New England Fishery Management Council Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Public Hearing Summary Portland, ME September 25, 2003

A public hearing was held to receive comments on the draft Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The meeting was chaired by Groundfish Oversight Committee Chair Mr. Frank Blount, assisted by Council staff Tom Nies. Council members Mr. George LaPointe, Mr. Lew Flagg, Mr. John Williamson, Mr. Bud Fernandes, Mr. Erik Anderson, and Mr. Jim Odlin were also present. There were about two hundred people in attendance, sixty who signed the attendance sheet.

After introductions, Council staff provided an overview of the amendment documents (including the public hearing document and the measures matrix) and described the comment process and future actions. The public then asked questions to clarify the issues before providing comments. The questions asked, with staff responses, were:

Ms. Maggie Raymond, Associated Fishermen of Maine (AFM), South Berwick ME: Here with me today are Mr. David Frulla, legal counsel to AFM and several others from AFM. During the comment period I will let you hear from members of AFM that you don't usually hear from. I have a number of questions about the document and the analysis. The document includes as the No Action alternative the Amendment 8 biomass targets. However that is not listed in the public hearing document. Is that indeed an optio n. Mr. Nies: That is the No Action alternative. Ms. Raymond If the Council chose those biomass targets, would there be different fishing mortality targets that result? Mr. Nies: Yes, for some stocks.

Ms. Raymond: Table 48 on page 219 and Table 70 on page 228 show the Plan Developments Team's (PDT's) estimates of how close the 2001 come in terms of achieving the new biomass targets. My question is do you have similar projections available that show how close the current conservation plan comes to achieving those targets? Mr. Nies: The tables are not in the document, but we do have the information to create those. They are not in the document because the status quo alternative is not an option being considered by the Council. Ms. Raymond: Would it be possible to get them in the same form? Mr. Nies: Yes.

Ms. Raymond: Did you actually describe to the public what the difference is between No Action and Status Quo? Mr. Nies: No, and that has caused some confusion at other meetings. No Action in this amendment is the fishing mortality rates that were in place in fishing year 2001, or the management measures in place in 2001. Status quo is the management measures in place now.

Ms. Raymond: Question on text in the document, referring to No Action and status quo. Mr. Nies: There are still some errors in the document where we mix up the terms status quo and No Action. In general, the term status quo should be corrected to say No Action.

Ms. Raymond: Back in April the Plan Development Team (PDT) came up with estimates of 2002 fishing mortality, based on limited commercial landings information. Have they been updated, and will they be made available Mr. Nies: N, those estimates have not been updated yet. The PDT did compare our estimate of landings to the actual landings when they became available, and found that most were within ten percent of our estimate. This issue has been raised by a number

1 of people. Paul Howard is pursuing that issue with NMFS, and has a conference call next week to discuss that. Until that call is held, I won't know if the revised estimates will be available.

Ms. Raymond: Figures 177 and 178 on page 549 compare the annual difference in landings and revenues of different rebuilding strategies (phased, constant, and adaptive). All have lower fishing mortalities than the No Action alternative. Yet about 2014, the rebuilding strategies show a jump in landings, presumably because some stocks are rebuilt and the mortality is allowed to increase. This does not appear to happen for the No Action alternative, even though some stocks rebuild under No Action. Mr. Nies: Under the No Action alternative, fishing mortality is held constant through the rebuilding period. Mortality is not allowed to increase if the stock rebuilds.

Ms. Raymond: Alternative 1 includes a modified version of the Georges Bank cod trip limit. It is not clear whether the lowered trip limit resulted in any offset of the DAS reduction? Mr. Nies: There is no offset, for three reasons. First, the Council did not choose that as a proposed measure – they merely adjusted the trip limit. Second, the analysis shows only a slight reduction in fishing mortality as a result of the lowered trip limit, which means and DAS reduction would be minor. Third, and significant change in the DAS would affect other stocks that need large reductions in fishing mortality and additional measures would have to be developed for those stocks. Mr. Peter Innis, Portland ME: I have a question on the chart showing yearly catch rates. You used the 2002 catch rates. The chart you showed for cod showed a mass of codfish, a huge rate, and an increase. In the future, where thee is no proof and you have to imagine your formulas, everything flatlines. I'd like to know the reason for that. How come where you have data it goes up at a substantial rate, but in your projections in the future it flatlines. How come we see the stock increasing now, but your projections show in the future the stock size levels out? Mr. Nies: The flatline in those charts, which starts in 2014 for mo st stocks, reflects the fact that fishing mortality would increase in 2014 up to the rate, the fishing mortality threshold, the rate that would produce maximum sustainable yield. In general terms, that means that you are taking out of the stock all the excess growth and the stock size stays the same. Everyone knows in reality the stock size will fluctuate around that level. When you run the projection model, it shows a relatively constant stock size. The projections show the stock increasing, and then leveling out in the future.

Mr. Gary Libby, Port Clyde ME: On DAS allocations. Why not freeze unused DAS and unused permits? Freeze them during the rebuilding period? Form what I understand we have used about 41,000 DAS last year. Was that taken into consideration? Mr. Nies: I don't think there is an option that is identical to what you suggest, though Capacity Option 8 might be similar.

Mr. Bud Brown, ME: Could I see the table that showed landings for fishing year 2004 and 2005, and compared them to earlier years? (Table shown). So the landings should increase beyond recent years? Mr. Nies: Yes, if the rebuilding strategies are perfectly implemented.

Mr. Geoff Smith: Is it possible to have a net benefit chart, or revenue chart, prepared and compared to 2002? Mr. Nies: Without committing to do so, it is probably technically possible.

Mr. Shaun Gehan, Trawler Survival Fund (TSF): I have a question on the phased rebuilding strategy approach. In Alternative 1, the DAS reductions are phased in over four years, but in fact the original phased strategy had mortality reductions phased in over a longer period of time for some stocks. Is the phased reduction strategy table in the document correct or not? Mr. Nies: The Committee directed the PDT to phase in the reduction over four years.

2 Mr. Gehan: So the table as shown in the document is not exactly correct? This should be clarified. Mr. Nies: Good point.

Mr. Anderson: I have a question on re-estimating the 2002 fishing mortality rates. Will that affect the rebuilding fishing mortality rates? Mr. Nies: Probably not, unless the estimates change a lot. The PDT estimated 2002 fishing mortality rates based on ten months of landings data. The PDT performed a sensitivity analysis to see how much of a change in the rebuilding mortality resulted from a change in the 2002 mortality. For most stocks, a large change was necessary. But it might affect the difference from where we are too where we need to get to. It is possible to go back and re-estimated using the full year of landings data.

Mr. David Frulla, TSF: If the high three rebuilding targets were adopted, with the fishing mortality targets differ? Is there analysis of different rebuilding mortalities for the high three targets? Mr. Nies: No, specific targets were not calculated. This is because the Council accepted the fishing mortality rates calculated by the Center when they adopted this option. They would probably be different for two stocks, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder and plaice.

