are going to be in this room again in 3 or 4 years dealing with 

the same issues, but likely with fewer groundfishermen who still 

have a stake in the industry and with little to show for it in terms 

of resource protection. 

So we would strongly urge that the focus be on how we revise 

the management structure, and the Council is making a good start 

on that, and we would urge the Congressional delegation to support 

that. 

Senator SNOWE. I think the real issue is not having sort of an 

either/or. No one is saying abandon the process. We understand we 

have to live by the laws, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act does depend on interpretations of how you implement it, frankly. Whether 

or not there is flexibility in how you go about it so that you don’t 

ultimately affect an industry that has no ability to survive. 

I mean, we want to preserve an industry so that they are there 

on the other side of this regulatory process at some point, but you 

are going to maintain their viability in some way because, otherwise, then it makes it virtually impossible for its survival. And I 

think that is the question. 

Year to year, they are working right now, month to month, day 

to day, on the margins. I mean, you heard what Craig Pendleton 

spoke to earlier. That is a very weighty, mighty decision to have 

made when you have been doing it for generations in a family. So 

these are people on the margin. So what is it that we can do? So 

we think of outside of the box within the wall. It is just—I think 

that is the issue here. 

And to get over the hump of the interim measure to get to 2010 

for Amendment 16, I think that is the issue. Do you have to treat 

every stock similarly under the law? I don’t know. We know that 

Dr. Balsiger is going to work on that process and so on. But if you 

say have it the most stringent process possible, irrespective of what 

it does, the law doesn’t say that. The law says you have got to take 

into account the socioeconomic effects, too. 

Mr. MAHONEY. I agree. 

Senator SNOWE. Which has gotten the short end of the stick 

these days. And for many years now this has been one of my major 

arguments, OK? So we talk about the past and the overfishing and 

so on, the point is we can’t discard the industry. I mean, that is 

it. 

66 

We have got to do something to preserve the industry. In the 

meantime, what can we do? What is that bridge that makes it possible? And I don’t think we have lived up to our obligation to offset 

those issues in terms of what the adverse consequences have been 

and will be. 

Mr. MAHONEY. One of the things that we would urge is that, and 

I think Dr. Holland noted it, that any sort of assessment of a resource this large has inherent weaknesses to it. And the focus on 

challenging the science underlying the GARM takes some of the 

focus away from the issues that you are concerned with and we are 

concerned with, which is bridging that 2009 and getting to a management structure that works for everyone. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. Yes, well, it is interesting about that because on the science question, from my experience in working with 

the industry and with the men and women in the fishing community, you have got to have confidence in what is being imposed on 

you and what it is exacting from your industry, which has been a 

way of life and a livelihood. So you have to have confidence in that 

science. 

So I see it as a building block and a foundation in order to accept 

what the hardship will be or what the regulation is going to be that 

represents and imposes some serious restrictions on their way of 

life and their livelihood. That is the point. 

So you have got to build the confidence, and that is something 

that we have not been as successful as we should be. I have been 

one who has advocated that we really should devote far more resources to the research and to make sure that we preserve that. I 

mean, that is really a jewel in this process, if the fishermen can 

have any confidence at all in what the outcome will be. 

We have got to build it. That is our responsibility, frankly. So 

when the questions are raised about the assessments, I think it is 

because they do see it. So you have to treat it as a reality and figure out, OK, what can we do better so that it doesn’t undermine 

their confidence? 

I understand what you are saying. I think we are all there. It 

is just in a different way and, at the same time, preserving this industry so that they are there. One year is a lifetime for this industry right now because they are operating on the margin. 

So Craig Pendleton wouldn’t be making the decision he did, when 

you are not operating on the margins and given all the other extraneous costs he has that are huge when it comes to fuel, for example. And it is just that alone or bait or whatever the case may be, 

and that is what I have heard. 

So, thank you. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

OK, who is next? What number are we on? Are we on nine? OK. 

We will move on because I know everybody has a time frame. 

STATEMENT OF SAM VIOLA III, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN 

Mr. SAM VIOLA. Thank you for coming and for letting me speak. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, thank you. 

67 

Mr. SAM VIOLA. Sam Viola, commercial fisherman out of Portland, 30 years. It is just I have a few things that I want to say that 

some Jimmy mentioned before. 

We need some kind of time schedule, not just a 2-year plan or 

a 60-day plan or 30-day plan. Every time we turn around, it is 

something new we have to do. We have to jump through another 

hoop. We never know what the next hoop is going to be. 

When you came out with the regulations for the whale protection, to protect the whales, the large tankers in the shipping industry, it was a 5-year plan. We don’t have any of that. We don’t— 

don’t we get any kind of consideration for that ourselves? 

And the other was what Ed Bradley touched on. Everything 

seems to be stacked against the State of Maine in the National Marine Fisheries Service. 42 20’ and below, fishing down there, we 

lost our steaming time. We lost our dock to go down off the cape 

and steam from Portland down to Cape Cod and go fishing. 

Now we have to actually return into a port to change your clock, 

even though we are monitored. They can tell exactly what we are 

doing every minute of the day, whether we are steaming, whether 

we are fishing, or what is going on with the monitors we have on 

the boats. 

Senator SNOWE. But you had to return to port? 

Mr. SAM VIOLA. Pardon me? 

Senator SNOWE. You have to return to port? 

Mr. SAM VIOLA. We have to return to port. If we want to go to 

another area, we not only have to return to port, we have to request for an observer to go into these areas where the big haddock 

concentrations are 3 days in advance. 

So if my brother is fishing down on Georges, calls me up, the way 

we traditionally fish, and says, ‘‘Hey, I am getting 10,000 pounds 

of haddock every tow.’’ I can’t just steam down there and catch 

those haddock. I have to return to port, call for an observer, wait 

3 days, and then I can go if I get an observer. 

I mean, this is National Marine Fisheries Service. They are not 

helping us to even get by with what we are doing today. And it just 

seems to be them against the fishermen, and one of the enforcement agents told me that you are guilty. We can see that you are 

guilty with the black box. If you are steaming across an area or 

anything, they don’t like the way it looks, you have to prove yourself innocent before they will accept it. 

It is just they seem to be very antagonistic toward fishermen. I 

don’t know why that is. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, Dr. Balsiger, is there a way of correcting 

some of these issues or making it more efficient and less arduous 

and bureaucratic? 

Mr. SAM VIOLA. I don’t know what you are looking for when you 

need an observer on these trips, every trip, and you have 10,000 

of them in the Gulf of Maine. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Well, we aren’t against fishermen. Without fishermen, we actually don’t have a job. So we are in favor of having the 

fishermen there and having them, an ability to prosecute their livelihood economically. 

We have check-in and checkout requirements and observer requirements that are at all the different councils that are developed 

68 

with good reasons. And of course, some of those good reasons cause 

problems for fishermen, and we should look at those if they do. I 

am not saying we can fix this, but we will look at it. 

