The reversal late last week by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of her April 26 order imposing harsh commercial fishing restrictions in the Northeast came as a great relief to the New England fleet. It also should come as a great relief to all citizens who see the judiciary as too removed from real life.

The popular spin on this reversal, used by both those who praise it and those who condemn it, is that Judge Kessler succumbed to intense pressure from fishermen and politicians. Judges – especially federal judges – do not often succumb to pressure. More likely, they thoughtfully review their decisions in light of relevant information, which is what this judge did.

Judge Kessler’s original ruling was on a lawsuit brought in 2000 by five prominent conservation groups against the National Marine Fisheries Service, alleging that NMFS failed to adopt fishing rules that comply with federal sustainable fisheries law. Judge Kessler agreed. Using a compromise worked out between the industry and the Conservation Law Foundation – one of the five plaintiffs – as a basis, she added further restrictions on days at sea and area closures that put many fishermen in danger of economic ruin.

Judge Kessler still agrees that the law is not being upheld. What she came to realize, however, is her original order, one that would have cut fishing days for most fishermen by one-third and precluded some 300 from fishing altogether this year, would have inflicted “grave economic and social hardship”‘ in New England fishing communities.

“The court is mindful not only of the importance of protecting New England groundfish species,” the judge wrote, “but also of the very real impact any regulations have on those individuals and communities that depend, and have depended for generations, on such fishing,”‘ In other words, as Judge Kessler was able to assess new information on the human impact of her April ruling, combine it with evidence that groundfish stocks are on the rebound and reach the conclusion that, when it comes to fish, people matter. Restoring the original industry/CLF compromise won’t make life easy for fishermen, but it makes life possible.

Also deserving praise for this development is the Conservation Law Foundation. Of all the environmental groups working in the area of fisheries, CLF stands apart in consistently demonstrating an understanding of the human side of the equation. It was CLF that worked effectively with lobstermen and other fixed-gear fishermen during the right whale uproar of the mid-’90s, it was CLF that worked this groundfishermen on this issue. It is hoped that Brian Keene, CLF’s director of external affairs, was right when he said Judge Kessler’s new ruling ushers in “a new era of cooperation” between conservation groups and fishermen.

Of course, not all of the involved conservation groups are so pleased with Judge Kessler. “This is a stunning and startling indictment of the whole process,”‘ said Brad Sewell of the National Resources Defense Council. “There are some serious steps that need to be taken if we’re going to get these populations back up to where they should be.”

That would be true if one assumes the only populations worthy of serious steps are of the nonhuman variety.