Mr. Frulla: What would be the tangible manifestation in terms of DAS allowed to be used? Mr. Nies: I don't know. It would take additional analysis.

Mr. Bill Vale, representing Senator Susan Collins, ME: I have a process question. Would any of the four proposals be reflective of what the Secretary of Commerce might prepare if the Council does not act? What does that do to the clock? Mr. Blount: I imagine they would pick from the document that is already prepared, but I cannot answer for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). That would be a reasonable assumption.

Mr. Peter Innis: I would like to add to what Bill just said. Under the circumstances, I understood that an option might be to bring the targets back where they should be. But will NMFS use the same goals, the same high targets they have proposed? Mr. Blount: The Council has not endorsed the high biomass targets yet. If council does not go forward with one of the options, that is likely to be the NMFS proposal. If we don't submit a document, they will probably pick the high targets.

After a brief pause, the public was given an opportunity to comment. Comments are summarized below. Due to an error, comments of the first three speakers were not recorded.

Mayor Jim Cloutier, Portland ME: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Council on Amendment 13. Here with me tonight is a quorum of the Portland City Council: Ms. Karen Gerrity, Mr. Mick Mavodones, Ms. Sheryl Leeman, Ms. Jill Doucan, and Mr. Nathan Smith. Only one member was unable to attend. I hope you understand we take this seriously. This is an important question posed to our community. Portland is a diverse place, proud to be recognized as the most loveable city in North America. We have a diverse economy, and a working waterfront nurtured as a pla ce for all forms of commerce. We are a marine related center and commerce dependent on a working waterfront can be carried on without fear of gentrification, without replacement by things inconsistent with a working waterfront. The latest embodiment of a policy that goes back more than 350 years. Fishing and fish processing took place in Casco Bay as much as twenty years before the landing of the Mayflower. Our latest embodiment of this policy was a city initiated referendum which prohibited all uses other than those which are marine related and water dependent on our waterfront. You will here from people far more knowledgeable than about the details of the tremendous reconstruction of stocks in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). I don t have a great knowledge of the details of that. I did download something

3 that has occupied my nights for some time. I have been reading the assessment of twenty New England groundfish stocks through 2001, looking for information pertinent to the job you need to do. I want to make that point we want to be as helpful as possible. We want a fair and balanced evaluation. Councilor Malvedonis will read the details of a City Council resolution, concerning details that should be done. I want to share what I have been able to cull from this and other reading. First thing that I note – this jumped out at me as a lawyer – one of the things called upon in my career has been to evaluate conclusions from complex factual information. I was astonished by the claim that there was a math level that could be identified and used as a threshold in a habitat evaluation like this The first thing to do as a Council is go back to historical biomass information you have available and make your own independent and sufficient evaluation of what constitutes a rebuilt biomass. I do not believe it is possible to have the kinds of thresholds identified in this document. When we know the evaluation of things like our economy – with a much greater mass of information available, studied by thousands of people – predictions related to that are not as reliable. In order to project out characteristics of a biomass for 20 years, in an environment we don’t have a lot of information on the dynamics…Look in your own mind at what is a reasonable set of targets to evaluate to reach this conclusion. The second thing I urge you to do: identify rifle shots, the distinct and well chiseled and narrow improvements you can make which will assist species that are threatened. And there is something that is plainly true. It is in everyone’s interests that those be nurtured back to a better situation. We have every reason to believe that groundfish in the North Atlantic are rebuilding at a steady and accelerating rate. The fishermen say it is true. You need to listen to them. They are the ones experiencing the changes that were intended to be accomplished over the last ten years. In the hymnal here, on page 470 – odd- you begin to see some of the discussion of the known limits of the examination made. Some of the most compelling discussion of those limitations is in relation to the discussion of whether the trawl rigging problem had any effect on overall evaluations. If you read going forward – basically – by doing analysis of what we know about stocks over the last 40 years, you can see that the errors- whatever they were - did not lead to a significant change in the data. And there is a chart. And the chart does demonstrate the point I am trying to make. It is contained on page 472 – I encourage you to take the new biomass target and superimpose them on this. In some cases you are talking about being asked to achieve concentrations unknown in our history of knowledge of the sea. That may be an interesting question for scientists, but it is not a questions for legitimate environmental regulations, for an economic enterprise critical to this city and region. I urge you to make your own decision to choose those targets. I would urge you not to allow the ideas of the Commerce Department to interfere with what you are doing. Make your own assessment of what you think is correct. I hope you will be able to leave it with me to deal with the Commerce Department. I have a hat from the Portland Fish Exchange am proud to wear. It is an important part of our working waterfront. I won’t abuse our opportunity to speak first. We are here to support you in doing what is right. I made a new friend from Gloucester the other day, the Mayor. He asks why – why are we doing this? That is a good question. This fishery is a tremendous environmental success. We need to avoid making a stupid mistake at the end of the game.

Mr. Nick Mavodones, City Councilor, Portland ME: I have worked on the Portland waterfront I spend a great deal of my week on the waterfront. I would like to read into the record a resolution passed by the City Council on the fifteenth of this month. (Councilor Malvedonis read a City Council resolution into the record, attached).

Ms. Karen Garrity, City Councilor, Portland ME: I am a member of the City Council and also co- chair of the task force on fishin g, as well as a member of the Board of Directors for the Portland Fish Exchange. I would like to briefly mention two things. This industry has been much maligned over the last decade, unfairly so. This industry has a strong commitment to conservation and the

4 success story that needs to be told. This story doesn’t ever get told. My second point is that Portland has made a big investment in this industry. City owned land on the waterfront is largely devoted to the fishing industry and we intend to protect our investment at all costs. It is a good industry, with good jobs, and we intend to protect them as much as we can through all means necessary. The steaming time issue - quite frankly has put many of our big boats at a disadvantage, and there will be a further disadvantage if reductions of DAS continue. We need the issue of steaming time to be addressed to even out the geographic disadvantages. The law speaks to the opposite, to fairness in management. We ask for your consideration and help in that area.

Mr. Charlie Summer, representing for Senator Olympia Snowe, ME: Mr. Summer read a statement from Senator Snowe into the record (attached).

Mr. Bill Vale, representing Senator Susan Collins, ME: Mr. Vale read a statement from Senator Collins into the record (attached).

Ms. Rachel Gallant, legislative assistant to Congressman Tom Allen, NE: I do not have a formal statement from Congressman Allen. But I would like convey and reiterate Congressman Allen's sense of urgency. He cares deeply of the success of the fishing industry, particularly in his district. Natural resource industries are key to they future of our state. We are working very closely with the Commissioner and local fishermen and broad spectrum of stakeholders to find way to be productive as this process moves forward. Thank you to all who have communicated to Tom to keep our head straight on what we can do to be helpful. Tom is in contact with Dr. Hogarth on a regular basis. We appreciate hearing from you in ways we can help so that he can communicate what is right for Maine in this process.