I am sure the 3-day requirement for an observer is based on a 

good reason. There may be some way we can work around it. I 

don’t know, but we will look at that. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that. We will look into that. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MAGGIE RAYMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASSOCIATED FISHERIES OF MAINE 

Ms. RAYMOND. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I am Maggie Raymond. I am the Executive Director of Associated 

Fisheries of Maine. I was not going to speak today because as Mr. 

Odlin told you, he is speaking for Associated Fisheries of Maine 

today. But I heard an overwhelming theme in some of the testimony from some of the people on the panel as well as some of the 

people in the audience, which is that days at sea is a failure, despite the fact that all our stocks are growing and fishing mortality 

is the lowest it has been in 30 years, and that somehow if we can 

just get through 2009, we will get the magic bullet of sectors. 

And I am not convinced that sectors are the magic bullet, and 

the reason is because I don’t think sectors are going to solve some 

of the problems like the one that Mr. Odlin explained with witch 

flounder, where 3 years ago, the assessment said it was rebuilt. 

The industry caught a third of the TAC, and yet now it is considered overfished, and overfishing is occurring. 

Also, today, we have—since 2004, we do have three stocks that 

are controlled by hard TACs—Georges Bank cod, haddock, and 

yellowtail. In 2005, the industry caught the Georges Bank 

yellowtail TAC for the first time under a hard TAC, and next year 

it was determined to be overfished, and overfishing was occurring. 

It did not exceed the hard TAC. They achieved it for the first time 

in many years. 

We have not reached the haddock. We reached just a very small 

fraction of the haddock hard TAC, and it is because the cod TAC 

shuts the fishery down before we can achieve the haddock TAC. 

So sectors are going to have those same problems. Every species 

will then be under a hard TAC, and it is not going to be any easier 

to catch the haddock TAC because you are still going to be controlled by the hard TAC of Georges Bank cod. 

On top of that, sectors impose an enormous cost on the industry, 

which is why Associated Fisheries of Maine 2 years ago submitted 

a comprehensive ITQ proposal for the Council, which the Council 

had to abandon because of the referendum requirement, which they 

decided would be too stringent to try to impose. But Dr. Holland 

talked about the cost of sectors, $10 million to $15 million a year 

just for the monitoring on a fishery that grosses less than $100 million. 

That is something that the industry cannot absorb at this time. 

ITQs, I believe, would be a lot less expensive because there is a cap 

on how much can be charged for those. 

69 

So I just want to make it clear that 2010, we may still be in a 

lot of the problems that we are in today because I am not convinced 

that the industry is going to be able to afford sector management. 

On top of the monitoring requirements, you have to pay for a sector 

manager. You have to develop an environmental assessment. All of 

those are very costly that the industry cannot afford right now. 

We also put forward—the Associated Fisheries of Maine put forward an industry-funded buyout proposal, which we have asked 

you and other Congresspeople to support. I understand that there 

are some people who don’t want to pay back the fee, but what is 

the alternative? To go out of business slowly, painfully, or to perhaps be able to pay a fixed fee that you know what it is going to 

be and it depends on how much fish you catch and to be able to 

stay in business? We think that that is a proposal that needs to 

go forward. 

In other parts of the country where the industry has funded 

buyouts, they have prospered in a very short amount of time. Their 

TACs have increased. Their days at sea have increased. Their catch 

has increased. And they have been able to pay back that funding. 

So if you are not going to put forward the industry-funded proposal, then Congress needs to come up with the money themselves 

because there is no other choice. People are going out of business. 

The industry is consolidating. People with money are buying up everything, and people who don’t have that money are not able to 

compete. 

So those are the points that I wanted to stress today. And again, 

thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Maggie, very helpful. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW THOMPSON, FISHERMAN AND 

LOBSTERMAN, F/V STRIKER 

Mr. THOMPSON. My name is Matthew Thompson, and I am a 

groundfisherman and a lobsterman, and I hail from Monhegan Island. And I have got three things that I think are pretty important. 

One is I think the buyback is something that ought to happen, but I think that if this country can round up $700 billion to bail 

out a few banks, it can come up with some money to bail out some 

groundfishermen. 

I think we have got a resource, the dogfish in the ocean, that is 

an elephant in the room. Nobody wants to talk about it. I don’t 

know how fish can live in between the dogfish. And we are not allowed to catch any of them. 

And that brings us to the third thing with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. I think the whole science behind the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the accountability is a complete failure. I think if we can’t make a boat payment, somebody doesn’t 

come down and give us a peer review and set us up at another fishery. We lose the boat. 

And I don’t—who gets spoken to in the National Marine Fisheries Service? I mean, this guy, he can’t answer one question in 

five that you ask him. It really bothers me. 

And it is the same thing with this VMS problem. I live on 

Monhegan Island. I have got a VMS that says I live—I am outside 

70 

the VMS line. They think I am fishing when my boat is home on 

the mooring and I am lying in bed. I have called the National Marine Fisheries Service I don’t know how many times to move the 

VMS line, move it 3 or 4 miles down below the island where it 

ought to be. Nobody calls me back. Nobody—— 

Senator SNOWE. Who have you called? 

Mr. THOMPSON. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Senator SNOWE. In where? Boston? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

Senator SNOWE. In Gloucester. OK. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So I would like to see some accountability is 

what I would like to see. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I can understand your frustration. If you 

are not getting any returned calls. So, Dr. Balsiger, I think—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, if someone would call you back and say, 

‘‘Well, we are working or we are trying to——’’ 

Senator SNOWE. No, well, no, you deserve to have a response and 

action. Dr. Balsiger, could you—is that something you could follow 

up with and for—— 

Dr. BALSIGER. Yes. I am sorry I don’t have the answer right now. 

We have the ability to generate the answers. I don’t have them. If 

you have a question about halibut in Alaska, I bet I can get it, 

though. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, thanks a lot. I appreciate you——— 

Senator Snowe: No, I think we need to—we are going to get information from you, sir? Yes. We will get his address? OK. Yes, we 

have got your address. We will follow up with you. 

Dr. BALSIGER. And if you have contacts with our people in 

Gloucester, we will cross link that and find out. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. 

Senator SNOWE. Absolutely. Absolutely. You should have—you 

should not go through that. I am sorry. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. No, I am sorry that you are, frankly. 

STATEMENT OF ANGELO CIOCCA, PRESIDENT, 

NOVA SEAFOODS LTD. 

Mr. CIOCCA. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe. And thank you for 

finding the time to come to Portland today and hold this hearing. 

My name is Angelo Ciocca, president of Nova Seafoods here in 

Portland and a local boat owner. 

This afternoon, you have heard much about the proposed interim 

measures and how these measures could seriously damage our industry or will seriously damage our industry, I should say. I am 

concerned about how the incomplete results of the GARM III will 

be used against the industry, and I do believe the GARM III results were incomplete. 

Also how one man, Dr. Butterworth, and his small staff halfway 

around the world, on a very tight budget and a short period of time 

was able to redirect the Northeast Science Center’s viewpoint on 

two critical species here in the northeast. This, after our scientists 

at the Science Center have spent countless hours and months preparing a model which has proven to be flawed by Mr. 

