To the editor:
… Amendment 13 to the Multi-species Fisheries Management Plan is a federal level proposal that is intended to end over-fishing and to rebuild several fish stocks to never before witnessed biomass levels. Sure sounds like well-intended outcomes, doesn’t it? But, the real question that remains unanswered is, at what cost? The four proposals submitted for public comment by the New England Fisheries Management Council are drastic and problematic. The economic analysis of the amendment shows clear and devastating effects on inshore commercial fishermen and the communities they live in. Where is the balancing of the National Standards?
NAMA has steadfastly stood by the Gulf of Maine Inshore Fisheries Conservation and Stewardship Plan that was crafted in response to our participation in the federal lawsuit CLF v. Donald Evans. It remains the only viable alternative that insures that we protect the fish and the fishermen. We testified at five public hearings and have never wavered from our commitment and support of the inshore fishing fleet and their coastal communities.
We have tried to balance our purpose, principles and organizational concept throughout this very difficult period. Early on in its development, Amendment 13 stopped being about restoring fish stocks and became all about who was going to be left to catch them. I view this broken management process as enabling a blatant civil rights violation against a segment of the commercial fishing fleet. The disturbing fact is that this violation is against the majority not a minority. Never before – throughout my 34-year career on the water – have I witnessed a greater act of social injustice.
Craig Pendleton
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Saco