Mr. George Lapointe, Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources, ME: Mr. Lapointe read a letter from Governor Baldacci into the record (attached).

Mr. Tom Bull, state senator, Chair of the House Marine Resources Committee, South Freeport ME: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Much of what I have been thinking has already been said. While I lack the familiarity of these issues that is possessed by some others, I am familiar with perilous economic conditions of fishery in Maine. We have heard how tough it is to survive in the fisheries industry –regulations, overseas competition, local competition for waterfront property. We have people being driven off by increasing property evaluations. There are countless pressure and hurdles being in put in front of the fishing industry. I would like to encourage you do what has already been stated. Go back to the drawing board and come up with other alternatives. I encourage to listen to all the other alternatives and see if there is something else we can do given the time constraints. I know you are hobbled by the court, that actions that can be proposed are limited. Keep in the forefront the potential economic impact of anything you can do. Keep pursuing alternative that do the least economic damage that is possible. I won’t tell you which alternative is best. Fishermen have a wide number of opinions on any issue. It is hard to come to consensus on this; what benefits one may hurt another. Find a proposal that does the least damage possible. Keep pushing with members of Congress for changes to the federal act so this does not happen again. We need to make sure we have a management system in place respectful of constraints that you are under, but that maintains the industry that is backbone of this state. Our state seal has a fisherman and a farmer on it – that is no accident. I urge you t to respect that tradition and keep our communities alive.

Mr. George Lapointe, Commissioner of Marine Resources, ME: Mr. Lapointe read a prepared statement (attached).

5

Mr. William Gerencer, Bowdoin ME: Mr. Gerencer read a prepared statement (attached).

Mr. Bob Tetrault vessel owner, Portland ME: Mr. Tetrault read a prepared statement (attached).

Mr. John Philips, Ocean Conservancy, Portland ME: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I have a slightly different point of view than you have heard so far. We believe we need the timely implementation of Amendment 13 to insure the end of overfishing and the rebuilding of depleted populations to healthy levels. The Ocean Conservancy has been actively involved since the mid-1990’s. We have advocated for the Council and NMFS to end overfishing once and for all. The Council and NMFS have failed to do so. Overfishing is a serious threat to the ocean ecosystem and fishing communities. Amendment 13 is legally required and justified. We urge the Council and NFMS to move forward and rebuild all stocks to healthy and sustainable levels. While we support the Amendment, we do not support Alternative 1. DAS are a blunt instrument that won’t work. We support taking a new approach, based on the number of fish caught rather than the number of DAS fished. With a hard TAC management approach, we would make catch levels enforceable rather than exceed targets as has been the case in the recent past. Enforceable limits are needed, to insert accountability, end overfishing, and the goals are met. We think the Council should improve the existing fishery information systems through daily electronic dealer reporting. There should be a minimum of ten percent observer coverage. Vessel Monitoring Systems should be required on groundfish vessels. This would give us a better understanding of effort and where it is used. Mandatory daily electronic dealer reporting will allow for ins season management adjustments to make sure biological goals are met. Fundamental changes are needed. This will be better for fishermen and the fish. The Council faces difficult decisions. We are committed to working to craft a solution. We need to end overfishing to rebuild stocks to health levels and improve the overall health of the ecosystem. This will benefit fishing communities. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Mr. Peter Innis, fisherman, Portland ME: I want to point out the viewpoint of the previous speaker and his ability to manipulate the law. This goes back to NMFS interpretation of this law. which gives him the ammunition to sue this process. This is becoming an ongoing procedure, the number of lawsuits that has built up, we have been at this for seven years. People wonder why this is happening. I relate it to Al Qaeda interprets the Koran. They interpret the Koran in abstract way, where millions of Muslims can read the Koran and live in peace. Certain groups interpret it backwards to promote their agenda. I read the M-S Act – it looks fine to me. It has economic, social, and safety guidelines to stop this from happening to the industry. Some read this law with one purpose in mind: to destroy this industry. The law is being manipulated to destroy this industry. It proves the point. There is no common ground with these people, just like with the terrorists. We cannot come into the middle of this when they insist we die. Al Qaeda insists that you die, and there is no common ground with them. That is the same thing he wants for this industry.

Mr. Michael Crocker, Communications Director, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA), Saco ME: Mr. Crocker read a prepared statement (attached).

Mr. Geoffrey Smith, Ocean Conservancy, Portland ME: I am the New England Fishery Conservation Manager for the Ocean Conservancy. My comments were originally going to focus on three misconceptions. Given recent comments I think there are in fact four misconceptions. We are not trying to kill the fishing industry, we are opposed to overfishing. We want to develop a plan to do that. To address three misconceptions. First misconception, because overall biomass has tripled, no additional restrictions are needed. Second, that a legally required plan provides

6 marginal benefits. And third, that adopting a plan that ends overfishing will decimate the industry. These misconceptions paint a pessimistic picture. The sooner we clarify these issues, the sooner we can move forward with a plan that works for fish and fishermen. First point – groundfish stocks have tripled. We don’t dispute that. But we think it important to note that comparison is made to stock sizes when stocks were at record low levels. In fact, the serious depletion of stocks in New England led Congress to pass the SFA in 1996. We recognize positive signs, but there is still a lot of work to be done. We are particularly concerned about GB cod. Most recent estimates show it is less than half in the stock size in 1990, and third of the size I n1978. There are no signs of recovery since the mid-90s. Projections show it will never rebuild to healthy levels under the No Action alternative. Look at plaice, SNE/MA winter flounder – they are at half the levels in the mid-80s, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is at a fraction of the level in the mid-80. Fishing mortality is still above sustainable rates. Amendment 13 is legally required and justified. We do recognize stocks have shown signs of improvement – GB yellowtail flounder, GB haddock, GB winter flounder, and redfish. Those stocks show if we can control mortality than stocks will rebound. All we ask is to end overfishing so they can rebuild to healthy levels. The second misconception is that this amendment will provide marginal benefits for the overall health of groundfish populations. Those claims are not trued. Biomass levels - compared to No Action, there will be significant increases in overall biomass. The presentation showed the comparison for GOM cod – comparisons are also given for other stocks. Under rebuilding programs, these biomasses reach levels two and a half times higher than under No Action. It is also clear that as stocks increase, there is a broadening of age structure, improved recruitment, increased geographic range. There will be access to more fish. Adopting rebuilding programs will help the overall health of the fishery. The final misperception is that implementing Amendment 13 will cause thousands of lost jobs and revenues. I can see from these graphs why people have that belief, but it is critical to look at the baseline from which it is based. My understanding of the economic analysis is that is looks at revenues in 2001 and what we think we will achieve in rebuilding programs. Those who believe the dire economic predictions in those tables oppose Amendment 13. The tables don’t tell the whole story. They are based on regulations that are two years old, regulations that have been found to violate the most basic requirements. The revenues and landings of 2002 is a more appropriate baseline for these comparisons to be made against. Also look at figure 176 on page 546. This graphs shows historic landings and projections expected to be realized. That graph shows that under all rebuilding plans, landings are expected to be higher than in 2002. Revenues should follow the same pattern. We can have increased landings, viable stocks, and viable fishing communities. I would also point to the fact that existing regulations prevent us from harvesting all we can on Georges Bank. We need to provide a more creative management plan that ends overfishing while allowing access to stocks that can be taken. We have asked the Council to update the information based on2002 data. We think it important to provide information on landings and revenues for 2002 and use those as a baseline for where we will be, where we will be in the first couple years of the rebuilding program. This will give a more realistic understanding of the benefits and costs of rebuilding. Once people realize we can have a rebuilding program that does not have drastic impacts, we can have a better plan. A low trip limits on weaker stocks, more DAS to target healthier stocks, innovative gear technology. We support area management approaches. Finally, we understand Mayor Cloutier and Mayor Bell have begun work on modifying the alternatives. As interested stakeholders we would appreciate a seat at the table. We ask for only three things: a plan that meets the biological goals, careful scientific evaluation, and vetted through the Council process so the public can comment on the plan. In the end, we do believe a plan needs to be developed that ends overfishing and rebuilds stocks.