Butterworth—by Dr. Butterworth, like I said, in a very short peVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:53 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\46471.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
71 

riod of time on a very tight financial budget. I personally, as a citizen of the United States, find that appalling. 

Instead, I am asking you to consider the fact that the way the 

survey data is collected is seriously flawed. I believe we need to 

hire the highliners of our fleet, place scientists and observers on 

the commercial fishing boats, and allow this group to do our surveys. 

Mr. Odlin recommended a side by side, which I guess is OK. But 

I really believe that our boats should be doing the surveys with the 

scientists and the observers onboard to get a real feel for what is 

out there, a true feel for what is out there. 

If this approach is taken and implemented properly, there should 

be no doubt about the survey results, which these days we have all 

kinds of doubt about the survey results and have for years and 

years and years. This would simplify that problem, that issue, and 

would save us countless millions of dollars a year at the same time. 

Now the hard part, though. If we agree to let the commercial 

fishermen do the surveys, what do we do with the good survey 

data? Because that will be good survey data. 

The models need to be thoroughly tested by an international 

group of fishery scientists who have modeling experience in a fishery similar to ours. In-depth discussions must be conducted with 

respect to the variables which impact the fisheries, such as changes 

in natural mortality for different species that can’t happen on a 

yearly basis and probably do happen on a yearly basis, water temperatures, et cetera, et cetera. 

So what I am saying there is that it should not just be the 

Science Center. And I know we have had peer reviews and scientists from different countries come and help with the GARM III. 

But as Mr. Odlin said, I believe there was one scientist, the lead 

scientist was the only scientist that sat—as far as peer reviewers, 

that sat in on all the meetings, which I find disturbing, and why 

that would happen is beyond me. 

And we need—as far as the scientists are concerned that are 

going to be hired for this work, we need the best of the best to do 

this work. It has been too long. We have been getting bad science 

for too, too long. It is time to hire the best of the best out there, 

the most dedicated scientists we can possibly hire. 

They must work in concert with the industry every step of the 

way. The man who spends his life on the water has a different kind 

of knowledge than the scientist. The fisherman must be fully engaged in the process from beginning to end. This is crunch time. 

There is no tomorrow for the Maine industry, the Maine fishery. 

As you are, I am sure, aware, Senator Snowe, the chaos we are 

experiencing right now with the meltdown on Wall Street is primarily caused because of a faulty modeling system designed by 

Wall Street Ph.D.s. They are just realizing that when it comes to 

modeling—this is the Wall Street Ph.D.s are just realizing that 

when it comes to modeling, a relatively small, but early mistake 

entered into the model can or will produce a large error on the outcome. 

However, it is too late for businesses and tens of millions of people worldwide who have been irreparably harmed through these 

bad decisions. We who work in all aspects of the fishing industry 

72 

believe we have been living the same type of mistake in our fishery. Senator, it is time to correct this process before the fishery implodes like Wall Street did. 

Of course, the Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and certain other groups will claim that their models mostly work 

fine, except, of course, for the two that Dr. Butterworth had the 

time and funding to examine. He found flaws in both of them, and 

the Science Center agreed with his conclusions. 

We have had some discussion about Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act as written today cannot work and does not 

work. It needs to be changed for the industry to survive. That also, 

the models as designed and used are not working. I mean, scientists can say that these things are the best available science. 

They are not working. Our numbers are lower by their estimation, 

which I am not sure I agree with. 

I believe we are placing too much pressure and faith on the 

Science Center and the complex models it has created. From my 

perch, the outcome in both cases is the same. That is our fishery 

and Wall Street, a disaster, as you mentioned earlier this afternoon. 

Wall Street has turned to the Treasury, the Fed, and the White 

House. Senator, we are turning to you. 

Senator SNOWE. I thank you very much. 

Mr. CIOCCA. And if I could also, just during the afternoon here, 

there are a couple other comments that I would like to make? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Mr. CIOCCA. One thing, sitting here this afternoon one thing 

strikes me is that through the years we have found multiple errors 

coming out of the National Marine Fisheries Service. And as John 

Williamson said earlier, we are human, right? People make errors. 

Well, that we should always keep in mind, OK? Because when 

we get numbers thrown at us, as far as biomass numbers or these 

targets, they throw them, and then all of a sudden, that is gospel. 

We forget we make errors, as Mr. Williamson originally stated. 

So I mean, how could we just input this information into these 

models that are questionable, get numbers thrown out, and then 

say, ‘‘hey, that is the number. We know what we are doing. That 

is gospel.’’ I mean, it is a faulty—to me, it is a flawed system. 

Mr. Odlin has mentioned on the pollock that it was peer reviewed and then actually fishery staff found the error after a peer 

review. I mean, it doesn’t sound like good business to me. But yet 

we still come back to the table, and that is what we have to live 

by. 

And when we have to live by it, the ‘‘we’’ is the industry. Nobody 

else, science they might—a scientist might put his name on it, but 

his paycheck comes. The industry is the one who has to live with 

those final results and gets penalized. There is only one group that 

gets penalized when there is bad work done out of National Marine 

Fisheries Service. That is the industry—the fishing industry, the 

shoreside industry. 

One gentleman stated that we are in this—I think I can’t remember the young gentleman that spoke just recently, stated that 

we are in this because we fished the resource too hard. Well, the 

haddock stock that we have today, which is at historical levels, 

73 

came out of a severely depleted haddock biomass. So I would really 

like everybody to really think that if we—as human beings, I think 

we know how the ocean works. 

Because in that haddock resource, we had, if I am not mistaken—Maggie or Jimmy could help me—there was a time not too 

many years ago when there was a zero haddock, there was a zero 

possession limit on haddock because there were no haddock left in 

the ocean 10, 12 years ago. Now there is a biomass that is at historical levels. Came out of nowheres. 

And the cod will do the same some day, but it won’t do it on our 

terms. It will do it on the ocean’s terms. When the cod does that, 

very good chance that the haddock is at a much lower level. The 

gentleman from Monhegan Island said it very, very well before. His 

three comments were right on the money. 

Maggie mentioned the yearly observer cost, and I believe the 

yearly observer cost, depending on how you—if it is 100 percent observers or anything like that, but I think the rates are from $7 million to $10 million or $12 million a year? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Mr. CIOCCA. Yes, a year. OK. And Maggie stated on a $100 million fishery. Senator, I believe this groundfishery today is about a 

$60 million fishery. So $7 million to $10 million, $12 million to observe a $60 million fishery? It is impossible. 

And this one is for Dr. Balsiger. Jimmy Odlin mentioned some 

numbers earlier about in Magnuson-Stevens Act that was a—I 

shouldn’t say an out, but it allowed National Marine Fisheries 

Service a little flexibility in reading the act, OK, by not going to 

the extreme of considering the stock overfished, but giving a little 

bit of time, a little flexibility in there to allow the regional administrator to do something less than calling the stock overfished, which, 

in turn, would give a little more leniency to the industry. 

