EXCESSIVE LITIGATION THREATENS MAINE''S FISHING HERITAGE

Maine's fishermen are facing a looming crisis. On November 6, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to adopt a new set of regulations, known as Amendment 13. This package of regulations will permanently alter the character of New England's groundfish fishery, and will particularly harm fishermen in Maine. This sweeping change in fisheries management is largely unneeded because most stocks of fish in the groundfish complex are rapidly rebuilding. Unfortunately, a much larger problem in the fishery management process has subverted a system of rational management and forced these unnecessary changes on our fishing communities. That problem is excessive litigation.

Amendment 13, like many other regulations driven by excessive litigation, will permanently harm Maine's fishermen and the businesses that depend on them. Historically, numerous coastal communities in Maine have taken part in and benefitted from the groundfish fishery. The proposed regulatory changes will force many of Maine's smaller groundfish boats out of the industry. Fishing communities like Stonington, Ogunquit, and Port Clyde, which used to be home to many groundfish vessels, are already suffering due to restricted access to fish stocks. Unfortunately, the litigation driving Amendment 13 will only exacerbate this problem.

Further, these burdensome regulations will hurt boats of all sizes. Many small boats will not survive due to severe cuts in fishing time. In addition, Maine's larger vessels are leaving our state, moving to southern New England ports in an effort to survive this latest round of regulations. The damaging effect of such an exodus on Maine's fishing infrastructure, which is at a critical minimum, will be irreparable. As Amendment 13 is put into place, revenues will continue to move south, and Maine's working waterfront will vanish, to be replaced by coastal development.

The drastic sacrifices demanded of our fishermen might be worthwhile – if New England groundfish were truly at risk. However, fish stocks are rebounding at a tremendous rate. In fact, groundfish biomass figures have tripled since 1994. This fishery is a success story, but unfortunately, litigants refuse to agree. They have stolen management authority away from the regional councils and given this power to the courts, which are particularly ill-suited to make biological decisions.

Excessive litigation also diverts precious resources from fisheries management, the principal mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Each year the Service spends time and money defending itself in the courts, and in fact, the Senate is considering appropriating $5 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service exclusively for the purpose of fighting litigation this year. This money would certainly be better spent conducting research that would aid in the productive management of the fishery.

Management plans are developed under an aura of crisis when managers must meet court-appointed goals before court-appointed deadlines. What we need instead is fisheries management developed with measure and reason. We need a system where the views of stakeholders are valued.

In 1976, Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. One of the strongest aspects of this act was the creation of regional fishery management councils. These councils rely on the participation of those who know the most about our nation's fisheries. Unfortunately, some advocacy groups have chosen to bypass the council system by proceeding straight to court. In fact, several of these groups have already threatened to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service if they do not get what they want out of Amendment 13. This is truly discouraging, considering these regulations have yet to be published. Excessive litigation should not continue to diminish the participatory nature of fisheries management by removing decision making authority away from those most qualified to manage our nation's fisheries.

I have written to the fisheries administrator at the National Marine Fisheries Service, Dr. William Hogarth, to express my deep concerns about the regulations. I have asked the NMFS to present a plan to reduce adverse economic effects on Maine. Better yet, the service should go back to the drawing board to develop a fairer, less onerous plan.

The Amendment 13 process is a clear example of why fisheries management belongs in the hands of fisheries managers. The courts handed our regional managers a set of impossible goals and an impossible time-frame in which to achieve them. Nothing but the impossible can result from this situation, despite the efforts of regional managers to create a reasonable management plan. This entire process only demonstrates the weaknesses of regulation driven by excessive litigation, and the need to take management decisions out of the courts and place them back in the council system. Ultimately, this will require changes in the law, such as the legislation I introduced earlier this year. I will continue to work to see Maine's fishermen protected from this unfair attack on their livelihoods.