Mr. John Norton, President, Cozy Harbor Seafood, ME: We have plants and facilities in Tenants Harbor and Long Island, ME. I have been buying and marketing groundfish for thirty years. I am

7 a director of the Portland Fish Exchange and other organizations. Because of my knowledge, I offer comments on the likely impacts on processing and auctioning infrastructure. I have heard a lot of people say that the economic impacts are overblown. I think the opposite – I think they are grossly understated. Cozy Harbor is a survivor of the ten-year contractions caused by lower stock sizes and strict regulations. Cozy Harbor had to evolve and adapt. We found ways to supplement our business in the lean times, but not too permanently replace our current business. Some processors buy frozen at sea product, some import product, some process lobster, and shrimp. No opportunity was missed. One common element was each survival strategy was maximized to the extent possible. Those that survived are under challenge in the global marketplace. Cheaper labor has allowed competitors to use some of our strategies to their own benefit. There is no unused opportunity left to the industry as a whole that will replace the business lost from Amendment 13. Any of the four alternatives will deal a deathblow to the shoreside infrastructure. It will shut off the supply of fish for some unknown period. Interruptions caused by DAS reductions are bad enough. Hard TACs or area management are impossible for processors. Today we can only survive because landings are relatively uninterrupted. We are able to hold onto some markets for our fish, and retain our trained workforce. Concurrent with the decrease in landings there have been three changes in the marketplace. Gone are the days the market was dominated by small chains or markets or restaurants that could react quickly to changing conditions. The market is dominated by large corporate end users who value planning and predictability and have a wealth of options. The supermarket industry has undergone a wave of consolidation. They have a risk adverse management style. Every department has to achieve aggressive growth rates. Seafood departments have a quarterly marketing plan, set for a thirteen week period. They must have consistent products that will be available at the right time, quantity and price. If they are not available, they will be replaced in the sales plan. This is the reason frozen at sea and aquaculture products dominate the seafood cases. If suppliers doubt the supply of cod, haddock, or flounder, they will simply buy more shrimp from other areas, more farme d salmon, more tilapia, Nile perch, etc. The restaurant market is dominated by large chains. Menu planning at this level is similar to the market planes of a supermarket. Annual sales and profit goals are established. Food costs are negotiated. Menus are planned and etched in stone. Only species and products that are reliable and have consistent value are offered on the menu. The third structural change is the loss of freezing infrastructure and the loss of foreign markets for fish over ten to twelve years. The lack of freezing capacity resulted in s shift of military procurement to the west coast. Commercial market captured buy foreign fish because of the inability of processing plants to continue operations in the face of supply disruptions. Many workers work paycheck to paycheck; a lack of consistent earnings forces them to go elsewhere. Plant overhead requires regular cash flow, yet they are still threatened by increased costs. I have been doing this a long time. Plants cannot survive repeated shut downs due to supply problems. Once plants fold, they will not be easily replaced. Once we lose the trained labor force, restarting will be impossible. Once waterfront is condoized, there will be no going back. I’ve heard some say our industries will reap benefits of larger stocks. That is wishful thinking or posturing. People and industries cannot be brought back form the dead. Will the increase resource be harvested? Probably - but not by a community based industry. We will see our frozen fish exported to the lowest cost country for processing. For those who say this industry won’t die – we have lost the poultry industry, shoe industry, shrimp industry, textile industry – do we really want to risk an industry in that has been in New England for 400 years? At tremendous sacrifice, the core industry has survived to rebuild from lower levels. We have in place the minimum capacity necessary to harvest what we have. The current plan is working. Stocks are rebuilding. Many blame the SFA. But a complete reading shows no requirement to restore fish stocks for the sake of the stocks themselves. The only purpose is to use them for commercial and recreational fishing. We must manage in a way to take into account the social and economic needs of the states. The Act balances needs of food supply and communities. The management options under Amendment 13 do not satisfy the requirements of the SFA. It

8 may satisfy the biological mandates of the SFA but they do not satisfy the law itself. The current plan is working and allows the core industry to survive. This option satisfies the SFA. I offer some specific suggestions or Amendment 13. The Council should balance all the National Standard guidelines when determining what comes out of Amendment 13, particularly National Standard 8. I also ask them to use the multispecies exemption to single stock MSY management that is allowed under the SFA. The SFA requires we take optimum yield from the fishery, that we take MSY, not seventy-five percent of MSY. The current definition that sets optimum yield at seventy-five percent of MSY should state that it is 100 percent of MSY. I also urge the council to use the three highest year average method to set rebuilding goals. As to the suggestion we should shift effort to healthier stocks. I have seen a lot of effort shifting. Every time there is a regulated effort shift, it pounds the hell out of whatever it shifts to. By doing so, it just continues the problem year after year, constantly pulse fishing. By using realistic rebuilding goals, and making use of the flexibility in the SFA, you can come up with a plan that will work on continued rebuilding of fish stocks and continued life for the industry.