And Dr. Balsiger, and I realize he is interim, but he doesn’t 

think his attorney has looked at it. Well, I would say that the attorneys probably should look at that and report that to Pat Kurkul. 

Because if that is going to save this industry this much pain and 

suffering for 12 months, and it is allowed by law, and I would have 

to say that the Congress put it in there for exactly this kind of situation when an industry was possibly in a little flux and needed a 

little extra time, that is what that is there for. That is what the 

Congresspeople who wrote the law gave you guys the flexibility to 

do. 

But it sounds to me like the National Marine Fisheries Service 

doesn’t want to use that flexibility. Instead, they would rather go 

to the extreme. And for what reason, I don’t have a clue. But you 

should look into that. 

Senator SNOWE. We will. 

Mr. CIOCCA. And I think that is it for me. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. CIOCCA. I appreciate your time. 

Senator SNOWE. No, I thank you. And I think your points underscore the fact how critical it is to have confidence in the science 

and engaging, you know, the men and women, the fishing industry 

as part of that process and having cooperative research. I mean, I 

think that is absolutely right and something that I have been a 

74 

strong proponent of, and we have got to really try to make this a 

coherent, comprehensive, sustainable approach. 

So that those of you in the industry that have to live by these 

rules and regulations can have confidence in the outcome and what 

is required. And right now, that isn’t the case, and it is unfortunate. And frankly, I just think it is very difficult. I am sure this 

effort in GARM, they know a lot of issues that have been raised 

about it, and the fact that they are not addressing them, I think, 

again erodes confidence in the process and in the outcome. 

And we have just got to do a better job in figuring it out and taking more time to evaluate it, frankly. I mean, just my point which 

you were mentioned, Ms. McGee, just to evaluate 1,000-page report 

in a week and the complexities involved in this issue. For those of 

you who really understand it certainly appreciate that there are so 

many complexities and dimensions to this question that it really 

takes much more than that. 

And unfortunately, time didn’t allow it for all the reasons we 

know, and that puts you in an untenable situation. These are the 

issues to avert when I think about, yes, in the 2010. I mean, you 

get in this 2009, 2010, but you have to live by these assessments 

or that process as well and depending on what alternatives develop. So I appreciate it. 

Mr. CIOCCA. Yes, I agree. It is very, very unfair that a 12-month 

period is going to cause so much pain when it does seem that within Magnuson-Stevens there is that little flexibility built in there 

that I would think is to be used for a time like this that will give 

us that 12 months and let us live, hopefully live compared to time. 

Senator SNOWE. Exactly. Survive it. 

Mr. CIOCCA. Another thing, too, is the—I mean, I am not a scientist, obviously. But I think if you get a scientist and sit down and 

have a cup of coffee with him or something, the numbers that they 

are—that they finally set for biomass targets or the actual biomass, 

I mean, they are estimates. I mean, we have to realize that they 

are estimates. 

Senator SNOWE. Right. 

Mr. CIOCCA. They are not—no one is counting every fish in the 

ocean. 

Senator SNOWE. Exactly. 

Mr. CIOCCA. And the also very important thing that I think to 

remember is that the haddock that we are harvesting right now 

was spawned from a very, very low biomass number, which tells 

me that the ocean is going to do what it wants to do when the time 

is right for it, and man is not the overriding influence, especially 

since natural mortality in many species is killing more fish than 

man is killing today, which I don’t know if you are aware of that? 

Senator SNOWE. OK. Thank you. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF AARON DORITY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

DOWNEAST INITIATIVE, PENOBSCOT EAST RESOURCE CENTER 

Mr. DORITY. Good afternoon, Senator Snowe, and thank you for 

the opportunity to speak here today. 

My name is Aaron Dority, and I work for the Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington, Maine. 

75 

I want to mention two main points today. One is our concern 

with the proposed buyback, and two is the current scale of management. 

First, a buyback is not the best way to reduce effort in New England’s groundfish fishery. We have acknowledged today that we 

have lost numerous fishermen and much of our infrastructure. You 

can see that here on the Portland waterfront, and you can see it 

very clearly in eastern Maine, where I am from. 

You mention that there was only one fisherman left east of Penobscot Bay. Even he is no longer fishing this year because it is 

no longer viable for him to fish. Our concern is that a buyback will 

erode fishing livelihoods even further. However, I acknowledge that 

we need to bring effort in line with the current groundfish stocks. 

As one example of how to do this, I strongly encourage you to 

look to Port Clyde because they have clearly shown that they can 

make more money with less fish. They haven’t asked fishermen to 

stop fishing. They have simply fished more sustainably. 

Second, and even more importantly, I encourage you to explore 

area management in this fishery. The basic premise of this approach is to bring the scale of management in line with the scale 

of our groundfish stocks. Since there is strong evidence that 

groundfish stocks exist at a finer scale than is currently recognized, 

the area management proposes managing at a finer scale. 

The benefits of this would be: (1) greater attention paid to full 

stock recovery at the local level; (2) attention paid to the need to 

preserve the critical coastal shelf, including protection for spawning 

and juvenile fish; and (3) a greater opportunity for fishermen to be 

engaged in the management process so that they may become stewards of the resource and we can look to Maine’s lobster zone council 

as one example of the stewardship. 

Since there are still many questions regarding fine-scale stock 

structure of groundfish, the Penobscot East Resource Center is currently planning a fine-scale groundfish stock workshop in collaboration with the Gulf of Maine Research Council, Research Institute, 

and Maine’s DMR. This will be held on April 2 and 3 at a location 

still to be determined. I will share the details of this workshop with 

your staff, and I encourage you or your staff to attend. 

In sum, I want to say that area management is an alternative 

to sustained groundfishing and rebuild depleted stocks in New 

England, but our fishery managers need to give this approach a 

chance. It can work in an output control system, and it can work 

with sectors. 

The best way to explore area management may be through a 

pilot program. And I know that Port Clyde fishermen would gladly 

try a pilot program. They have already demonstrated that they can 

do this. The remaining permit holders in eastern Maine, all 27 of 

them, though none currently fish under the restrictive days-at-sea 

system, they would also be willing to pilot area management. 

We have willing fishermen. Now we need willing fisheries managers. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We will 

have staff at that session. Thank you. 

76 

OK, who is next? We are on, what, 13, 14? What? Fourteen? No. 

Fifteen? Who is next? Because I know Dr. Balsiger has to leave for 

the airport in 5, 10 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLARD H. VIOLA, COMMERCIAL 

FISHERMAN; PRESIDENT, BLACK BEAUTY, INC. 

Mr. WILLARD VIOLA. Hi, I am a commercial fisherman, Willard 

Viola. I have been about 35 years. 

It seems like it is just getting harder and harder to operate all 

the time. And when you look around this room here, there are 

more conservationists, conservationist groups, lawyers, and other 

people than there are fishermen here. And I thought the days-atsea system was working. When it came out in the first place, I invested some money into buying days at sea. And then all of a sudden, a small group of people down off of Cape Cod started sectors. 