Mr. Ed Bradley, Portland ME: I am representing two companies: Vessel Services Inc. is a vessel services gear company. Together they company distribute all the ice most fuel, and the only company still selling gear on the waterfront. The company employs 10-15 people a year, and pay thousands of dollars in rent and tax. Is it the lead tenant on the Portland fish pier. Our customers are the groundfish fleet and the Portland Fish Exchange. Since 1981 our company has invested over two million dollars in plant and equipment. I have found ice sales are a reasonably accurate measures of effort from this port and a barometer of the health of the fleet. We support conservation. We are proud of our record of conservation. According to documents and assessments of the federal government, the biomass of species to be regulated increased threefold in eight years. Stocks are rebuilding under current restrictions. We are proud to be part of that tradition. This fishery is a successful model for the world. That success has come at great cost to this company. Ice sales make the best indicator. We have prepared a micro-analysis of two vessel services companies and provide that for individual members and the record. Prior to the first round of major restrictions, Vessel Services was profitable and healthy. DAS restrictions devastated our ice sales. We went from break even to a downward trend toward bankruptcy. In 1998, the trend reversed. Ice sales that had gone down since 1994, and fuel sales both started to climb back up. We believe this is because the regulations began to work. Landing increased and ice sales began to build, directly as a result of regulatory restrictions imposed in 1995. Then in May 2002, Judge Kessler gave use the first look at the SFA. With a twenty percent reduction in DAS, resulting in twenty-five percent decrease in sales revenues, we went from profitability to break even, and are still on a decline. If Amendment 13 is adopted, I predict dire consequences for this industry. These are micro indications that will happen. I believe the analysis that has been conducted on a macro basis. Economic loss in New England will result from any one of the four alternatives. And there will be direct economic loss to region in Maine. Agree with the Ocean Conservancy – the analysis does not reflect what will really happen. The real story is what will happen to specific businesses. In the case of the Port of Portland, no alternative will permit Vessel Services to survive. Each alternative has significant restrictions which will cause a twenty to fifty percent reduction in a one year period of time. We will decline into bankruptcy and death. Ice sales are declining more quickly because of departure and relocation of the fleet from Portland, not only because of restrictions. The Portland Fish Exchange will give testimony. They are predicting a 50 percent loss – if we will sell 50% less ice, we will not survive a year. Our gear company is the last company to sell gear – we have two locations. By November 31 we will close our Commercial Street operation because of the expected loss of business. This is the true picture of what is happening in Portland, not a macro survey based on tables. It is based on private specific business decisions that are being imposed on us by Amendment 13. With respect to all those who see a bright future: we will not be here to see it or realize the benefits. The real tragedy

9 is with the port. The mayor has told you about the city’s commitment and all that has been done. If the Portland Fish Exchange shuts down, if Vessel Services leaves – or we cut services and raise prices… When more boats le ave, we will clearly shut down. And then the question is – when the Portland Fish Exchange shuts down, if Vessels Services is gone, the pier will be converted to other uses. To what will the boats return? FE is gone. Recently at a meeting with Governor Baldacci, in planning for a Natural Resources Council, he said: The fishery is not our sexiest industry, it is not a high tech industry. It is our growth industry, and we have to protect it. Choosing among the alternatives from Amendment 13 is impossible. We don’t support any of the Amendment 13 alternatives. We don’t ask why - we ask how did we get here? There are two different explanations. One from Senator Snowe: NMFS has abdicated its responsibility in interpreting the Act. I believe her. The other is from NMFS: you must choose these alternatives because it is required by law and the courts. Vessel Services is a pawn in this process. I don’t care which one is correct. The Act is good and well intentioned and can be interpreted, or the Act is bad and must be amended. Our challenge it to find a new alternative And I know you are constrained by the alternatives being considered You are not only managers but leaders. I invite you to take a position with others and find alternatives either through amending the Act or find another way that permits a healthy ecosystem in a way that the fishery can survive. (Mr. Bradley also submitted written comments, attached).

Mr. Proctor Wells, commercial fisherman, Phippsburg ME: I am also a selectman for Phippsburg ME. First, I do support a lot of people’s positions as stated, but I also understand some of the communities are different and would like to touch on that. While Portland is the largest port in Maine, there are fourteen other ports. These communities have offloading facilities, infrastructure. These ports will be in jeopardy if any of the four alternatives are implemented. Once they collapse they are lost forever. There is a long line of out of state money waiting to buy waterfront facilities up. An example is Phip psburg. There used to be thirty inshore draggers and five gillnetters. As a result of buybacks, bankruptcies, permits sold out of state, retraining - as a direct result, 93 percent of waterfront owned by non-residents. What used to be mom and pop operations – grocery stores, wharves, etc. - have succumbed and gone under. People from away have paid huge amounts and drove taxes up for people who want to stay and survive. As long as the state uses property taxes a funding backbone, we are in a downward spiral and Amendment 13 will continue that decline. Some wharf owner taxes went up 300 percent. This puts tremendous burdens on the places left. I represent a group called IFISH. We want a sustainable fishing industry and fish stocks, supported through diverse fisheries. We do what we can to fill in the times that are tough. Alternatives 1 through 4 are not survivable options. Any further DAS reduction is unacceptable. Many of us, through Judge Kessler, have gone to a 93 percent reduction. From my original allocation I am down to 2 DAS if another 73 percent reduction is added. Can my wharf survive my losses? No. We have to find a place for everyone. Our suggestion would be a minimum number of DAS is the best way to protect the infrastructure along the coast. This may not be much, and the total landings would not be significant. Once these places are gone, they will turn into summer homes. Leasing or consolidation – we don’t support it. How can you ask someone with eight DAS to buy back into the industry? Or in my case with 24 DAS, we are going to see who is economically sound enough to inherit this resource. This is not fair and is counterproductive. As to the SFA: I know we have to comply, but we believe we should choose another path. We don’t support hard TACs. “Those who fail to learn form the past are condemned to repeat it.” We are there again. TACs don’t work. Soft TACs, with more conservation measures – we would have to take a look at that. The only plan that allows some flexibility is area management. As written I don’t support it. But maybe changes could be made that would draft something that everyone could survive on. Another 65 percent DAS reduction on top of what we have – how can you tell people that? It raises issues of future access. Stonington has a problem already, as does Port Clyde. Lots of fish are already trucked to

10 the exchange. If these guys have another DAS reduction, or another hard TAC – if the TAC is reached during a rolling closure, we are done. There are a lot of issues we can continue to work on. We want to see if we can come up with some of these answers and be creative.

Ms. Maggie Terry, owner of Free Range Fish and Lobster, Portland ME: Please look at me carefully, Council. I am becoming an endangered species. I am already an endangered species. Amendment 13 will put me there. Should we list fishermen in the Federal Register? Will we then get the same protection the fish are? The SFA was not meant to exchange fishermen for fish. It was meant to create a fair distribution between effort and growth. Sustainability is a balance. Keep this in mind when deciding our future.