And I think they are in bed with the conservationist groups, too, 

getting money from them, able to buy permits and stuff. And all 

of a sudden, what they are getting looks better than what I have 

because I am working under days at sea. And a lot of people, like 

if she said Rhode Island, she has been to a meeting in Rhode Island, and they said the days at sea isn’t working. Well, if I had 48 

days, like most of Rhode Island guys have, I would say the system 

isn’t working, too. 

And so, these people form their sector with the help of one of the 

conservationist groups, getting money from them. So their sector 

all of a sudden looks a lot better than my days at sea because they 

can go out fish in areas that are closed to normal fishing. Like in 

May, there is an area closed, and all of a sudden, they can go in 

there and fish. So I am saying, ‘‘Hey, I am under days at sea. I 

want to be under a sector because they have got special rules and 

regulations that I don’t have.’’ 

And all of a sudden, we are going to all go to sectors. The only 

reason there were 17 or 19 sectors was they said we are going to 

go to sectors, and if you are not in a sector, you are going to be 

left in the common pool, which isn’t going to have anything. They 

kind of scare you into the sector thing. 

I was doing fine in the days at sea because we bought permits 

to be able to fish, which I thought was the way to go at that time. 

And then it doesn’t get a chance to work out, we are going to go 

to sectors because this group here has formed this sector down 

there that is working so much better for them, but it is for them 

because they are being supported by these other groups that buy 

permits and everything. 

And they get special rights that I don’t think we are going to get. 

When they finally do form the sectors, I don’t think that I am going 

to be able to fish in the 2-for-1 area with 1-day or have no rolling 

closures, stuff like that, and be able to land all the cod history you 

have or all the whatever history you have. 

And I just go to these meetings and I see more and more less 

fishermen and everything. It is just discouraging, the whole thing. 

Senator SNOWE. How long have you been fishing? 

Mr. WILLARD VIOLA. About 35 years. 

Senator SNOWE. Thirty-five years. 

77 

Mr. WILLARD VIOLA. Yes, I used to work at O’Hara’s for 15 years. 

Then I worked for Roger Woodman for 10 years. And finally, I went 

during the first buyback, I said, well, Roger was selling out to the 

Government, and I said, ‘‘Well, if I don’t buy my own boat now, I 

may end up working for somebody I don’t want to work for or 

something.’’ So that is when I bought my boat in 1996. And been 

pretty successful up until now with it, and it just gets every move 

you make, it seems like they are putting up a roadblock against 

you. 

Like they took away—used to be if I was going to fish Georges, 

I could steam down off Nauset, Cape Chatham, clock in down 

there. Like my brother was saying, you can’t do that anymore. 

Asked why they were doing it, you asked, call up the VMS people 

in Gloucester, the law enforcement office, and they said, ‘‘Well, 

don’t ask us. It is the law. They made the law, and we are just enforcing it,’’ and stuff like that. 

And recently, I just installed an ice machine on the boat to try 

to stay in business, have a better product. I was trying to sell— 

that is supposed to be how we can get the business back into Maine 

today—and was trying to sell at the Portland fish auction, but I 

just wasn’t getting the bids on the fish. 

There are not enough buyers there now because so many boats 

have left. I think some of the buyers have left. There are more buyers in Gloucester, and so you just have to go there. 

Because we would get down to a price for like large haddock would go for $1.15, and one of the buyers would jump in there and 

bid $1.15 on it when I would be better off when they just didn’t 

bid. Because when they do, I have to scratch, and it costs 8 cents 

to scratch that fish. I have to pay their fee. And so, I am thinking 

why did you bid that bid when you know I am going to scratch it? 

And just things like that would help out. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, thank you for sharing your experiences 

and sorry for what you are going through. Hopefully, we can avoid 

some of this, and thank you for taking the time for being here and 

testifying. It is really important for all of us to hear it, frankly, because it is very helpful to us in this process. So we thank you. 

And on the sector management, how is consistency established in 

that? Is it up to—in developing sector management, when he was 

talking—when he was mentioning some of the options and how it 

was decided which areas and so on, who makes that decision? How 

is that constructed on a sector management area? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. Sectors are self-selecting, and—— 

Senator SNOWE. You say self-selecting by the industry? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. By the industry members, and there are—— 

Senator SNOWE. I see. 

Mr. STOCKWELL.—no areas attached to them at this point. 

Senator SNOWE. And so, they establish their own rules? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. One of their charges is to develop an operations 

plan, which is then reviewed by the agency. 

Senator SNOWE. I see. I see. Thank you. 

OK, where are we, 16? Seventeen? Sixteen, yes, thank you. 

And Dr. Balsiger, you feel free—I know you have to leave for a 

plane. So feel free. 

Dr. BALSIGER. You must be keeping closer track than me. 

78 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I just want to make sure you don’t miss 

your plane because I know you adjusted your schedule to be here 

today, and I truly appreciate it. And I just want to thank you, and 

we will follow up. And I appreciate your staying to listen to the 

comments that are so critical in this key process. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Senator, this opportunity was good for me, personally and for the agency. So I appreciate the invitation. 

Senator SNOWE. No, I thank you and thank you for being responsive. And we appreciate it, and thank you for taking the time for 

being here because I know you did alter your schedule today to be 

here. Thank you. 

Yes? 

STATEMENT OF BERT JONGERDEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

PORTLAND FISH EXCHANGE 

Mr. JONGERDEN. Senator Snowe, Members of the Committee, my 

name is Bert Jongerden. I am the General Manager at the Portland Fish Exchange. 

The fish exchange has been the back-around for commercial fishing in the State of Maine for the past 22 years. Conceived in the 

1980s by a partnership of the city and the State, fishermen, and 

processors, the all-display fish auction has been a wonderful success until Amendment 13. From 1988 to 2005, the exchange averaged over 22 million pounds of groundfish per year coming through 

this port. 

The economic benefit of that 22 million pounds is over $90 million into this local economy. The landings created numerous support industries for vessels, processors, fuel and gear, gear shops, 

shipyards, insurance, finance, berthing, lumping, trucking, transportation, packaging, equipment. That is just to name a few. 

Along with all those wages, the Port of Portland had the distinction of being the most—handling the most groundfish in the New 

England States. After Amendment 13 in 2005, the landings 

dropped 15 percent. In 2006, 47 percent. In 2007, another 11 percent. We have lost over 76 percent of our landings in 4 years. Four 

years. 

We have gotten to a point now where we have reached a critical 

mass on the port of Portland. We have one ice supplier, one fuel 

supplier, one hydraulic gear yard, one electronics dealer. We just 

cannot afford to lose another part of our infrastructure. 

The regulations have dropped our fleet of over 350 vessels in that 

22-year period to 70. Well, it is closer to 69 with the loss of Craig 

here. Along with that, we are losing our buyer and our processor 

base. All the buyers and processors are moving themselves to Massachusetts and New Bedford. 

There is one trucking company left in the State of Maine that 

brings fish from Portland to the markets. There used to be four. 

There is just one now. The processors now are all sorting fish out 

of New Bedford, Gloucester, and Canada. That is depressing the 

prices at the fish exchange. 

I also conservatively estimate that in December of every year, we 

lose 15 fishing boats to the Gloucester port. That is over 5 million 

pounds of fish that we lose off our docks down here. I am very 

79 

deeply concerned that in May of 2009, with whatever interim actions they provide, the exchange could possibly close. 

We are at a critical mass of 9 million pounds a year, where we 

can barely break even. Any more days in sea reductions, we are not 

going to be around anymore. We lose the exchange, we are going 

to lose Vessel Services. We are going to lose our last hydraulics 

shop. We are going to lose our whole fish pier complex. 

I beg and I plead that we not cut any more days at sea. If we 

lose our infrastructure here, it is never going to come back. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, those numbers are staggering, and I am 

truly sorry. I mean, I think we all are about what is happening to 

the Portland Fish Exchange. And you are absolutely right. We need 

to preserve this infrastructure. It is part and parcel of the industry, 

and we need to keep it to preserve the industry, and hopefully, we 

can avert that. 

Mr. JONGERDEN. I appreciate it. 

Senator SNOWE. And that is a very—those are very serious statistics, without question. I know the role that the fish exchange has 

played, and it is pivotal. So, thank you. 

Mr. JONGERDEN. We have to survive. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate you being here and sharing those 

unfortunate statistics. 

Seventeen? Eighteen? Anybody else? Yes? Yes, oh, you are 19? Of 

course. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT M. ODLIN, COMMERCIAL 

FISHERMAN AND OWNER, F/V MAINE LADY III 

Mr. ROBERT ODLIN. Thank you, Senator Snowe, other distinguished guests. 

My name is Robert Odlin. I grew up here in south Portland. I 

now live in Scarborough. I am 39 years old, second-generation commercial fisherman, and I have been participating in State and Federal fisheries for 25 years. 

I served for 10 years and still serve on the State of Maine Sea 

Urchin Zone Council and serve on the Maine Commercial Fish and 

Safety Council. 

I own and operate two vessels, one of which groundfishes, and 

my access to the Federal fishery cost me $123,000 3 years ago. 

That bought me a boat, bought me a permit. The boat was pretty 

small. I used to fill the boat up in about 2 days. So the problem 

with not being enough fish I don’t buy. We are catching fish. 

I recently invested another $110,000 in the fishery. I bought another boat. My access to the fishery is 88 days, 88 days I can catch 

fish in Federal waters. Only 48 days is what everybody talks about 

because those are the A days. Those are the days we can target 

cod. And we also have B days, which we can target fish, but not 

cod. 

Guys were talking about not being able to get clear of the pollock? Great, I can go catch pollock on the B days. That is a good 

thing. 

My intention was to lease days this year and, hopefully, afford 

to buy another permit. Buying another permit, hopefully, will give 

me more access so I can catch more fish and make more money. 

80 

With the sector ghost hanging over our heads, don’t know if buying another permit is going to be the right move or not. So one permit is not sufficient. A cut in 18 percent on my A days will be two 

less trips. I make short trips. It will be two less trips, and my margins are pretty small. You mentioned the margins right now, and 

they are not huge. But we are surviving. 

I am not a great speechwriter. My speech was written while I 

was sitting upstairs, and I am kind of going to jump around a little. There are hundreds of square miles of our EEZ that are closed, 

closed areas. We can’t fish there. The fish in those areas, I think, 

thrive. They spill over into the areas. So we fish along the edges, 

and we catch our fish. 

There are so many fewer boats, I fished—well, when I finally got 

my permit from National Marine Fisheries, which took a lot of 

phone calls and a lot of time, I have seen five boats since July 2nd. 

I have fished about 50 days. Seen five other boats. One was my 

friend. We fish together. 

The term ‘‘ghost town’’ is used to describe the City of Portland 

and the fishing industry. It used to be a robust community. You 

would always know people, see people. There were taverns you 

could visit and find crewmembers, and it was a good feeling of community. But now it is a ghost town, especially, like Bert said, in 

December when everybody goes to Gloucester. 

We are down to 70 boats from 350. That alone right there is 

enough to scream there is a problem. If we shrink much more, the 

struggle will grow greater. The confusion we have to deal with in 

trying to understand the regulations right now with National Marine Fisheries is huge. I can’t imagine what more confusion is coming, but it is certainly there. 

Because the fleet has shrunk so much, and a lot of it has shifted 

to Massachusetts, it is almost impossible sometimes to find experienced crew. There are not enough boats around, not enough crew 

around. Fuel is the ultimate enemy, basically. It makes or breaks 

you. So when we had a tax relief from the fuel, it was very appreciated. I can’t believe it went away, but it did. 

One question is why have my fellow groundfishermen, who are 

accessing the same resources as me, been given a Government subsidy and I have got nothing from the Government because I am a 

Maine fisherman? There was a time when I thought about moving 

to Massachusetts. I can’t believe I am saying that. If I had done 

it 2 years ago, I would have got about 50,000 bucks. Instead, I 

stayed in Maine and paid my taxes. 

With the shrinking of the fishery, less shoreside support. No lobster sales here in Maine, so it is more difficult. 

We talked all about science, and basically, this whole meeting 

was about science, it seemed like. And the science is not perfect. 

You know, there are a lot of flaws. There are mistakes. They found 

the flaws in the science. It has been brought to our attention. So 

let us not make us pay for these flaws when you reassess our time 

to fish, let us make sure that those flaws are out in boldface. 

To stay in this business, you need to adapt, travel, reinvest in 

days. You can’t just fish in your backyard anymore, you know? A 

100-mile run is standard sometimes. An 88-day permit allows you 

81 

to lease up to 88 more days, and you can double your effort. It is 

going to cost you, but you can double your fishing effort. 

So I am going to close now. We were once overfished. OK, a few 

species are still on the overfished line. But I think the fire is out. 

I mean, we put the fire out with so many cuts and so many closed 

areas, and we did have buybacks in the past. We shrunk the fleet. 

I remember they were taking boats and cutting them up. So don’t 

let us die because of just the ashes that is remaining. 

You mentioned the socioeconomic effects, and that is part of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act that needs to be considered. I want to call 

that the halo over this whole thing. Maybe that can save us. 

Guys mentioned dealing with National Marine Fisheries. Calling 

them on the phone results in recordings most of the time, runaround, getting bounced from department to department, voicemails, and very few returned calls. It is very, very frustrating dealing with NMFS down in Gloucester. 

The dogfish in the Gulf of Maine are released in near shore 

waters are in a plague-like proportion. There are so many dogfish, 

you can almost walk on the backs at times. If I could take you out 

fishing on my boat in July, we will put 30,000 pounds of dogfish 

on in a day. We can keep 600 pounds for the trip of dogfish. We 

can keep 800 pounds of cod for the day. It seems to be—it doesn’t 

really seem to be balanced out. 