Mr. Danny Wong, fishermen, Portland ME: This is a critical and dangerous time for the groundfish industry. I am shore engineer and seller representative for three boats in Portland. IN the past ten years I have worked at many jobs, and have owned many boats with a partner who drowned because of fish regulations. Amendment 7 cut us from 180 DAS to 88 DAS in one year. We went out and bought a second boat, a better boat, and planned to use it in the winter. But my friend took the weaker boat in the winter and sank. Why we couldn’t put two permits together served no purpose. It would have been safer to use the newer boat. The proposal of another drastic cutback will cause severe financial disaster. Fishermen lives will be needlessly lost and I don’t know, why given the success rebuilding fishing stocks. Seems to be consensus that fishing stocks are improving. At a rally in Portland, a speaker said the increase was threefold. You should continue with the DAS program already in place. I firmly urge the council to support the No Action alternative. There is no reason to put people’s lives at risk to reach a goal sooner. In this case the end does not justify the means. I could understand taking action if there was no improvement, but that is not the case. This conservation effort of the environmental industry has taken on a life of its won. I understand the No Action alternative may not be considered – what comes next? I urge the Council to support Alternative 1b with DAS leasing plan attached. The DAS program has brought stocks back in the past, it will be successful into the future. With a 65 percent reduction in DAS, many boats will not be able to survive. Most boasts have 70 das after the cutback – they will be left with 25 DAS. No one can make a living on 25 DAS in a year. Such a drastic cutback can only work if coupled with an adequate DAS leasing program. Don’t only use your intellect but use your humanity for those who will not make it through the next round of cuts. Lives will be lost. Let a boat owner get something for his permit. They will be able to build safe vessels. I am firmly opposed to any of the other options that would use a quota system. A quota system will only result in the waste of resource – everyone fishing at the same time, lowering prices of fish, disregarding weather to survive, throw fish over to keep more valuable fish. It will basically be a race to fish until the quota is closed no matter how it is tweaked. A quota will reverse the progress that has been gained. I urge you to make a decision that will mitigate the hardship that is inevitable to build a safe a secure industry. The Council should embrace Option 1b with an adequate DAS leasing program. This may not lessen the pain of Amendment 13 but it will allow fishermen to survive into the future.

Mr. David Frulla, counsel for the Associated Fishermen of Maine: We will submit extensive written comments. We don’t see the law as creating the rigidity in this Amendment 13 process. We see it as policy choice being made by NMFS, not the law. The policy choice is that NMFS is driving the Council to use the new rebuilding targets with an adaptive approach. What sane agency would respond to a lawsuit by saying we need to do three times as much? Single species management being held hostage by weaker stocks. This is another policy choice. Council has repeatedly asked for multispecies approaches and they were rebuffed. the same way they are being rebuffed on their request to look at the Age Structured Production Model. NMFS has constrained the Council to look only at those choices with heavy short-term costs and little long

11 term gain. This is a textbook example of policy failure. In the short run the Council needs to fin a way to limp along, maybe with a phased approach. At some point a decision needs to be made, whether by the Council or the Agency, that the policy decisions are not successful and are not tailored to a sustainable groundfish fishery. If that means more time is necessary so be it. There has to be something that comes out of it. This law is not designed for the result this industry is facing right now.

Mr. Craig Pendleton, Saco ME: I have spoke as a representative for NAMA at several hearings. I would like to take a different approach and present my personal point of view. Many that know me know I collect a lot of quotes. One of my favorites is “lives being to end when we remain silent about things that matter;” Martin Luther King said that. I am trying to figure out what to do with a 54 foot boat that is twenty-three years old. We have lived through this whole thing. Today I put down my personal feelings. Mr. Pendleton then read a prepared statement (attached).

Ms. Jackie O’Dell, Executive Director, Northeast Seafood Coalition, Gloucester MA: The NESC is a fisheries organization that represents fishermen and shoreside businesses throughout New England. Our mission is to promote a healthy and sustainable fishery. I am here not only to listen to the community of Maine, but to state our position. We oppose the four alternatives as presented today. They are unacceptable and have unnecessary biological, social, and economic costs. They will gravely impact commercial fishing communities and family businesses. Stability is essential. The law needs to provide flexibility for management. The NESC supports reasonable measures to rebuild fish stocks. We are working closely with stakeholders to design a solution that is equitable and reasonable for all communities. We are putting together a solution, working with fishermen from Maine to Long Island. We will submit something in more detail. The NESC opposes the raised footrope trawl and hard TACs. We oppose measures that consolidate the industry. These measures will create allocation battles. The solution we present will be based on input controls that will allow our communities to resemble what they look like today.

Mr. Hank Soule, Executive Director, Portland Fish Exchange: It is a strange day when fish populations reach a long-term high, yet we are putting in more regulations that will cause more devastation. The more fish that are out there, the harder the rules get. Conservation is important: no fish, no fishing. We have worked hard. Populations have tripled over the last decade. I want to make it clear no one says our work is done. We support the plan that is working. The environmental lobby tosses out words like crisis and collapse, yet we are witnessing one of the better stories of our time. There is no question stocks will increase with or without Amendment 13. Landings will increase with or without Amendment 13. The question I ask is how much harm is necessary to increase the rate of growth? The New England Fishery Management Council is under a court order, so it is critical to follow through. Failure to do so will cede control to a federal judge or NMFS. Critics will seize the opportunity to paint the Council system in general as incapable of fulfilling its mandates. Either outcome will lead to worse than what is on table. The Council should follow the law, stay on track, and get this done. There is a lot of talk about more options. The phased reduction in DAS will meet the biological objectives and give us time to adjust, and if necessary to plan an exit strategy. It will give time to develop a buyout if that is what is desired. More timely scientific information can be gathered. It gives time to implement a consolidation program to allow vessels to survive. Look at the numbers shown to break even – any reduction will cause more vessels to lose money, will cause more safety problems. Accidents will increase. A DAS leasing program will allow an alternative method of generating income and re-enter the fishery when conditions warrant. It will allow owners to invest in their boats and maintain safety; it will allow Maine boats to keep fishing. Do not implement hard TACs. Quotas are a proven failure. They were abandoned because they caused massive discarding and landings of black fish. The EU is discovering the very same problems and officials are advocating a

12 change to input controls, much like what we have here. Why revert to a tried and failed system? Current system has proven to work. Our Portland Fish Exchange landings last week indicate what we expect out of Amendment 13. Our total volume was 175 thousand pounds, sixty percent of our average weekly volume, and what we expect to see out of Amendment 13. We lost ten thousand dollars this week. I won't say we won’t survive, but we haven’t figured out how to do it. The fishermen, the processors, and the shoreside industry that support them will be a lot closer to collapse than the one billion pounds of fish swimming in the ocean today.