And I guess that is it for me right now. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I thank you very much, sharing your experience and also what you endure and have to overcome and the obstacles, to be resilient in the face of all of that. But I appreciate 

what you are having to say. 

And yes, I agree with you. Like Massachusetts, Maine ought to 

be able to have the benefit, and that is something we are going to 

work on in terms of the appropriations that we have been talking 

about and arguing about. And it is not fair. It is a matter of equity. 

It is similar to what we are talking about in the disaster declaration. We absolutely agree with you totally. There is no rationale for 

that. 

Mr. ROBERT ODLIN. Do you think we might get a check in the 

near future? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SNOWE. The ‘‘near’’ is the—but, no, I hear you. I hear 

what you are saying, and you raise some very valid points, and 

that is what it is all about. We have got to make sure you stay in 

business and you stay in Maine. That is what it is all about. And 

that is the cause and effect, and you are describing the ripple effect, the ramifications of every decision that is made or isn’t made, 

by default. 

And that is what it is all about, and that is what we have got 

to prevent and avert. So hearing your stories is so critical to this 

process and to all of us. Some obviously part of the industry are 

seeing, but it is certainly important for me to hear and, hopefully, 

for Dr. Balsiger at the Federal level, administering these programs, 

because there are always ideas that are emanating from all of you 

because you live it. You feel the practical effects of it. And we need 

to hear it and know it, and hopefully, we can go about doing it in 

a different way and a better way. 

82 

I always think, you know, can we solve this problem differently? 

Is there a way? And that is what we have got to find out here. So 

we can improve your lives and do what you do best and want to 

do. 

I often think about the fishing industry. There aren’t many industries that have to live with the interference of the Federal Government. I mean, that is saying an awful lot that you have to endure. That is a stark truth and adds so much complexity to your 

lives each and every day, not to mention it has some adverse consequences. It is what it is because we have a resource that we have 

to protect, but it doesn’t make it any easier for you to go out and 

do your jobs every day. That is the point here. It doesn’t. 

There are very few industries that have to endure what you have 

to endure in terms of that regulatory process and the bureaucracy 

that results from it. So we have got to be responsive. That is the 

other thing we have got to make sure. I think the calls that you 

make to Federal offices, they have got to be responded to. And we 

have got to hear that, and we have got to do something about it 

to make sure. It is just not right. 

So we will take care of—we will work on that as well. I just— 

I think we feel for what you are going through, and we have just 

got to do something to make sure that we can avoid the worst consequences here. 

Anybody else who cares to comment? OK. 

Dr. Balsiger, if you have to leave, you go right ahead. Thank you 

so much. Yes, thank you for being here. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Again, thanks for the invitation. I am sorry I 

didn’t have more time to spend in Portland. It is a wonderful town, 

and I look forward to seeing—— 

Senator SNOWE. Oh, no, thank you. Yes, thank you. 

Dr. BALSIGER. Anyone in the audience should feel free to send me 

an e-mail because I don’t intend to drop these issues. 

Senator SNOWE. OK, I appreciate that. Thank you for being here 

and, again, adjusting your schedule. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

And I know others have to go, too. But we want to make sure 

we get in any other comments here. You go right ahead. 

Ms. ODLIN. I think I am the last one. I am number 20. 

Senator SNOWE. Oh. 

STATEMENT OF AMANDA ODLIN, CO-OWNER, F/V LYDIA AND 

MAYA, F/V BETHANY JEAN 

Ms. ODLIN. Another Odlin up to bat here. Amanda Odlin. I have 

the fishing vessel LYDIA AND MAYA and the fishing vessel 

BETHANY JEAN. 

And I guess somebody kills another individual, isn’t that considered breaking the law? I mean, that is a pretty upfront obvious 

one. You drink and drive. You get caught. That is breaking the law. 

There are consequences that go with breaking the law, am I not 

correct, pretty well defined. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is a law that governs the industry, 

the fishing industry. Correct? We are all together? 

Well, it seems to me one of the national guidelines, one that 

comes to my mind is a balance of conservation and economy, and 

that I haven’t seen the economy side of it yet, just the conservation. 

83 

In essence, isn’t that breaking the law, and where is the accountability for that? Where is the consequence? 

I have seen letters of warning from you, yourself, Senator, to Patricia Kurkul, who is in charge of NMFS, warning about these 

emergency interim rules that she seemingly to the common guy, 

which is all of us, reels with no consequence or no accountability, 

even with warnings from somebody like yourself, but a warning 

without consequence. 

So I would hope that NMFS would have to become more accountable because I see it as breaking the law. If I break the law, my 

boat goes into a closed area even accidentally or doesn’t declare 

into the correct area properly, if I have been fishing in a different 

one, they are going to either call me back to port or I am going to 

get a fine. I am going to pay for that. I am going to have a consequence. 

I haven’t seen the consequence for NMFS as of yet, and there is 

no balance in conservation and economy. We have only seen the 

conservation. You have said it yourself. That is what I have heard 

the whole time. That is breaking the law. 

Senator SNOWE. That is why I inserted it in the law back in 

1996. 

Ms. ODLIN. But it is breaking the law, is it not, if it is not being 

adhered to? 

Senator SNOWE. I know. 

Ms. ODLIN. And there needs to be a consequence. 

Senator SNOWE. You are absolutely right. 

Ms. ODLIN. And so far, we haven’t seen the accountability for 

that. 

Another thing is we are questioning the science at this juncture. 

How can we go into a new round of regulations when it is being 

investigated or supposedly investigated at this point in time? That 

to come up with a new set of rules without—and the basis for all 

the rules, a lot of it is the science that none of us believe in. 

Even our own Dr. Butterworth, who AFM had to hire, for the 

best available science. I believe that is part of the law as well. We 

actually had to go hire it at huge expense to our small group. It 

was proven codfish and witch hake or the white hake, whatever it 

is called. The ‘‘W’’ hake, the ‘‘whack’’ is what I call it, because that 

is what is on the little statistic sheets as having been rebuilt when 

we paid a huge price for supposedly those being overfished for the 

last 5 years ago Dr. Butterworth conducted this survey. 

And lo and behold, there was a mistake made, and how many 

people went out of business for that mistake? So, again, decent 

science, best available, according to the law—quote, unquote—is 

what I read. I don’t think we are using the best available. We had 

to hire the best available, a worldwide recognized real scientist. 

And that is the extent of my comments. And as far as the Maine 

fisheries go, really the only answer to that is to level the playing 

field. It isn’t level. We can’t land the offshore lobsters. Eliminate 

the fuel tax. I averaged my two boats out just on fuel tax alone, 

based on a $3.30 per gallon price, that is $24,562. That is my insurance payment on one boat. That is not counting the other one. 

You take—but that is not enough. You take the revenue from the 

offshore lobsters on top of that, I can’t afford to throw that back 

84 

and then land my species of concern and then drive the balance of 

the fish left to Portland. It doesn’t make sense. You will never get 

those boats back here unless you level the playing field, and our 

legislators didn’t really want to do that. There are however many 

thousand lobstermen not wanting that. 

So you are not going to have a groundfish industry. Even if you 

were to do any number of things, I mean, it just seems to me the 

boats already went to Massachusetts, where there is no fuel tax 

and you can land your offshore lobsters as long as you are licensed 

for it. What would be the lure? I don’t see it. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, hopefully, we can do something that is 

going to make a difference. 

Ms. ODLIN. There is no creative solution. According to Michael 

Conathan; he was hoping that we could find another creative solution. That is the solution. It is not creative. It is what it is. When 

all the other New England States allow you those offshore lobsters, 

and this is the only one that doesn’t, and then, at least in Massachusetts, you are going to eliminate the fuel tax. I don’t know 

about the others. That is the only way you are going to level the 

playing field. 

So that is all I have. 

Senator SNOWE. How long have you been fishing? 

Ms. ODLIN. We have had the LYDIA AND MAYA since the year 

2000, but my husband has fished for Jimmy for over 30 years. And 

they are all generational. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, all generational. Well, we want to keep it 

that way for those who are in the industry at the minimum. I think 

it is so crucial to this State, not to mention to all of you who are 

in it and want to be in it as well. 

Ms. ODLIN. And the families that we support through the crew 

we hire, the taxes we pay, I mean—— 

Senator SNOWE. Absolutely. Maintaining the small communities, 

and that is why it is so important. 

Ms. ODLIN. Especially in an economically stressed time for the 

whole United States, let alone the State of Maine. 

Senator SNOWE. No question. 

Ms. ODLIN. It just seems ridiculous. 

Senator SNOWE. But mentioning about the socioeconomic impact, 

that is true, and that is why we included it, I did back in 1996 in 

the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act because there 

was an imbalance in the way we were approaching the fisheries 

law. And so, that is the point: We have to look at mitigating the 

effects. I just don’t think there is any question about it. We have 

that obligation, but there has not been the same kind of investments in that dimension of the law that there has been on the conservation. You have got to do both if you want to maintain it. It 

shouldn’t be mutually exclusive—— 

Ms. ODLIN. Absolutely, and I understand that. But the pendulum 

never swung. It is stuck on conservation like a magnetic hold there. 

However, at some point in time, maybe some flexibility in the time 

frame? As long as those stocks are being rebuilt, what is to say 

they have to be done in a year, 2 years, 10 years, 50 years? As long 

as they are rebuilding to allow that balance of that pendulum. 

85 

Because if you put that strict of a time frame on, of course, it 

is going to magnetize toward conservation at the expense of economy, and it is breaking the law. Quite simple. I mean, that is a 

simplistic approach to it, but there has got to be accountability for 

that as well, just like I would be if I were to, I don’t know, run 

you over right now. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, don’t do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ODLIN. I am just saying—but wouldn’t that be considered illegal? 

Senator SNOWE. I hope so. But anyways—— 

Ms. ODLIN. Well, it is no different for this. 

Senator SNOWE. Some might not think so. 

Ms. ODLIN. No different with an imbalance of that national 

guideline that you said yourself—— 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate it. But you are right. Absolutely. 

The point you are making is you have got to uphold the law, and 

that is the law. 

Ms. ODLIN. And there has got to be a consequence for breaking 

that law. 

Senator SNOWE. Exactly. I appreciate that. And accountability. 

You are absolutely right. 

Ms. ODLIN. Absolutely. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Ms. ODLIN. The driver, so to speak. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate it, but accountability. Absolutely 

correct. And agencies have to be held accountable as well. 

Yes? OK, who else is there? Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN BILL LINNELL, LOBSTERMAN 

Mr. LINNELL. I am going to get the last word. I am Bill Linnell. 

And I am a licensed lobster catcher, and I have also been 

groundfishing, gill netting, long lining, and urchin diving. And I 

have just a thought for you. 

I would like to see an analysis. In lobstering, one of the things 

that has served lobstering real well, a conservation measure, has 

been that in lobstering the owner/operator has to be on the boat. 

The guy with the lobster license is on the boat. I can’t sub out, hire 

somebody to run my boat, OK? 

So I would like to—I wonder if that—if groundfishing adopted 

that policy, I suspect that that would take a huge amount of pressure off the fishery. And if you have a family that has a fishing 

boat and they are supporting that family out with that fishing boat 

from Port Clyde or Portland or whatever, that they could probably 

have a lot more days at sea. And the sort of the factory operations 

that are sort I would say roughly analogous to the big box stores, 

they would have to—the pressure that they exert would fall off. 

And I would just like to see somebody do an analysis to say if 

there were owner/operators only in the groundfishing, as they are 

in lobstering, if that would take care of the problem. So that a family with a—one family with one fishing boat supporting themselves, 

I suspect that maybe they could have as many days at sea as they 

want. And that would be the end of the problem. 

86 

Senator SNOWE. Has there been anything like that, Mr. Stockwell? Do you know? Any analysis? 

Mr. STOCKWELL. Not that I know of. 

Senator SNOWE. It has been helpful, though. Thank you very 

much. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

I guess I have to wrap up because they are getting ready for a 

city council meeting. Is that what you are trying to tell me? Oh, 

OK. They are giving me the heave-ho, I guess. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SNOWE. But listen, I just want to, first, thank the panelists for taking the time, for your very thoughtful substantive statements here on a very critical matter that goes without saying. And 

I thank all of you for participating and, most especially, staying 

here to listen to the comments, and I know that you have gone 

through many processes and procedures in the course of this decisionmaking, as we will in the future. 

But I appreciate your willingness to be here today, on such a 

critical matter that is so vital to this State and to the region and 

to the industry and to the men and women who are a part of it 

and the families who depend on it. So I truly thank you for being 

here and taking the time. 

And to all of you and those who also gave their statements and 

testifying and expressing their views and describing their experiences during this time of hardship for the industry, they persevere 

and endure, and that is certainly the Maine way. But we need to 

do all that we can to help and assist in this process. Hopefully, we 

can avoid some of the worst-case scenarios so that we can get you 

to do what you do best, and that is to be out there fishing, what 

you want to do and what generations of families have done. It has 

been a way of life here in this State. 

So I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to be here, 

to listen, to participate. Please feel free to follow up with other, additional comments. This is a formal hearing of the Subcommittee 

of the Commerce Committee, and we will include that in the 

record. We are going to review what has been said because, again, 

I draw so much, and I am sure many of the panelists here today 

and Dr. Balsiger will learn a lot from what has been offered here 

today and specific and concrete ideas on how to look at this and 

how to evaluate it in different ways. 

There is never only one way. I have always believed that in solving problems. There are many ways. And so, I appreciate the time 

that you have taken. I truly mean that, that so many of you are 

going through so much in an industry that means so much to this 

State. 

So, with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