Ms. Elizabeth Sheehan, fisheries project director, Coastal Enterpr ises, ME: We area private non- profit community development corporation. CEI has invested over 11 million dollars in the Portland fishing industry. We give a community perspective to our lending. We give loans to everyone from fish buyers to marine research. We see these loans as investments in our community and our future. We have watched the growth in both regulatory measures and fish stocks. As a community development organization, we think any of the four alternatives under Amendment 13 will do irreparable and unnecessary harm. The short and long-term costs to our fleet, markets, and shoreside businesses will not be recovered. At the same time the long time biological benefits versus those of the current plan seem nominal. We understand you are faced with a daunting task because of the narrow interpretation of the SFA by the courts. We believe there is a need to clarify the intent of the law in cases of rebuilding and in the mean time ask you to exercise your full powers to enact measures that do the least harm to fishing communities.

Ms. Alyson Jordan, Portland ME: I represent two mid-size vessels and a repair shop. Thank you for letting me speak. In 1994, the decline of stocks lead the Council to impose restrictions. These reversed the decline and populations have increased. Part of the solution was to reduce the size of the groundfish fleet. I have a list of thirty boats that are no longer fishing. (Attached) At the same time, Maine groundfish revenue dropped by twenty-five percent. All costs have increased – except for the price of fish, which ahs remained unchanged since 1995. Now we are being told to fish less than ten percent of earlier years. We can’t survive the next few years under any option. We need a workable solution. We need young people to get involved or no one will be around to catch the fish. We have until May 2004 to get a workable solution. The mayor said he is developing a fifth option. Take the time to analyze this option before committing.

Ms. Jill Goldthwaite, Stonington ME: I would like to speak to a couple items not yet mentioned. First, I would like to refute earlier testimony that consequences of regulations to date have not been as severe as predicted. Not so in Stonington ME where the entire fleet has disappeared. This is equally true of projections that seem to suggest everyone is crying wolf. Consequences will indeed be that severe. I don’t know much of groundfishing but I know a little about regulations. I would like to make three points, why this amendment is in serious trouble because of regulatory principles. There is such broad disagreement on the interpretation of the proposals it is hard to believe it won’t translate into court action regardless of which alternative is selected. We will sit in court for a long time. There are people in this room who can claim some expertise in some areas of this issue. This amendment is too complicated. It is difficult to understand, even for those of you who have been working on it. For those not in that setting it is impossible. It is too big and unwieldy. Parts of it are unenforceable. The requirements imposed on the Coast Guard right now are growing. They are not getting funded; their role in fisheries enforcement will be diminished. Our Maine Marine Patrol has been decreased by four positions. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to put an enormous document like this out when enforcement will be weaker. That is where everything collapses. Someone will take advantage when enforcement is not there. There is not enough enforcement on the planet to enforce this. Given all the work that has been put into it, it must be difficult to have everyone say they hate the whole thing. I am telling you for nothing that has anything to do with fishing, this is a project doomed to failure in its current form. There are

13 other issues, in addition to the economic issues. This amendment is not enforceable unless you are looking for funding to provide the Coast Guard and states the resources to do so.

Ms. Becky Rand, Portland ME: I am not a scientists or a politician. I run a diner in Portland. I feed the fishermen and I serve their product. I think all of Maine should be here to protect this industry. Accountants will be stunned when there are no more boats in Portland. We will continue lose fishermen at sea because they will be unable to keep boats running with fewer DAS. They continue fishing because lose DAS if they don’t and they will fight to stay in business. We would not send astronaut to outer space, or a soldier into battle, without the best equipment. Many fishermen go to sea without all they need to be safe. When there are no longer boats, when there food is not on the menu, we will wonder what happened and where the fishermen have gone. I don’t want to hold another benefit for a family trying to keep their boat. I never want to serve another table and a few weeks later serve a widow with fatherless children.

Mr. Will Viola, fisherman, Portland ME. I own a 70 foot dragger and have been fishing for thirty years. The first company I started with was F. J. O’Hara. They had five 120-foot trawler. None of them are on the east coast fishing for groundfish; they have all moved to Alaska. Canada, scalloping, fishing for squid. Then I worked for Roger Woodman – two vessels – one sold in the buyback, one Ms. Stevenson now owns. I bought my own boat. Everyone else was getting out, I bought a smaller boat, thought I could survive. I have been home for five months to save DAS for wintertime. I don’t know what to do. I keep seeing in the paper by conservation groups that we won’t make any less money. If they could guarantee that, I wouldn’t worry. Canada is upping its quota on haddock. If they want to pay me to stay at home, it may be the best solution. If they want to buy out these DAS, they have the money. I don’t know what I am going to do. I am just trying to survive.

Ms. Gail Johnson, Harpswell ME: I have been involved with fisheries since I was twelve, more than forty odd years. I worked on boats, had two terms on the NEFMC, have been on the ICCAT Advisory Panel. Highly Migratory Species Panel. I own and operate a seventy-foot fishing boat. Because we didn’t fish in that magic year. We could not go groundfish I support my fellow fishermen. The costs of this plan outweigh the benefits. The plan calls for rebuilt populations. If calls for all kinds of extreme measures. The costs that are involved – where will the fleet be after this? The fleet at the end will be vastly different. The players won’t be the same. The costs will be in jobs, piers and other facilities that will be lost to growing demand for waterfront. Our boat fishes out of Portland. We need a take out wharf, fuel, lube oil, Gear. We need the services of supply companies and all of the various other businesses. We can’t come to Portland if that support isn’t there. There has to be a better way than this. We need fish and the fishermen and the social and economic benefits fishing brings. Keep the present plan or change the law - or we will have lots of fish but won’t be able to catch them.

Ms. Gina LeDuc Koontz: I am married to a fisherman. I also worked with Massachusetts Fisherman’s’ Partnership on a community panel initiative. The conclusions from the project will be submitted in written format. As part of this project, I administered surveys to the Portland fleet crew. There is not much information on the profile of crewmembers. I did this in face-to-face interviews. Looking over the data, there are some interesting facts. Two key points. When I asked how did you learn to fish. – 75 percent learned from a family member, 25% from someone else later in life, typically age 26, and learned by getting a site on board and watching other fishermen. What was also interesting that men who learned from family learned at an early age, some as young as age of 3. Information was passed in a traditional way. What was more insightful and shocking to me was when I asked how many of you fish with a family member? Nearly 0 percent – there is no recruitment into the industry. When people ask who will fish in the

14 future, from this survey it appears that no one from the present Maine families will be fishing into the future because the regulatory uncertainties are so great. The average age of crew is close to fifty. There are long-term serious consequences to the industry and fishing communities. It is difficult to plan a life – incomes decline, getting permits is costly, regulations in the future are uncertain. Fewer fathers are encouraging their families to enter. Permits, DAS may not be available at reasonable price. Young children missing opportunity to acquire traditional knowledge and information that has been passed down for hundreds of years. I would like to read a quote form another court judge – keep cognizant that the Act was not intended to be used as a buzzsaw. There are workable compromises. It is in the public’s best interest to rebuilding fish species and fishing communities.

Ms. Yvette Alexander, President of Maine Fishermen’s Wives Association: We are rebuilding stocks. We are a success story that has gotten lost in a lawsuit. We do live with rules and regulations, many of which we asked for to achieve goals we are trying to reach. It is working. Amendment 13 has four options – all of which are unnecessary. They will result in the needless destruction of an industry we worked hard for, and will destroy the infrastructure and cause unnecessary hardship. DAS is what we know. Hard TACS – we have already been there – they are not a good thing. Area management – drawing more lines in the ocean creates more boundaries. Habitat issues. We done’ need any more habitat restrictions. We have large closed areas and rolling closures. But if you do have to adopt an alternative listen to your advisors.

Mr. Gary Libby, fisherman, Port Clyde ME: I have been fishing for a number of years. A lot the things in this document we are opposed to. The TACs are real bad, I don’t like those. Area management is equally bad. I’m not sure what you guys got to do to meet this law. My comment was always – someone said it earlier – rewrite the law, but it is beyond you guys. The law was written in a way that it was able to be used in a way not attended, like Senator Snowe’s spokesperson said tonight. I see an increase of fish in these last few years. If we stay on some course similar to what we have been doing we will weather the storm just fine. I don’t know the answers. As long as you are able to come up with a plan and hopefully have it be the right one, rather than we thought it would rebuild and it didn’t I don’t want to come back to the drawing board. I want to plan my business for the next ten years without worrying about it. Those two things in these options – they are not that good. I’ve don’t want another scallop fishery downeast. That was an open day opening thing. All the boat showed up in a race to get fish. That is a hard and dangerous way to fish. That is what TACs are. I just don’t think I can put a finger exactly what has to be done because of all I hear. I do hope that it is the right thing. I could talk all night. We hope that everything turns out and we get a set plan so we can run our business with a set plan and no new closures so I can stay in business and pay my bills.

Mr. David Haggerty, fisherman, South Freeport, ME: I fish on Georges Bank. I am leaving Portland to go to Gloucester for a couple of reasons. DAS – we lose twenty four hours in each trip steaming to Georges Bank and back. A whole DAS we lose. When limited to the DAS proposed, that hurts. I don’t support imminent reductions in DAS, or even those that happened before. With respect to overfishing and it suggests that stocks are declining. It should not apply – they are rebuilding. They are growing. I think if anything happens with these four alternatives we need to look at the consolidation of DAS. We need to continue to fish.

Ms. Barbara Stevenson, vessel owner and seller's representative, Portland ME: Ms. Stevenson read a prepared statement (attached), and supplemented it with the following additional comments. There are two other issues I want to address. When the industry says No Action or Status Quo, it should be clear that we don't mean no changes at all. Much of the industry is firmly convinced that more needs to be done for GB cod. When we say No Action or Status Quo, that is

15 only the basis. The reason we want an analysis of what the current measures are doing is so we know where the weaknesses are. If No Action or Status Quo becomes the basis, we know where we to start from. The most frightening thing I've heard tonight is that everyone has been in the industry for thirty years. How many did you see tonight that just got a boat and love fishing? As an owner, the less DAS I have the less I can risk having someone take the boat to learn as a new captain. A new person is very expensive to train. If we can't break even how can we even now how we can find the time to train new people.

Mr. Jeremy Davis, fisherman, Portsmouth NH: Mr. Davis read a prepared statement (attached).

Mr. Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation, Rockland ME: I appreciate the Council staff presentation of the amendment material. This is a complicated document and a difficult presentation, but this was the best I have seen in fifteen years. Anyone sitting and listening to the comments could not be affected. That is the main substance of my comments. You could not hear the real world of fisheries and not be affected by it. Despite my own conviction there is every reason to go forward in a macro sense, the conclusion is that over the last five or six or seven years there has been a massive reallocation of access to the fishery that has occurred. No talks about it, the Council has not debated it. If landings are strong, revenues are strong, participants are fewer – the number of people who are suffering is offset by someone who is making a lot of money. I do worry about adopting any alternative that uses the current indirect controls. We have to figure out how to build the safety nets and protection for the inshore fleet that has been devastated and will continue to be if we don’t develop a safety net. We must keep them in the fishery until we solve these problems.

Ms. Kimberly Libby, Port Clyde me: I am the wife of fisherman. . I argued with myself all evening about speaking. I would like to offer an observation from the past eleven years. I have to tell you – I know more about groundfishing than anyone from Cincinnati Ohio has a right to know. I have an issue with the term No Action. It is an open invitation to the rabid conservation eco-terrorist groups to file another lawsuit. They are funded big money by oil companies in disguise. No action is the only option. We have endured cutbacks, closed areas - they have yielded dramatic improvements in fish stocks. This industry cannot survive under more regulations. The rewards will go to factory trawlers. Family boats like ours will be gone. We do not have the financial resources to survive cutbacks. Once we are gone, the oil companies – there will be no one on the water to monitor their activities. Oceana has a serious agenda backed by oil that we may not be aware of. This whole process is an obscene tragedy. Every time we get close the bar is raised and rules get changed, time and time again. The industry can never satisfy the powers that be. The measures in place are working. If it ain’t broke don’t break. Fix the wording of the MS-A and stop the lawsuits. Give these men the time and breathing room they deserve. They are not only stewards of the ocean; they are carpenters, welders, painters, net builders, computer operators, and quality control specialists - who are paying and have paid the price for damage started when some were in high school. Consider this carefully before allowing a stroke of a pen to destroy and entire way of life. Criminals are treated better than our fishermen. Criminals have a right to appeal. Fishermen only have the right to swallow one bitter pill after another. Who will be accountable when commercial fishing is the stuff of legend? Big oil? Special interest groups? Or public officials holding a smoking gun?

Mr. Michel Love, fisherman, Portland ME: I own a 66-foot dragger out of Portland. This is a long road and path that everyone has been on. I was at sea when my dad who first heard of DAS from my father. I am just looking at this as a road that has been bumpy and tough. On one hand, one big ditch – little squares of the ocean, consolidation, not adding anything to the infrastructure. The other side, consolidate at all costs – won’t be any infrastructure or small fishermen, welders

16 etc. will have nothing left to speak of. What is in the middle is the huge bulldozer of Amendment 13. It is misguided environmentalists that drove us here. We have to get around this. We have to get on another highway, get to a future of a more normalized fishery. There must be more variety and diversity so we can all prosper. I hope you don’t take any radical approach. The proposals in this are not workable. This is the end. I have a hat from a broker who wants to sell my boat. I support none of the above. Don’t do anything more.

Public hearing closed at 9:43 pm.

17